Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
Am Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017, 00:40:11 CET schrieb William L. Thomson Jr.: > On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 00:25:46 +0100 > > Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > One of the primary issues recently is that you keep bringing up old > > matters in a way that is a criticism of Gentoo overall, in various > > channels. We've heard it already, and to keep bringing it up doesn't > > add additional value to the discussion. So again, please reduce the > > volume of such posts. > > Most all still exist, plus new ones. Well, it's like listening to a broken record, which keeps repeating the same snippet. At some point you stop listening, and at some point you realize you should maybe remove it from the player. -- Andreas K. Hüttel dilfri...@gentoo.org Gentoo Linux developer (council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On 12/05/2017 06:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> >> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated. >> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't >> automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the >> information being presented, or they disagree with it. >> > I don't have any issue with discussion of facts, or even the offering > of opinion, but the problem is that in these sorts of situations one > side presents their side of the story and nobody is free to counter > with the other side because of policy (and a reasonable policy at > that). And so the allegations just go unchallenged and are repeatedly > posted. What value does this add? At best it misleads people into > thinking that things like comrel actions are unfounded, and drives > away potential contributors. When a situation drives a way potential contributors, a closer look should happen. A split might be the wrong choice, but discussing the need for a remedy is good. > If these were discussions about policy in the abstract and not in the > specific then there wouldn't be as much difficulty (indeed, this is > the form our disagreement is taking right now). We can certainly have > a free conversation about whether somebody who sexually harasses > another developer ought to be booted or not. The problem comes in > when somebody has been the subject of a decision made based on their > individual behavior - there is no way to have a reasonable public > conversation about this. > > IMO discussions about individual comrel/etc decisions simply should > not be considered on-topic for our lists. Yes, but blocking of expression / communication is tricky: Within a particular organization (in this case, one focusing on FOSS/Libre software) demands that censorship be prevented at all costs VS expectation that disruption won't be tolerated, nor will general off-topic rudeness/disrespect, or even cruelty - some expression can only exist in good faith when it can be reasonably understood to further the overall objectives for the particular organization (in our case, gentoo) For a list specifically meant for development, more restrictions are a reasonable starting point than elsewhere. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, even if it's just "keep discussions limited to matters associated with the current thread" (germane) THIS discussion wouldn't make sense on a dev-util/cmake thread. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:22 AM, R0b0t1 wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other >> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then >> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists? >> > > If you are going to allege misconduct you need to be prepared to prove it. > And this is done - in private. Nobody is alleging misconduct in public, so I don't see why it needs to be proven in public. Those being kicked out are generally told why and are given an opportunity to explain themselves, and often they're given an opportunity to improve. Some have later posted publicly saying they don't know why they were booted. With unmoderated lists we can't keep them from making false statements like this. With our current policies we can't really contradict them specifically either. I actually saw Debian take a slightly different tact in a recent situation. It looks like they gave the accused the opportunity to decide whether the reasons for the action would be made public or not. In that case they chose to make it public, so there was a public statement by the project as to what was being done and why. It probably wouldn't hurt to talk to a lawyer but such an approach has the advantage that it both preserves the privacy of the accused, while also defeating false statements. If somebody alleges that they're innocent but did not give permission for the project to explain what actually happened, they can hardly be considered a voice for transparency and it would diminish their credibility. On the other hand, if somebody chooses to quietly leave the community there would be no publicity around the event. I'd think it would also help to defeat liability for defamation/etc since the statement could be presented to the accused for them to accept or reject, and if they accepted it for publication that would probably make it hard to argue in a court. Aside from defamation as a potential issue, there is another reason to keep this stuff private. Somebody might not be a good fit for a big community project, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other areas of their life where they can be successful. Publicity over a bad event can harm their reputation in ways that go beyond the immediate needs of our community. And there always is the chance that an error is being made in kicking them out. Sure, that isn't a good thing, and I believe our processes already minimize this risk, but ultimately the harm in not being able to participate on a Gentoo mailing list is not a great one. Why make that harm greater by publicizing things when this is not essential to accomplish our goals? The goal isn't to ruin somebody's life - it is to allow other contributors to participate in the community in reasonable peace. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 09:51:23 +0100 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017, 00:40:11 CET schrieb William L. > Thomson Jr.: [...] > [...] > [...] > > Well, it's like listening to a broken record, which keeps repeating > the same snippet. At some point you stop listening, and at some point > you realize you should maybe remove it from the player. > Maybe you should go take more of my Firebird changes and put them in tree. Since you took over that package I mtainained and then merged in my changes from Linux UnderGround overlay that came from mine... Who do you think made the Firebird 3.x ebuild? I DID https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo/commits/master/dev-db/firebird See linux underground reporting issues with mine before adding it to their repository https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+firebird See the date after they got it from mine :) https://github.com/linuxunderground/gentoo.overlay/blob/master/dev-db/firebird/firebird-3.0.2.32703.0.ebuild Then Andreas adding it to tree... HILARIOUS https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/e246873f43db77850c172263be72bc5153b23adb#diff-7dc5e9ed8a228dd8f564e17d66c5559e Also seems it took a few tries why? Not familiar with package? https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commits/master/dev-db/firebird Same package, mgorny 51 comment QA leading to more issues because he does not use, have a clue about it, or bothered to actually test... Due to his approach and stance I assumed his changes were correct. HUGE mistake on my behalf. Why in part mgorny does not like me All for a 1 line change to fix syslog-ng log file... https://bugs.gentoo.org/547442 mgorny going crazy on QA for a 1 line change Ridiculous! https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/101 Introducing new bugs that did not exist. GO QA https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/e246873f43db77850c172263be72bc5153b23adb#diff-7dc5e9ed8a228dd8f564e17d66c5559e And work since on things mgorny missed... https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commits/master/dev-db/firebird This generation is NO replacement for the previous They seem completely incapable of doing some things... There is more QA issues but that is just Firebird. Why is this PR still open? Or Java 9 PRs? Anyone working on that? Or just people like you complaining about those actually doing the work your not... or maybe cannot... https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/1358 https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/1721 https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/6033 Andreas you are a funny guy... -- William L. Thomson Jr. pgpgPxbjlzmHL.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-vcs/qbzr, dev-vcs/bzr-explorer
# Andreas Sturmlechner (06 Dec 2017) # No maintainer, depends on dead PyQt4/Qt4. # Masked for removal in 30 days. Bugs #480250, #640114 dev-vcs/qbzr dev-vcs/bzr-explorer
[gentoo-dev] last rites: app-office/hamster-time-tracker
# Nicolas Bock (6 Dec 2017) # Development has ceased, the last commit to the upstream repository was # on 16 July 2016 with a note stating that its status is unmaintained [1]. # See also Bug 640034. # # [1] https://github.com/projecthamster/hamster/commit/c3e5fb761c88fdecfd1566cac8b6836228a27cce -- Nicolas Bock signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:22 AM, R0b0t1 wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other >>> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then >>> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists? >>> >> >> If you are going to allege misconduct you need to be prepared to prove it. >> > > And this is done - in private. Nobody is alleging misconduct in > public, so I don't see why it needs to be proven in public. Those > being kicked out are generally told why and are given an opportunity > to explain themselves, and often they're given an opportunity to > improve. Some have later posted publicly saying they don't know why > they were booted. With unmoderated lists we can't keep them from > making false statements like this. With our current policies we can't > really contradict them specifically either. > You're mincing words: people are publicly alleging (we're talking about it right now) private misconduct. Actions are now being proposed (and have already begun to be acted out) based on this private behavior. It is reasonable that if you expect anyone to believe you, that you should prove the misconduct actually took place. > I actually saw Debian take a slightly different tact in a recent > situation. It looks like they gave the accused the opportunity to > decide whether the reasons for the action would be made public or not. > In that case they chose to make it public, so there was a public > statement by the project as to what was being done and why. It > probably wouldn't hurt to talk to a lawyer but such an approach has > the advantage that it both preserves the privacy of the accused, while > also defeating false statements. If somebody alleges that they're > innocent but did not give permission for the project to explain what > actually happened, they can hardly be considered a voice for > transparency and it would diminish their credibility. On the other > hand, if somebody chooses to quietly leave the community there would > be no publicity around the event. I'd think it would also help to > defeat liability for defamation/etc since the statement could be > presented to the accused for them to accept or reject, and if they > accepted it for publication that would probably make it hard to argue > in a court. > What really makes this hard to argue in court is the fact that in all but one circuit libel, slander, and by extension defamation are all impossible to claim if the statements were truthful. The first circuit decision is very unpopular, and it seems like people do not expect it to stand further testing as it was due to exceptional circumstances. But really, the bigger issue is that lawyers are not magic sages that can solve all of your problems. Most statements by lawyers are opinions about how a justice might decide, and they do not know for sure. In fact, much of practicing law is avoiding confrontation at all cost, and many issues in the popular eye are almost entirely legal speculation that has never seen a courtroom! Consequently, the justification for the actions as has been given is pathetic: if you actually had people's best interest in mind you would be forthcoming with the evidence, because you truly believed the problem is worth solving and believed you should convince other people that it is worth solving. If you made someone's private actions public (with consent of one party involved) it would be very hard to prove that anything was done out of malice, which would be necessary, in the US, to prove defamation. Do not give up your freedom to act unless you are forced to. The one legitimate complaint I could see being entertained is similar to the ones that are now cropping up against universities and their Title IX compliance courts: you have no legal training and are not authorized to punish anyone, so the only thing you should do once you are notified of misconduct is contact the police. In this sense the policies you have now are "illegal" (in the vague, nebulous way that your behavior makes it more likely for another party to have standing). > Aside from defamation as a potential issue, there is another reason to > keep this stuff private. Somebody might not be a good fit for a big > community project, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other areas > of their life where they can be successful. Publicity over a bad > event can harm their reputation in ways that go beyond the immediate > needs of our community. And there always is the chance that an error > is being made in kicking them out. Sure, that isn't a good thing, and > I believe our processes already minimize this risk, but ultimately the > harm in not being able to participate on a Gentoo mailing list is not > a great one. Why make that harm greater by publicizing things when > this is not essential to accomplish o
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:44 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 09:51:23 +0100 > "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > >> Am Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017, 00:40:11 CET schrieb William L. >> Thomson Jr.: [...] >> [...] >> [...] >> >> Well, it's like listening to a broken record, which keeps repeating >> the same snippet. At some point you stop listening, and at some point >> you realize you should maybe remove it from the player. >> > wltjr, I really do not think you are helping your case. If I were in your position I think I would not back down either, but at some point it is best to let history acknowledge that you are right. I started reading your messages because I noticed Gentoo developers being inconsistent, but not everyone will keep an open enough mind to do that. > Maybe you should go take more of my Firebird changes and put them in > tree. Since you took over that package I mtainained and then merged in > my changes from Linux UnderGround overlay that came from mine... > > Who do you think made the Firebird 3.x ebuild? I DID > https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo/commits/master/dev-db/firebird > > See linux underground reporting issues with mine before adding it to > their repository > https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+firebird > > See the date after they got it from mine :) > https://github.com/linuxunderground/gentoo.overlay/blob/master/dev-db/firebird/firebird-3.0.2.32703.0.ebuild > > Then Andreas adding it to tree... HILARIOUS > https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/e246873f43db77850c172263be72bc5153b23adb#diff-7dc5e9ed8a228dd8f564e17d66c5559e > > Also seems it took a few tries why? Not familiar with package? > https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commits/master/dev-db/firebird > > Same package, mgorny 51 comment QA leading to more issues because he > does not use, have a clue about it, or bothered to actually test... Due > to his approach and stance I assumed his changes were correct. HUGE > mistake on my behalf. Why in part mgorny does not like me > Though this thread might not be the best place, the character of Gentoo developers seems to be relevant to the topic at hand. I agree that there appear to be developers who have editorial control of packages they do not understand. It also seems like they have ample opportunity to confer with people who do understand the packages but choose not to do so. Respectfully, R0b0t1
