| 1 |
2008/8/1 Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>: |
| 2 |
> On 23:17 Thu 31 Jul , Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
>> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote |
| 4 |
>> on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev |
| 5 |
>> list to see. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I know at least one person has already submitted an agenda item. Please |
| 8 |
> do so again here along with a brief summary, so we can get them all in |
| 9 |
> one place. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I waste a lot of time digging through lists looking for requested agenda |
| 12 |
> items, and I could be spending it making Gentoo better instead. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> -- |
| 15 |
> Thanks, |
| 16 |
> Donnie |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Donnie Berkholz |
| 19 |
> Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 20 |
> Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Fair enough. Let me wrap up the IRC part. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
1. I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our |
| 26 |
developer being banned from Freenode without providing us with a |
| 27 |
reason. The situation looks like one of Freenode staffers overreacted |
| 28 |
over something Chris said during previous Council meeting and banned |
| 29 |
him to prevent him from attending next meetings when he was supposed |
| 30 |
to provide more information on the CoC topic. The ban was removed |
| 31 |
after an hour, but they still refuse to provide us with reasons for it |
| 32 |
which looks like (mostly because we weren't shown any sane |
| 33 |
justification for the ban) a cover up operation. It would be good if |
| 34 |
Council officially protested against that ban and demanded a detailed |
| 35 |
explanation from Freenode staff. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
2. I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where |
| 38 |
third parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who can't. |
| 39 |
Like our own small and created just for this purpose IRC server. A |
| 40 |
situation when a third party may disallow our developer from attending |
| 41 |
a meeting without even telling us why isn't the healthiest one. We |
| 42 |
should be independent from such decisions of third parties so they |
| 43 |
can't politically influence Council decisions by removing people who |
| 44 |
are inconvenient for them. Now when it (most probably) happened once, |
| 45 |
we have no other choice but to believe it's possible it will happen |
| 46 |
again. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
3. I want Council to consider creating and using irc.gentoo.org alias |
| 49 |
instead of irc.freenode.net in our docs, news items and so on. The |
| 50 |
alias would allow us to move out of the network more easily should we |
| 51 |
ever decide to do so. Debian did exactly the same a couple of months |
| 52 |
ago prior to them moving out to OFTC |
| 53 |
(http://www.debian.org/News/2006/20060604) so maybe it would be a |
| 54 |
good idea to have this for Gentoo too. Infra (Shyam Mani) say it isn't |
| 55 |
a problem at all to create and maintain it, we in fact already have |
| 56 |
something like this pointing at Freenode, it would be just a question |
| 57 |
of updating that alias and updating our docs with it. It would |
| 58 |
increase our independence from Freenode and make future network |
| 59 |
switching much easier should we ever decide it's time to part our ways |
| 60 |
with our current IRC service provider. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
The intention behind all three items is to increase our independence |
| 63 |
from our IRC service provider. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Kind regards, |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Lukasz Damentko |
Archives