Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)" <klondike@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:37:41
Message-Id: 4f1a7b0b-e5f4-53bf-d575-13acf1584568@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause by "Michał Górny"
1 Hi Michał,
2 El 27/03/18 a las 09:45, Michał Górny escribió:
3 > W dniu wto, 27.03.2018 o godzinie 01∶54 +0200, użytkownik Francisco Blas
4 > Izquierdo Riera (klondike) napisał:
5 >> Hi Rich!
6 >> El 27/03/18 a las 01:01, Rich Freeman escribió:
7 >>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
8 >>> (klondike) <klondike@g.o> wrote:
9 >>>> the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
10 >>>> other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them)
11 >>> I just did some asking around and those non-developer stakeholders
12 >>> (who are apparently a majority of our total set of stakeholders) say
13 >>> that they disagree with your proposed changes. Are you sure you
14 >>> actually talked to all of them?
15 >>>
16 >>> It is possible that there is some confusion - could you provide a list
17 >>> of the names of these stakeholders who apparently constitute a
18 >>> majority? Gentoo devs apparently don't count for much (other than
19 >>> doing all the work I suppose), but we can at least generate a list of
20 >>> who they are...
21 >> Please don't derail the topic. If you want to discuss who are the
22 >> specific stakeholders affected by the Gentoo Social Contract you are
23 >> more than welcome to open a different thread, on gentoo-project.
24 >>
25 >> I opened this thread to discuss proposals to fix the fact that with the
26 >> permission change of the gentoo-dev mailing list ordered by the council,
27 >> the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
28 >> other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them) can't neither
29 >> propose nor discuss changes to said contract through the official
30 >> channels. If you have any input in that regard, I'll be more than happy
31 >> to read it.
32 >>
33 > Sounds to me that you've created an artificial problem to create
34 > hostility within the community, and when somebody asks you to define
35 > the problem more specifically, you refuse to answer.
36
37 Until now nobody has asked me to define the problem that I'm trying to
38 address any better than I already did, all I have gotten have been
39 attempts to hijack the thread.
40
41 I'll try to explain again the problem my propossals are trying to fix.
42 Until gentoo-dev became restricted, all of the stakeholders of the
43 Gentoo Social Contract had an official way to propose and discuss
44 changes to it. As it is now impossible for some (I suspect the majority)
45 of them to propose changes in the official way now. This is a problem
46 because it basically restricts their ability to propose modifications
47 (like you did using the, then, wrong list on 2017
48 https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/e20bc1207eca0164fe942012cce9c543).
49
50 Therefore, either we change the social contract to reflect this new
51 reality or we end up being against it.
52
53 klondike

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies