Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Michał Górny]

W dniu wto, 27.03.2018 o godzinie 11∶37 +0200, użytkownik Francisco Blas
Izquierdo Riera (klondike) napisał:
> Hi Michał,
> El 27/03/18 a las 09:45, Michał Górny escribió:
> > W dniu wto, 27.03.2018 o godzinie 01∶54 +0200, użytkownik Francisco Blas
> > Izquierdo Riera (klondike) napisał:
> > > Hi Rich!
> > > El 27/03/18 a las 01:01, Rich Freeman escribió:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> > > > (klondike) <klondike@g.o> wrote:
> > > > > the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
> > > > > other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them)
> > > >
> > > > I just did some asking around and those non-developer stakeholders
> > > > (who are apparently a majority of our total set of stakeholders) say
> > > > that they disagree with your proposed changes.  Are you sure you
> > > > actually talked to all of them?
> > > >
> > > > It is possible that there is some confusion - could you provide a list
> > > > of the names of these stakeholders who apparently constitute a
> > > > majority?  Gentoo devs apparently don't count for much (other than
> > > > doing all the work I suppose), but we can at least generate a list of
> > > > who they are...
> > >
> > > Please don't derail the topic. If you want to discuss who are the
> > > specific stakeholders affected by the Gentoo Social Contract you are
> > > more than welcome to open a different thread, on gentoo-project.
> > >
> > > I opened this thread to discuss proposals to fix the fact that with the
> > > permission change of the gentoo-dev mailing list ordered by the council,
> > > the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
> > > other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them) can't neither
> > > propose nor discuss changes to said contract through the official
> > > channels. If you have any input in that regard, I'll be more than happy
> > > to read it.
> > >
> >
> > Sounds to me that you've created an artificial problem to create
> > hostility within the community, and when somebody asks you to define
> > the problem more specifically, you refuse to answer.
>
> Until now nobody has asked me to define the problem that I'm trying to
> address any better than I already did, all I have gotten have been
> attempts to hijack the thread.
>
> I'll try to explain again the problem my propossals are trying to fix.
> Until gentoo-dev became restricted, all of the stakeholders of the

In order to define the problem properly, you have to use words whose
meaning is clear to everyone participating in the thread. In this case,
'stakeholder' is absolutely unclear to multiple people as they have
already pointed out.

dictionary.com says [1]:

| 1. the holder of the stakes of a wager.
| 2. a person or group that has an investment, share, or interest
| in something, as a business or industry.
| 3. Law. a person holding money or property to which two or more
| persons make rival claims.

I don't think any of these definitions can be applied to gentoo-dev
mailing list.

[1]:http://www.dictionary.com/browse/stakeholder?s=t


> Gentoo Social Contract had an official way to propose and discuss
> changes to it. As it is now impossible for some (I suspect the majority)
> of them to propose changes in the official way now. This is a problem
> because it basically restricts their ability to propose modifications
> (like you did using the, then, wrong list on 2017
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/e20bc1207eca0164fe942012cce9c543).
>

As Ulrich has already expressed it, it was the correct list. Juding by
that, it seems that you have misdefined the problem. The only problem is
that apparently the SC listed the wrong ml for a few years now.

That said, the important question is why do you insist on such hostility
towards your fellow developers instead of attempting to peacefully look
into the problem together. If you did that, we would have helped you
define it correctly.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny