| 1 |
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:11:11 +0100 |
| 2 |
Roy Marples <roy@×××××××.name> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Nope. What I see as a problem is that the primary author and |
| 6 |
> > current de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was |
| 7 |
> > forcibly removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to |
| 8 |
> > be written for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package |
| 9 |
> > manager's development team with his constant not-so-subtle |
| 10 |
> > attacks. Quite frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over |
| 11 |
> > the specification that defines the most important single feature of |
| 12 |
> > Gentoo and remove the non-Gentoo developers from its development. |
| 13 |
> > No offense, but you're not a Gentoo developer any longer and you |
| 14 |
> > shouldn't have a say in how *we* manage ourselves. You're more |
| 15 |
> > than welcome to contribute code, fork, or whatever the hell you |
| 16 |
> > want. This is open source, after all, but that doesn't mean you |
| 17 |
> > should be allowed to hold the position of power over Gentoo that |
| 18 |
> > you've been granted. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I would like to see Gentoo grow some balls and start banning people |
| 21 |
> from -dev and other media used. I don't mean temporary bans, I mean |
| 22 |
> for life. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Yes, it's not nice. Yes, Gentoo should be open for all and encourage |
| 25 |
> participation from all. However, some people have demonstrated time |
| 26 |
> and time again over quite a number of years that they wont change no |
| 27 |
> matter what. These people are posionous [1]. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Slightly ironic for me to suggest this, but... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
It is the gentoo-dev mailing list, restrict posting to gentoo devs |
| 32 |
(i.e. only people with a @gentoo.org email address) would make a lot of |
| 33 |
sense. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Rob. |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives