Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Thomas Anderson <gentoofan23@g.o>
To: Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] User Relations authority
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:25:01
Message-Id: 20080711113940.GA3477@spoc.mpa.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] User Relations authority by Donnie Berkholz
1 On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 09:24:53PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
2 > > > | 4. Here's what I think is meant by a complete ban. *These are only my
3 > > > | own inferences from reading between the lines and trying to put
4 > > > | different comments together in some coherent fashion.*
5 > > > | Under some rather unclear conditions, some combination of
6 > > > | devrel/userrel/trustees/infra could decide to impose a complete,
7 > > > | permanent ban on a member (user or, I suppose developer) of our
8 > > > | community. This would have the following effects:
9 > > >
10 > > > Some people seem to support that userrel can make such decisions on its
11 > > > own. As I've stated, as an userrel member, I was willing to involve
12 > > > other teams. We also need to agree to which body should appeals be sent.
13 > >
14 > > I would not support giving userrel that authority or userrel+devrel that
15 > > authority. Now, I oppose this absolutely. But in general I don't thing
16 > > any group(s) in gentoo should have such sweeping authority to make such
17 > > major decisions secretely in private. If we want to impose such a ban
18 > > on someone, we really should have the courage and resolve to work in
19 > > public.
20 >
21 > I dislike your use of emotional words to imply that anyone you disagree
22 > with is cowardly.
23
24 I'm going to argue from the perspective of the community here...
25
26 It seems to me that in the past the Gentoo community has always been
27 open to the community. We've accepted patches from many people, despite
28 their perhaps abrasive attitude towards us. Yet now, some are leaning towards
29 refusing patches from certain people, based not on their merit but on
30 their origin? In other words, a person's point on a mailing list may be
31 entirely valid and entirely undisputed, but since a subset of the community
32 holds that person in "contempt" or "poisonous", everyone has to simply
33 ignore the person's valid point? Doesn't this go against the "open
34 community" aspect of Gentoo, which has always been heralded as the
35 hallmark of our community?
36
37 > I think it's clear that your opinion does not necessarily represent the
38 > opinions of everyone else in Gentoo, so arguing that your empty set is
39 > Gentoo's empty set is not valid.
40
41 It certainly represents mine.