On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:11:11 +0100 Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > Nope. What I see as a problem is that the primary author and > > current de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was > > forcibly removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to > > be written for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package > > manager's development team with his constant not-so-subtle > > attacks. Quite frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over > > the specification that defines the most important single feature of > > Gentoo and remove the non-Gentoo developers from its development. > > No offense, but you're not a Gentoo developer any longer and you > > shouldn't have a say in how *we* manage ourselves. You're more > > than welcome to contribute code, fork, or whatever the hell you > > want. This is open source, after all, but that doesn't mean you > > should be allowed to hold the position of power over Gentoo that > > you've been granted. > > I would like to see Gentoo grow some balls and start banning people > from -dev and other media used. I don't mean temporary bans, I mean > for life. > > Yes, it's not nice. Yes, Gentoo should be open for all and encourage > participation from all. However, some people have demonstrated time > and time again over quite a number of years that they wont change no > matter what. These people are posionous [1]. Slightly ironic for me to suggest this, but... It is the gentoo-dev mailing list, restrict posting to gentoo devs (i.e. only people with a @gentoo.org email address) would make a lot of sense. Rob. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
