On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 7:02 AM Alex Monk wrote:
> I think Gerrit admin permissions were abused to remove the review
>
>
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/Documentation/access-control.html#category_remove_reviewer
Anyone who is a project owner on mediawiki/* could have done it, it had
nothing
to do
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 12:19 AM MZMcBride wrote:
> Yaron Koren wrote:
> >That's how it went until two days ago, when Antoine Musso submitted a
> >patch for my Site Settings extension (I don't know why that one
> >specifically), re-adding the file. I rejected the patch, on the same
> >grounds as
Gergo Tisza wrote:
> I'd still like the understand what the assumed harm is. Is this strictly a
> moral issue, where you want to avoid giving misleading information, but
> otherwise that information would be harmless? Or a liability issue, where
> your clients think that working on / using a
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 3:44 PM Yaron Koren wrote:
> I suppose that one solution which hasn't been discussed yet is to change
> the wording of that file so that it says something more defensible, like
> "This extension is hosted on facilities governed by the Code of Conduct",
> or that kind of
Let me say I am very much surprised on this whole debate. We call these in
Hungary "storm in a glass of water".
Please step back all for a moment and try to look at the whole stuff from a
broader view.
We have a very first world problem, to write and discuss and enforce codes
of conduct, and
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Yaron Koren wrote:
> I suppose that one solution which hasn't been discussed yet is to change
> the wording of that file so that it says something more defensible, like
> "This extension is hosted on facilities governed by the Code of Conduct",
> or that kind of
On 08/06/2018 15:26, Stephan Gambke wrote:
> Incidentally, what is the procedure to request removal of +2 rights for
> somebody on my extension repo?
Hello,
In Gerrit, the Mediawiki extensions all inherit rights from the
'mediawiki' group which has a lot of people:
Hi!
> I agree. I do think that as a community of practice we have many
> unwritten rules and numerous expectations of how we work together. We
> don't explicitly define the expectation of a README.MD file in repos
> either.[0] It's a best practice and cultural expectation in our spaces
> to
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Stephan Gambke
wrote:
>
> It is not the first time that individual developers have misused their +2
> rights to sidestep community processes and enforce their political views.
> It is this kind of repeated overreach and casual disregard for the wishes
> and
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Nischay Nahata
wrote:
> Also, its strange that someone can just remove someone else's code review
> just like that on gerrit, add their own review and merge a patch.
>
This ability is very useful in some cases - for example, imagine a
VisualEditor patch marked
I for one definitely support the "concept" of a CoC; and the enforcement of
it.
I also definitely agree with Yaron. He's not even arguing about the merits
of a CoC. He's simply stating that the file doesn't belong in every single
repo. I wholeheartedly agree with that position. He's also arguing
Well, thanks gents for the replies. It looks like I was wrong in
assuming we were on the same page.
I lack the emotional energy to keep up with this discussion for now. I
appreciate Yaron taking the time to be open to my questions and
conversations. I hope you can figure it all out. Have a good
Tony Thomas <01tonythomas at gmail.com> wrote:
> Scenario: I am new contributor looking at your repository (possibly
> would've contributed to couple of repos in the past in Github). As a
> maintainer of this repo, how do you want me to know that my interactions
> with your product, which might
I noticed CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md apparently wasn't forcibly added to
repositories hosted on GitHub that are within the Wikimedia organization
(some Diffusion repos too, it seems). GitHub is not WMF infrastructure,
sure, but github.com/wikimedia/wmf-built-toolforge-tool certainly qualifies
as a
Yep. If anything, the consensus here demonstrates the opposite.
Fae
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018, 17:42 John, wrote:
> > Where? So far it's been a few individuals.
>
>
> Here, here. Can you please cite the clear community decision you are
> referencing? Just because a few users took unilaterally
> Where? So far it's been a few individuals.
Here, here. Can you please cite the clear community decision you are
referencing? Just because a few users took unilaterally actions and most
people didn't object, that isn't
consensus.
___
Wikitech-l
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018, 17:08 Chris Koerner, wrote:
> > You probably meant just "README". This is an interesting comparison. So,
> if
> > an extension lacks a README file, and that extension's maintainer refuses
> > to put one in, should the extension be deleted from the Wikimedia
> > repository?
>
On Friday, June 8, 2018, Chris Koerner
> [snip]
> There are voices not present in this very public conversation. I have
> been approached by a few that do not feel comfortable participating
> here. I don't want to see anyone's contributions deleted. I also don't
> want to see an exception made in
On Friday, June 8, 2018, Chris Koerner wrote:
>> I for one think that requiring a specific filesystem structure or notice
in
>> a git repo is quite far afield from the sorts of things that CoC is
>> designed to deal with.
>
> I agree. I do think that as a community of practice we have many
>
> You probably meant just "README". This is an interesting comparison. So, if
> an extension lacks a README file, and that extension's maintainer refuses
> to put one in, should the extension be deleted from the Wikimedia
> repository?
Let's back away from the ledge of deleting stuff. I'm not
Chris Koerner wrote:
> I agree. I do think that as a community of practice we have many
> unwritten rules and numerous expectations of how we work together. We
> don't explicitly define the expectation of a README.MD file in repos
> either.[0] It's a best practice and cultural expectation in our
> I for one think that requiring a specific filesystem structure or notice in
> a git repo is quite far afield from the sorts of things that CoC is
> designed to deal with.
I agree. I do think that as a community of practice we have many
unwritten rules and numerous expectations of how we work
Yaron,
> - Is CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md now really mandatory?
Always looking for more inputs, but it would be great if you can provide a
proposition.
Scenario: I am new contributor looking at your repository (possibly
would've contributed to couple of repos in the past in Github). As a
maintainer of
Hi,
Antoine - thank you; I see now that your statement before to archive my
repository was just because you thought it was no longer in use. I feel
better now.
Gergo Tisza wrote:
> * There can be all kinds of reasons why the CoC file is not appropriate
for
> some repository (which is why it
> Frankly the harsh response from proponents and handling here, to the
> point of bypassing normal processes and misusing rights to enforce
> something that was never even decided as a community, seems completely
> at odds with the spirit and intent of the CoC in the first place. If
> we're
On 08/06/18 09:29, Gergo Tisza wrote:
... I'm sure you
wouldn't act (inside or outside Wikimedia technical spaces) in ways
inconsistent with the spirit of the code of conduct anyway, but this was a
silly fight to pick and I hope you'll reconsider (or if you have pragmatic
reasons for not wanting
I think Gerrit admin permissions were abused to remove the review
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018, 11:57 Nischay Nahata, wrote:
> It did sound like a threat given that no policy has been framed around
> this, but I am glad to know that it was not your intent.
>
> Also, its strange that someone can just
It did sound like a threat given that no policy has been framed around
this, but I am glad to know that it was not your intent.
Also, its strange that someone can just remove someone else's code review
just like that on gerrit, add their own review and merge a patch.
Regards,
Nischay Nahata
On 08/06/2018 06:33, Nischay Nahata wrote:
> I think that advertising the COC might still have been in "good faith",
> though it should have been done with a mail to the project owners.
>
> But what I find very objecting is the way the two developers have
> communicated on the gerrit thread.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:18 AM Daniel Zahn wrote:
> But we should not make it mandatory to keep a copy of this file in each and
> every repo.
>
I'd argue we should, but let me say first that if we do make it mandatory,
that should happen via some mechanism that's appropriate for making policy
This. The links should be in the interfaces in which we actually
interact with each other, not the repositories themselves. A repository
isn't even inherently a wikimedia technical space because it can be
cloned anywhere, as Yaron rightfully points out; using
gerrit/phab/things wikimedia
The right place for COC related stuff is probably on the Gerrit user
interface.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 11:48 AM Daniel Zahn wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:40 PM, Max Semenik
> wrote:
>
> > My personal opinion is twofold:
> >
>
> I agree with Max here. The CoC applies anyways whether the file
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:40 PM, Max Semenik wrote:
> My personal opinion is twofold:
>
I agree with Max here. The CoC applies anyways whether the file is in the
repo or not
because Wikimedia infrastructure is being used.
But we should not make it mandatory to keep a copy of this file in each
I think the point about 'ownership' of extension repos is an interesting
one: certainly Wikimedia-hosted projects do differ from other popular
FOSS projects in that there's far more collaboration on e.g. extensions
than is perhaps common elsewhere. For example, if you have a WordPress
or
To directly answer the question in the subject: of course Yaron's
extensions should stay in gerrit.wikimedia.org, without the file in
question.
We want MediaWiki's main development spaces to be inclusive and able to
bring developers together. I think we all agree that it's a loss if more
I think that advertising the COC might still have been in "good faith",
though it should have been done with a mail to the project owners.
But what I find very objecting is the way the two developers have
communicated on the gerrit thread. Both Antoine and Chad (both senior devs
that we used to
Yaron Koren wrote:
>That's how it went until two days ago, when Antoine Musso submitted a
>patch for my Site Settings extension (I don't know why that one
>specifically), re-adding the file. I rejected the patch, on the same
>grounds as before, but another developer, Chad Horohoe, overrode me and
*It's a reasonable ask to have the file there *Correct, its reasonable to
ask. Forcing it down peoples throats and cluttering 830+ repos with the
same file is not. Why not have it in the primary mediawiki directory and
note that it covers all sub-projects? Threatening users and telling users
that
The most likely way for people to see codes of conduct is through
repositories, which lets them know they have some way to combat harassment
in the tool they're using to try to contribute to a particular repository.
It makes sense to have a CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md in the repos; however, if all
the
Honestly I find forcing documentation into repos to be abrasive, and
overstepping the bounds of the CoC.I also find the behavior of those
pushing such an approach to be hostile and overly aggressive. Why do you
need to force a copy of the CoC into every repo? Why not keep it in a
central location?
Chris Koerner wrote:
> “Please just assume for the sake of this discussion that (a) I'm willing
> to abide by the rules of the Code of Conduct, and (b) I don't want the
> CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file in my extensions.”
> Ok, hear me out here. What if I told you those two things are
> incompatible?
I for one think that requiring a specific filesystem structure or notice in
a git repo is quite far afield from the sorts of things that CoC is
designed to deal with.
--
Brian
On Thursday, June 7, 2018, Chris Koerner wrote:
> “Please just assume for the sake of this discussion that (a) I'm
“Please just assume for the sake of this discussion that (a) I'm willing to
abide by the rules of the Code of Conduct, and (b) I don't want the
CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file in my extensions.”
Ok, hear me out here. What if I told you those two things are incompatible?
That abiding by the community
Hi,
Thanks for the responses so far.
Max Semenik wrote:
> However, users who disagree with the rules of using our resources
shouldn't be using them.
I actually agree with this. However, I'm not aware that needing to have a
CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file is a "rule" - it was never voted on, never
Yaron,
I read over the conversation and would like to posit the question in a
different way.
> Some corporate person, for example, downloading my software, could see that
> file and think
> that they're bound by the Code of Conduct when sending me a patch, when in
> fact (for better or worse)
My personal opinion is twofold:
* The file shouldn't be mandatory because all policies should (and do)
apply automatically, there should be no magic spell to enable them on a
case by case basis. CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md is mostly a GitHub convention that
allows that site to indicate CoC terms in its
Hi,
CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md is a file that was added to most MediaWiki extensions
almost exactly a year ago. It reads, in full:
"The development of this software is covered by a [Code of Conduct](
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct)."
This file was added on the grounds that "Now that we
47 matches
Mail list logo
