1 |
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 08:23 +0000, Alec Warner wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > Can people be entirely banned from Gentoo? |
4 |
> |
5 |
> no |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > - What would such a ban include? Some ideas -- the person could not: |
9 |
> > - Post to any gentoo mailing list; |
10 |
> |
11 |
> technically feasible |
12 |
> |
13 |
> > - Post to gentoo bugzilla; |
14 |
> |
15 |
> technically feasible |
16 |
> |
17 |
> > - Participate in #gentoo- IRC channels; |
18 |
> |
19 |
> technically infeasible. Also a hard sell; traditionally gentoo-* |
20 |
> channels that are not #gentoo-dev and #gentoo are owned and operated |
21 |
> by gentoo subprojects with the permission of the gentoo reps. |
22 |
> Enforcing a ban in all channels would be difficult. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> > - Contribute to gentoo (hence my corner case of a security fix) except |
25 |
> > perhaps through a proxy; |
26 |
> |
27 |
> nothing stops them from contributing to the community; it is not as if |
28 |
> Gentoo controls all outlets anyway. |
29 |
> |
30 |
Although why would they want to? |
31 |
|
32 |
> > |
33 |
> > - Why would we do it? |
34 |
> |
35 |
> To prevent gentoo from being messed with by people who have routinely |
36 |
> proven that they are unfit to assist the distribution. |
37 |
> |
38 |
|
39 |
That's a very strong statement. I personally have never seen anyone I'd |
40 |
categorize as "unfit to assist." |
41 |
|
42 |
> > |
43 |
> > - Under whose authority would it happen? |
44 |
> |
45 |
> Userrel. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> > |
48 |
> > - Would it be reversible? What conditions would cause this? |
49 |
> |
50 |
> I assume the person would ask to return or have someone vouch for them. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> > |
53 |
> > Since the banned person couldn't participate in Gentoo, we'd never |
54 |
> > know whether anything changed. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> I would think that if the person wanted to come back they would: |
57 |
> |
58 |
> Make an effort to contact Gentoo; It is not as if developers would |
59 |
> not talk to this individual. |
60 |
> Gentoo itself would take this person back provisionally to ensure |
61 |
> things were different. This is |
62 |
> a case by case deal and I think is difficult to pin down. |
63 |
> |
64 |
> > |
65 |
> > - How would one appeal this? Would there be a chance to respond before |
66 |
> > the ban? |
67 |
> |
68 |
> Since the ban would require some amount of history I don't see any |
69 |
> particular reason not to solicit feedback from said person. |
70 |
> |
71 |
|
72 |
I disagree. I think everyone deserves to be heard. After all, one of |
73 |
Gentoo's guiding principles reads: |
74 |
|
75 |
======================================================== |
76 |
Gentoo is open |
77 |
|
78 |
Every aspect of Gentoo is and remains open. Gentoo does not benefit from |
79 |
hiding any of its development processes (whether it is source code or |
80 |
documentation, decisions or discussions, coordination or management). |
81 |
========================================================= |
82 |
|
83 |
This sort of thing certainly falls within that, I think (management if |
84 |
nothing else, and certainly some aspect of Gentoo). |
85 |
|
86 |
|
87 |
|
88 |
> > |
89 |
> > - Would moderating the gentoo-dev mailing list obsolete this concept? |
90 |
> |
91 |
> If moderating gentoo-dev obsoletes this concept then I think the |
92 |
> concept itself is flawed (gentoo is more than gentoo-dev) |
93 |
> |
94 |
|
95 |
That's why I keep saying we should at least give moderating gentoo-dev a |
96 |
chance first. Most "problems" are flame wars there, and I believe that |
97 |
most flames involve more developers than non-developers. #gentoo-dev is |
98 |
sometimes a problem, but mostly brief outbursts resulting from frayed |
99 |
tempers, and largely from developers. Bugzilla is sometimes a problem, |
100 |
but not all that often, and usually resulting from strongly held |
101 |
technical disagreements or disagreements on who can make changes to a |
102 |
some package (perceived poaching). |
103 |
|
104 |
I really don't think it is in our interests to find a user or some users |
105 |
to "make examples" of if less extreme measures can achieve what we |
106 |
actually want (calmer gentoo-dev mostly). |
107 |
|
108 |
Regards, |
109 |
Ferris |
110 |
> > |
111 |
> > -- |
112 |
> > Thanks, |
113 |
> > Donnie |
114 |
> > |
115 |
> > Donnie Berkholz |
116 |
> > Developer, Gentoo Linux |
117 |
> > Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |
118 |
> > |
119 |
-- |
120 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
121 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |