Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Steven J Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: Re: Re: A Little Council Reform Anyone?
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:30:06
1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
2 > Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
3 >> As Denis has already stated we're not interested in the disputes
4 >> between you, paludis, exherbo and some other users or projects
5 >> (funtoo?). This ml is about Gentoo not about your (ciaranm, igli,
6 >> trelane, etc) pet projects.
7 >
8 Please don't assume trelane's spat with ciaran has anything to do with me,
9 as ciaran later tries to assert. trelane has nothing to do with me, and I
10 nothing to do with him wrt Gentoo. I just happen to prefer to build from
11 funtoo stages, is the reason we've met online. My pet project is Gentoo,
12 since it's what I've stuck my neck out to recommend professionally.
14 > We were discussing the Gentoo PMS project, and the Council's
15 > involvement therein.
16 >
17 I thought we were discussing future Council directions.
19 >> As you know very well, quite a few people would qualify your own
20 >> behaviour at times like that. So this is one of those cases that you
21 >> should start by looking at the mirror.
22 >>
23 >> <snip>
24 >>
25 >> We all have plenty examples of your bad behaviour, so let's not go
26 >> down that route.
27 >
28 > Please point to examples of where I've said that I want a project to
29 > fail, or that I plan to oppose absolutely everything someone does
30 > regardless of merit. Please also point to examples of where I've said
31 > that I want anything other than what's best for Gentoo.
32 >
33 No, let's just point to your bad behaviour as I have experienced over a
34 significant period of time, with no-one ever picking you up on it, besides
35 me after I got over my initial shock at your incredible rudeness:
38 (note that your answer about emake is dependent on your inability to sort
39 out things like find and {e,}make in BASH, or subshell dies last time it
40 came up.)
41 Note also that Duncan posted here
43 ..about the simple solution we could have done then, the same solution I
44 discussed in the project article I posted about on dev. Nearly two years
45 wasted on this crap, when as UberLord said back then: "metadata in a file
46 name is pure and simple hackery that has no place here and the GLEP is a
47 flimsy attempt to justify it."
51 I cba to find any more; let's just say it's pretty much a consensus that you
52 violate the CoC lots, and have done over a period of years. That's why you
53 got thrown out twice.
55 >> Some people seem to think that the best way for Gentoo to progress as
56 >> they would like, they need to ensure that you don't get to influence
57 >> Gentoo as they consider your proposals compromise Gentoo's future.
58 >
59 > Then they should address each proposal on its own merits. That isn't
60 > what's being discussed, though. We're discussing a small group of
61 > people whose stated aim is to disrupt anything they can associate with
62 > me in any way. How is that in any way good for Gentoo's future?
63 >
64 Hmm it's more systemic and strategic if you want fancy words for it. As I
65 said in the other mail, you've wasted a lot of everyone's time, simply
66 because you're so unpleasant. Gentoo is now in the untenable position of
67 telling downstream projects "We threw him out, but you have to work with
68 him if you want any new EAPI features."
70 >> But again, we (Gentoo developers and community) are getting tired of
71 >> all the "bile" flying around. Please stop with that.
72 >
73 > Then please start by addressing the part of the email you snipped out,
74 > and explain how you expect the Gentoo PMS project to operate under
75 > those kinds of conditions, and why userrel hasn't stepped in when a
76 > small group of users have said that they intend to sabotage a Gentoo
77 > project.
78 >
79 I'm fine with Gentoo PMS. Just not under your supervision. Like it or not,
80 social skills affect collaborative development.
82 Since you apparently get on fine with some people, why not just work with
83 them and treat Gentoo as your downstream?
85 --
86 #friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)