1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> In terms of involvement in PMS, frankly it's not worth it from where |
4 |
> I'm sitting due to ciarans behaviour. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> It's not a matter of having thicker skin- it's literally a question of |
7 |
> worth. Is it worth trying to have a voice if it means exposing |
8 |
> yourself to BS behaviour? |
9 |
|
10 |
I'll second that; it's impossible to discuss on bugzilla, as you just get |
11 |
trolled or spammed. The process appears to be moving to "get discussion off |
12 |
ML and onto bugzilla where it can be killed" which appears to be a |
13 |
subversion of things, from where I'm sitting; I thought the idea was to |
14 |
have ML discussion _before_ stuff was proposed for a new EAPI? |
15 |
|
16 |
You know, so that alternative approaches could be considered, the problem |
17 |
defined adequately, and so on, with reference to the wider, knowledgeable |
18 |
readership. |
19 |
|
20 |
As it is, we're now getting long lists of stuff dumped on to the ML as "the |
21 |
new EAPI" with little review beyond a post-hoc justification that "a Gentoo |
22 |
dev filed a bug asking for it." |
23 |
|
24 |
NB: I'm happy for there to be discussion via bugzilla, but not under |
25 |
ciaranm's supervision. After all, he's been proven to have issues when it |
26 |
comes to social interaction, which is pretty much essential to leading a |
27 |
project. And even then, I think ideas should be mooted to the list (via the |
28 |
RFC mechanism?) in line with the agreed process. |
29 |
|
30 |
The PMS list has the same problem: it's seen as ciaranm's domain, and we all |
31 |
know he doesn't set a collaborative tone, but rather one of conflict, which |
32 |
anyone on a clock can't be bothered with. Regrettably, if we don't get our |
33 |
2c in, which is a hassle, we end up with more hassle further down the line. |
34 |
-- |
35 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |