| 1 |
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:36 AM, Eray Aslan <eras@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:28:48AM -0500, Matthew Thode wrote: |
| 4 |
> > While I personally do no agree with mailing list moderation infra has |
| 5 |
> > been tasked with moving forward on it. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> You can always resign from infra. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> That was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment but not wholly. You cant |
| 11 |
> cop out by saying it was an order from council. I understand if you |
| 12 |
> dont but do consider it. Fight the good fight. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
So when there is conflict its pretty often that you have 3 options. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
1) Accept |
| 18 |
2) Leave |
| 19 |
3) Escalate |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm not sure 3 is possible (the council is already the highest body). I |
| 22 |
also think that as a organization this is how we |
| 23 |
arranged it to be. Speaking for myself, this is not the worst issue I've |
| 24 |
seen in Gentoo and so I thing doing 2 is probably |
| 25 |
not very effective. Its also likely I can only do 2 once (because maybe I |
| 26 |
would not be welcome'd back or want to contribute anymore.) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
That leaves 1 and one interests me for many reasons. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
a) as noted earlier, decisions are not set in stone. Its possible we could |
| 31 |
turn on this whitelisting solution for a brief period and the decision is |
| 32 |
overturned at the next council meeting, or perhaps at the next council |
| 33 |
election once the existing council is replaced. |
| 34 |
b) I am never afraid of making mistakes. I too think this is a mistake; but |
| 35 |
I don't think its a critical mistake for the organization. Maybe I'm wrong |
| 36 |
though. |
| 37 |
c) I have a selfish interest to migrate off of mmlmj because I have an |
| 38 |
intense dislike (of the software) and I think we need a "modernized" list |
| 39 |
setup. So this effort is a driver to get some infra work done. |
| 40 |
d) Infra as a organization wields a lot of power in Gentoo and I think its |
| 41 |
organizationally dangerous to wield that power in this way. For example, if |
| 42 |
the entire infra team retired rather than implement this solution; or even |
| 43 |
worse, refused to retire but just didn't implement it. Ultimately |
| 44 |
Infrastructure is here to meet the needs of the distribution and if we are |
| 45 |
not doing that then we have failed as an organization.[1] |
| 46 |
e) In the past, infra *has* wielded its power in a fashion that had |
| 47 |
negative impacts on the distribution (e.g. arbitrarily removing commit |
| 48 |
rights for developers with no warning, process, or oversight). I think |
| 49 |
there is an additional focus in the the Infra team to avoid that sort of |
| 50 |
activity and "inaction is still action" and I think it results in similar |
| 51 |
repercussions. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
[1] Which isn't to say that I would accept 'orders' to commit crimes, or |
| 54 |
other obviously bad things. I'm again asserting that this idea is not |
| 55 |
fundamentally bad. The community has a 'toxic people problem' and our |
| 56 |
previous attempts at resolution have not really produced great results. |
| 57 |
Will this also produce great results? Not sure. But willing to try it. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-A |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> -- |
| 63 |
> Eray |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
> |
Archives