| 1 |
On 11/30/2016 08:10 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I'm not going to mince words here: why did we kick out a contributor who |
| 4 |
>> was helping the Gentoo cause? I've looked over logs that were shared |
| 5 |
>> with me and the worst thing I could find was an off-color joke. Worse |
| 6 |
>> things occur on these mailing lists that never see Comrel's inbox, so |
| 7 |
>> why this? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> This does not sound like you have the full picture of the years over |
| 10 |
> which Ian attempted to contribute to Gentoo. I was involved for a long |
| 11 |
> time, basically from the start of Ian's tenure as a developer, and I |
| 12 |
> fully support his being kicked out. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>> What I'm looking for is undeniable proof that Ian was irrevocably |
| 15 |
>> damaging and threatening to Gentoo, to justify his dismissal and |
| 16 |
>> accompanying ban. If such information will not or cannot be provided, |
| 17 |
>> then it indicates to me that there *is* no proof, and without it I will |
| 18 |
>> call for his reinstatement for the next council meeting. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> As I'm not a member of ComRel or Council or whatever and I haven't |
| 21 |
> kept any logs, I think you're being to binary about this. Even if |
| 22 |
> there is no single thing that shows Ian "irrevocably damaging and |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Zlg didn't ask for the proverbial "smoking gun". I doubt seriously |
| 25 |
anyone expects there to be one specific awful thing that is just beyond |
| 26 |
redemption. More likely (and zlg can point out if I'm wrong here), I |
| 27 |
expect zlg is wanting to see the totality of evidence. Given that his |
| 28 |
goal is to request Ian's reinstatement, it makes sense to me that he'd |
| 29 |
want to know what he has to argue against. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> threatening" Gentoo, there can still be a reason to prevent him from |
| 32 |
> participating in some of our venues. I think the problem with Ian is |
| 33 |
> that, as hard as he may try to contribute, I found his contributions |
| 34 |
> to be net negative to the distribution. As such, I do think his |
| 35 |
> presence is damaging to Gentoo. (And please note that I initially |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Could you provide specifics? Maybe some emails supporting this |
| 38 |
position? Even if you don't have them any more, I would think the |
| 39 |
archives would contain a few copies to support your opinion. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
If nothing else, could you at least provide enough information so those |
| 42 |
interested would have an idea of where to "dig"? |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> encouraged him to join us, and, as lead of the Python team at the |
| 45 |
> time, spent significant time ironing out issues that arose from his |
| 46 |
> attempts at contribution.) |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
This sounds to me as if you're basing your opinion of Ian solely on your |
| 50 |
interactions with him while you lead the Python project. If that's a |
| 51 |
fair statement, I find it curious that you would believe those |
| 52 |
interactions were so negative that they should be used to justify |
| 53 |
keeping someone out of Gentoo some two years later, but not provide any |
| 54 |
specific account of those interactions. Even if some of the finer |
| 55 |
details are a bit hazy, I would think that those interactions would be |
| 56 |
vivid enough to describe here. I'm also confident that someone else, |
| 57 |
would be able to corroborate those claims. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
- Nicholas Vinson (username234) |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
>> I am not alone in requesting accountability from the top of Gentoo. I |
| 62 |
>> will take the results of this conversation into consideration when it's |
| 63 |
>> time to vote next year, as Gentoo is suffering from staffing issues and |
| 64 |
>> practices like this actively damage Gentoo's ability to attract and |
| 65 |
>> retain contributors. I have personally met people who have suffered as a |
| 66 |
>> result of this debacle; people willing and eager to help us out that are |
| 67 |
>> still struggling to join our ranks. So what gives? |
| 68 |
>> |
| 69 |
>> This distribution should not turn away anyone willing (and able) to |
| 70 |
>> help. This is a critical flaw that could accelerate our decline. |
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
> I respectfully but strongly disagree. Some people that are willing and |
| 73 |
> able to help can in the end turn out to be negative contributors. It |
| 74 |
> is imperative for our community that we can identify those people and |
| 75 |
> minimize their impact on the distribution both socially and |
| 76 |
> technically. |
| 77 |
> |
| 78 |
> Cheers, |
| 79 |
> |
| 80 |
> Dirkjan |
| 81 |
> |
Archives