1 |
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Other developers are required to subscribe to -dev, and are |
4 |
> expected to follow it so they stay informed. |
5 |
|
6 |
Developers are not required to subscribe to -dev. |
7 |
|
8 |
> If they missed something covered on the list, they are directed to the |
9 |
> archives and (usually) laughed at. |
10 |
|
11 |
Correct. While nobody is required to follow the lists, acting out of |
12 |
ignorance usually doesn't impress others. Devs are expected to be |
13 |
adults and figure out what they need to follow based on what they |
14 |
intend to contribute to. -core and -dev-announce are the only |
15 |
required subscriptions. |
16 |
|
17 |
> |
18 |
> Great things coming from Gentoo "leadership" here. What will you do when |
19 |
> mgorny starts targeting developers and pitching tantrums over them, too? |
20 |
|
21 |
You act as if this was the only reason that comrel took action. In |
22 |
the cases of appeals I've seen I've yet to see a case where there |
23 |
wasn't something else going on behind the scene that wasn't reasonably |
24 |
severe when they've taken action. I can't vouch for their reasons in |
25 |
this case as I'm not privy to them, and I imagine they're not going to |
26 |
be made public. |
27 |
|
28 |
> This is precisely why we have unmotivated developers |
29 |
> and a bevy of unmaintained packages; nobody wants to contribute to a |
30 |
> distro that treats its users (and developers) so poorly. |
31 |
|
32 |
Go ahead and cite the list of people who have been banned in the last |
33 |
decade. You won't run out of fingers on one hand. Some might cry |
34 |
about it for months, but good luck finding another distro that hasn't |
35 |
banned twice as many in the same span of years. |
36 |
|
37 |
And keep in mind that failing to take action isn't without |
38 |
consequences. When somebody is harassing somebody else (and sometimes |
39 |
more than one other) you don't really get a choice about whether |
40 |
somebody is going to end up leaving, whether of their own accord or |
41 |
not. That is a situation I've seen happen more than once around here |
42 |
behind the scenes. Again, I have no specific knowledge about this |
43 |
particular comrel action - I'm talking about situations I've seen in |
44 |
the past. |
45 |
|
46 |
> A distro should never bend its entire social structure to protect the |
47 |
> feelings of one surly developer (or his/her entourage), |
48 |
|
49 |
Certainly, and that works both ways. |
50 |
|
51 |
> but naturally |
52 |
> since every council member is friends with mgorny and comrel is afraid |
53 |
> to take any action against him, they'll make exceptions to established |
54 |
> procedures and ignore any complaints about the way he treats others. |
55 |
|
56 |
Considering that he won a significantly contested election to Council, |
57 |
I suspect that more people around here approve of mgorny than just the |
58 |
members of the council. And I can certainly vouch that not all |
59 |
council members are necessarily fans of some of his actions, though I |
60 |
suspect that his technical contributions are praised by just about all |
61 |
(rightly, IMO). |
62 |
|
63 |
I've yet to see a discussion between Council members where people were |
64 |
strongly playing favorites the way you imply. |
65 |
|
66 |
> Unfortunately, GLEP 39 does not have a section on recalling or |
67 |
> impeachment... |
68 |
|
69 |
This whole debate has been going on for over a year, and there has |
70 |
been an election in the interim. Do you really think that a majority |
71 |
of developers somehow missed the hundreds of posts on -dev the last |
72 |
time this debate happened? I'm not sure why you think a recall would |
73 |
succeed even if one were possible. Besides, the council hasn't even |
74 |
made any decisions here. This matter was never appealed to the |
75 |
council, so it seems a bit silly to hold them accountable. |
76 |
|
77 |
> This whole situation highlights why the Council has no |
78 |
> business sticking its head into non-technical matters. It's clearly not |
79 |
> up to the task. It's no surprise, since technical skill does not |
80 |
> guarantee or even imply social skill. (or vice-versa) |
81 |
|
82 |
Dealing with social issues is a major part of the Council's purpose, |
83 |
per GLEP 39. I don't think the developers were blind to this in the |
84 |
last election, especially considering all the fiasco this was causing |
85 |
in the months leading up to the election. |
86 |
|
87 |
And again, this particular issue was never appealed to the Council. |
88 |
|
89 |
I'm not sure where else you would see something like this appealed. |
90 |
The Trustees have struggled with simply filing the tax returns. If |
91 |
you don't think that somebody can have both technical and social |
92 |
skills, I'm not sure why you think that somebody could have both |
93 |
financial/legal and social skills. |
94 |
|
95 |
> Would you have done anything different if it were me or some |
96 |
> other developer who was proposing this change? |
97 |
|
98 |
What change are you proposing? |
99 |
|
100 |
> It wouldn't have made it to the Council agenda if he didn't write it, |
101 |
> period. Everyone else would've been told to suck it up and deal with it. |
102 |
|
103 |
This is silly. Go ahead and find a single example of ANYTHING |
104 |
submitted by ANYBODY for the Council agenda which didn't make it onto |
105 |
the agenda in the last five years. I can't vouch for how things |
106 |
worked a decade ago but the process is basically that if somebody |
107 |
replies to the call for agenda items, it goes on the agenda. That |
108 |
doesn't guarantee the outcome that the submitter desired, but I've yet |
109 |
to see anything come up and be dismissed without so much as a reason |
110 |
unless it was retracted by the submitter. |
111 |
|
112 |
And the only item recently submitted that is relevant is the item for |
113 |
the splitting of the mailing list, and the Council hasn't even met to |
114 |
make any decisions one way or another. You're exasperated over |
115 |
something the Council hasn't even done. |
116 |
|
117 |
> And knowing how the Council is, in a few days we'll all get to deal with |
118 |
> the churn of mailing lists to protect one person's ego. Sad. |
119 |
|
120 |
Well, if you have such a problem with the Council why don't you consider: |
121 |
|
122 |
1. Running for the council and convincing a majority of your peers to |
123 |
elect you. |
124 |
|
125 |
2. Submit whatever issues you're concerned about to the council to be |
126 |
discussed on the agenda instead of just whining about it on the |
127 |
mailing lists. |
128 |
|
129 |
IMO the reason these discussions never seem to end is because opinions |
130 |
like yours are held by a very tiny minority of developers who assume |
131 |
that they're the opinion of some kind of majority that can't figure |
132 |
out how to vote for the right council members. All they can do is |
133 |
talk endlessly because the governance structure of Gentoo, by design, |
134 |
is intended to prevent the "special treatment to certain members of |
135 |
this community" that you are in fact the one who is seeking. |
136 |
|
137 |
A majority of devs selected a Council to represent their concerns and |
138 |
govern the distro. If you don't like the job they're doing, then |
139 |
don't vote for them. If they're elected anyway, consider that perhaps |
140 |
others are just fine with what is going on... |
141 |
|
142 |
-- |
143 |
Rich |