Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

[Michał Górny]

W dniu sob, 09.12.2017 o godzinie 16∶29 -0800, użytkownik Daniel
Campbell napisał:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 09:22:32PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017, 19:06:36 CET schrieb William L. Thomson Jr.:
> > >
> > > The day everyone wanted has come, after this message. I will
> > > unsubscribe not to return. You all won in 2008, and again in 2017.
> > > Though this time I will not be back. I tried more than most anyone else
> > > would for a very long time. Gentoo wins I lose, I am fine with that.
> > >
> > > Please do not contact me off list in IRC or at all. I am done with the
> > > Gentoo community!
> >
> > <comrel hat>
> > Independent of whether William now unsubscribed or not, he's now enjoying a
> > lengthy (1 year until review) vacation from all Gentoo communication channels.
> > </comrel hat>
> >
> > --
> > Andreas K. Hüttel
> > dilfridge@g.o
> > Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice)
>
> So, mgorny threatened to leave if something wasn't done, right? I saw
> the IRC conversation about unsubscribing from gentoo-dev, as well. IRC
> is not private, for the record. Other developers are required to
> subscribe to -dev, and are expected to follow it so they stay informed.
> If they missed something covered on the list, they are directed to the
> archives and (usually) laughed at. I see no reason for this expectation
> to be waived for any single developer. Do I get a free pass if I don't
> like what someone says?
>
> It's not enough to let wltjr leave on his own; you had to create a ban
> and add a smug, tongue-in-cheek mail to it to maintain the image of
> doing something. Quite hypocritical of comrel's attitude of secrecy to
> suddenly announce a ban. It seems to me that secrecy is only adopted
> when it suits those who stand to benefit from it.
>
> Great things coming from Gentoo "leadership" here. What will you do when
> mgorny starts targeting developers and pitching tantrums over them, too?
> Are we going to stratify developership further, too? It seems rather
> clear to me that a few individuals see themselves as the owners of this
> distro and bend it to suit their whims, using bureacracy to obscure
> their actions and motivations, segment the community, and block those
> less experienced. This is precisely why we have unmotivated developers
> and a bevy of unmaintained packages; nobody wants to contribute to a
> distro that treats its users (and developers) so poorly.
>
> A distro should never bend its entire social structure to protect the
> feelings of one surly developer (or his/her entourage), but naturally
> since every council member is friends with mgorny and comrel is afraid
> to take any action against him, they'll make exceptions to established
> procedures and ignore any complaints about the way he treats others.
>
> Software cannot fix wetware. Plenty of developers get to deal with
> mgorny's aggressive and insulting tone, yet nothing happens. Gee... I
> wonder why.  Maybe because the upper parts of Gentoo are riddled with
> cronyism.
>
> 	"Rules for thee, not for me."
>
> It's clear to anyone with eyeballs that there is preferential treatment
> and inconsistent enforcement of rules in this community, and the people
> in a position to fix it, won't, because they in fact benefit from this.
>
> Unfortunately, GLEP 39 does not have a section on recalling or
> impeachment... This whole situation highlights why the Council has no
> business sticking its head into non-technical matters. It's clearly not
> up to the task. It's no surprise, since technical skill does not
> guarantee or even imply social skill. (or vice-versa)
>
> I'm tired of people beating around the bush and the facile attempts of
> tact: why do you give special treatment to certain members of this
> community? Would you have done anything different if it were me or some
> other developer who was proposing this change?
>
> It wouldn't have made it to the Council agenda if he didn't write it,
> period. Everyone else would've been told to suck it up and deal with it.
> And knowing how the Council is, in a few days we'll all get to deal with
> the churn of mailing lists to protect one person's ego. Sad.
>

Your attack on me is fully unfounded and completely inappropriate. FYI,
just let me correct a few facts here:

1. ComRel made its decision long before the discussion was even started
(and I was unaware of it as well), and -- unless you presume they have
time travellers there -- had nothing to do with it.

2. I disagree with the way of announcing the ban as well. I had nothing
to do with that.

3. The agenda item wasn't expressing 'feelings of one developer', as you
know it. It was written by me because I found the time to prepare
a rationale of *facts* to support it. Don't shoot the messenger.

4. Finally, if you really hate me so much, you could at least bother to
check the facts instead of publicly insulting me based purely on lies.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny