1 |
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:21 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> W dniu sob, 09.12.2017 o godzinie 16∶29 -0800, użytkownik Daniel |
3 |
> Campbell napisał: |
4 |
>> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 09:22:32PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
5 |
>> > Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017, 19:06:36 CET schrieb William L. Thomson Jr.: |
6 |
>> > > |
7 |
>> > > The day everyone wanted has come, after this message. I will |
8 |
>> > > unsubscribe not to return. You all won in 2008, and again in 2017. |
9 |
>> > > Though this time I will not be back. I tried more than most anyone else |
10 |
>> > > would for a very long time. Gentoo wins I lose, I am fine with that. |
11 |
>> > > |
12 |
>> > > Please do not contact me off list in IRC or at all. I am done with the |
13 |
>> > > Gentoo community! |
14 |
>> > |
15 |
>> > <comrel hat> |
16 |
>> > Independent of whether William now unsubscribed or not, he's now enjoying a |
17 |
>> > lengthy (1 year until review) vacation from all Gentoo communication channels. |
18 |
>> > </comrel hat> |
19 |
>> > |
20 |
>> > -- |
21 |
>> > Andreas K. Hüttel |
22 |
>> > dilfridge@g.o |
23 |
>> > Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice) |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> So, mgorny threatened to leave if something wasn't done, right? I saw |
26 |
>> the IRC conversation about unsubscribing from gentoo-dev, as well. IRC |
27 |
>> is not private, for the record. Other developers are required to |
28 |
>> subscribe to -dev, and are expected to follow it so they stay informed. |
29 |
>> If they missed something covered on the list, they are directed to the |
30 |
>> archives and (usually) laughed at. I see no reason for this expectation |
31 |
>> to be waived for any single developer. Do I get a free pass if I don't |
32 |
>> like what someone says? |
33 |
>> |
34 |
>> It's not enough to let wltjr leave on his own; you had to create a ban |
35 |
>> and add a smug, tongue-in-cheek mail to it to maintain the image of |
36 |
>> doing something. Quite hypocritical of comrel's attitude of secrecy to |
37 |
>> suddenly announce a ban. It seems to me that secrecy is only adopted |
38 |
>> when it suits those who stand to benefit from it. |
39 |
>> |
40 |
>> Great things coming from Gentoo "leadership" here. What will you do when |
41 |
>> mgorny starts targeting developers and pitching tantrums over them, too? |
42 |
>> Are we going to stratify developership further, too? It seems rather |
43 |
>> clear to me that a few individuals see themselves as the owners of this |
44 |
>> distro and bend it to suit their whims, using bureacracy to obscure |
45 |
>> their actions and motivations, segment the community, and block those |
46 |
>> less experienced. This is precisely why we have unmotivated developers |
47 |
>> and a bevy of unmaintained packages; nobody wants to contribute to a |
48 |
>> distro that treats its users (and developers) so poorly. |
49 |
>> |
50 |
>> A distro should never bend its entire social structure to protect the |
51 |
>> feelings of one surly developer (or his/her entourage), 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 |
>> Software cannot fix wetware. Plenty of developers get to deal with |
57 |
>> mgorny's aggressive and insulting tone, yet nothing happens. Gee... I |
58 |
>> wonder why. Maybe because the upper parts of Gentoo are riddled with |
59 |
>> cronyism. |
60 |
>> |
61 |
>> "Rules for thee, not for me." |
62 |
>> |
63 |
>> It's clear to anyone with eyeballs that there is preferential treatment |
64 |
>> and inconsistent enforcement of rules in this community, and the people |
65 |
>> in a position to fix it, won't, because they in fact benefit from this. |
66 |
>> |
67 |
>> Unfortunately, GLEP 39 does not have a section on recalling or |
68 |
>> impeachment... This whole situation highlights why the Council has no |
69 |
>> business sticking its head into non-technical matters. It's clearly not |
70 |
>> up to the task. It's no surprise, since technical skill does not |
71 |
>> guarantee or even imply social skill. (or vice-versa) |
72 |
>> |
73 |
>> I'm tired of people beating around the bush and the facile attempts of |
74 |
>> tact: why do you give special treatment to certain members of this |
75 |
>> community? Would you have done anything different if it were me or some |
76 |
>> other developer who was proposing this change? |
77 |
>> |
78 |
>> It wouldn't have made it to the Council agenda if he didn't write it, |
79 |
>> period. Everyone else would've been told to suck it up and deal with it. |
80 |
>> And knowing how the Council is, in a few days we'll all get to deal with |
81 |
>> the churn of mailing lists to protect one person's ego. Sad. |
82 |
>> |
83 |
> |
84 |
> Your attack on me is fully unfounded and completely inappropriate. FYI, |
85 |
> just let me correct a few facts here: |
86 |
> |
87 |
> 1. ComRel made its decision long before the discussion was even started |
88 |
> (and I was unaware of it as well), and -- unless you presume they have |
89 |
> time travellers there -- had nothing to do with it. |
90 |
> |
91 |
> 2. I disagree with the way of announcing the ban as well. I had nothing |
92 |
> to do with that. |
93 |
> |
94 |
> 3. The agenda item wasn't expressing 'feelings of one developer', as you |
95 |
> know it. It was written by me because I found the time to prepare |
96 |
> a rationale of *facts* to support it. Don't shoot the messenger. |
97 |
> |
98 |
|
99 |
Most of what you provided were baseless assertions. I gave you ample |
100 |
opportunity to explain why the actions would be taking place, but you |
101 |
refused to provide any facts. |
102 |
|
103 |
> 4. Finally, if you really hate me so much, you could at least bother to |
104 |
> check the facts instead of publicly insulting me based purely on lies. |
105 |
> |
106 |
|
107 |
What facts? |
108 |
|
109 |
Respectfully, |
110 |
R0b0t1 |