1 |
Mike, |
2 |
|
3 |
Am Montag, 3. April 2006 23:38 schrieb Mike Frysinger: |
4 |
> dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane |
5 |
> guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done |
6 |
> |
7 |
> many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real work here: |
8 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html |
9 |
> |
10 |
> i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), so |
11 |
> this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook Etiquette |
12 |
> section |
13 |
> -mike |
14 |
|
15 |
Well, you're wrong. I'm against this conduct in its current form and I am no |
16 |
terrorist. Further, i really dislike how you tried to avoid public discussion |
17 |
by deeming everyone who disagrees as a terrorist. There are several occasions |
18 |
where a Gentoo developer is asked to initiate publis discussion when he |
19 |
introduces something that affects the whole tree. The council demands 14 days |
20 |
to publicly discuss GLEPs that shall be voted upon. |
21 |
|
22 |
But when a document which has such a great impact as this conduct you (and |
23 |
others) propose, and which is possibly controversely discussed among |
24 |
developers, is just passed by w/o discussion I really start wondering if the |
25 |
community aspect (which is emphasized by this document) is really of |
26 |
interest to you. |
27 |
|
28 |
I understand that you're not happy with the status of developer relation (not |
29 |
to be confused with Gentoo DevRel) right now, but please choose another way. |
30 |
|
31 |
I don't agree with some of the wording of the conduct, mostly with the last |
32 |
paragraphs. For example: |
33 |
>Repeated disruptive behaviors will be viewed as a security and stability |
34 |
Who is to judge what behavior is disruptive? |
35 |
>threat to Gentoo. Your access to Gentoo infrastructure may be suspended |
36 |
>without notice if it is deemed that you fall into this category. If your |
37 |
This would allow to infra to say: I don't like your way, you're disruptive! |
38 |
Your access will be suspended. And honestly, i think this is what just |
39 |
happened. |
40 |
>account is suspended, you will still retain full developer status -- you will |
41 |
>simply not have access to Gentoo infrastructure. You may continue to do |
42 |
>development work during your suspension. You may elect to save up your |
43 |
This is awful: "Oh, a suspended developer is _allowed_ to not give his things |
44 |
out to the public." Please change remove this first part of this sentence |
45 |
completely. |
46 |
>changes until such a point where your access has been reinstated, or you may |
47 |
>work with another developer to have them commit changes on your behalf. If |
48 |
>you choose the latter option, please ensure members of the Infrastructure |
49 |
>project have reviewed and approved the proxy relationship to avoid having |
50 |
>access cut off for both developers. |
51 |
IMHO, this is rediculous as well. We already had this discussion during the |
52 |
last incident. Infrastrucure has no hold on what and how developers commit |
53 |
user contributed changes, as long as these changes are lawful (read: |
54 |
license/copyright problems) and no security thread. |
55 |
|
56 |
It's infras job to enforce the permissions as given by devrel. If devrel says, |
57 |
somebody is allowed to commit in the main tree, nobody but devrel should be |
58 |
allowed to revoke this. The only exceptions are those case already stated |
59 |
above. |
60 |
|
61 |
This is how it has been handled so far except in the ciaranm incident. This is |
62 |
how I personally think this should be handled in future. |
63 |
|
64 |
Danny |
65 |
-- |
66 |
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o> |
67 |
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project |
68 |
-- |
69 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |