Mike, Am Montag, 3. April 2006 23:38 schrieb Mike Frysinger: > dont get me wrong, i hate documenting common sense as much as the next sane > guy, but it seems Gentoo has come to the point where this needs to be done > > many thanks to the Ubuntu guys and to solar for doing the real work here: > http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/xml/conduct.html > > i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), so > this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook Etiquette > section > -mike
Well, you're wrong. I'm against this conduct in its current form and I am no terrorist. Further, i really dislike how you tried to avoid public discussion by deeming everyone who disagrees as a terrorist. There are several occasions where a Gentoo developer is asked to initiate publis discussion when he introduces something that affects the whole tree. The council demands 14 days to publicly discuss GLEPs that shall be voted upon. But when a document which has such a great impact as this conduct you (and others) propose, and which is possibly controversely discussed among developers, is just passed by w/o discussion I really start wondering if the community aspect (which is emphasized by this document) is really of interest to you. I understand that you're not happy with the status of developer relation (not to be confused with Gentoo DevRel) right now, but please choose another way. I don't agree with some of the wording of the conduct, mostly with the last paragraphs. For example: >Repeated disruptive behaviors will be viewed as a security and stability Who is to judge what behavior is disruptive? >threat to Gentoo. Your access to Gentoo infrastructure may be suspended >without notice if it is deemed that you fall into this category. If your This would allow to infra to say: I don't like your way, you're disruptive! Your access will be suspended. And honestly, i think this is what just happened. >account is suspended, you will still retain full developer status -- you will >simply not have access to Gentoo infrastructure. You may continue to do >development work during your suspension. You may elect to save up your This is awful: "Oh, a suspended developer is _allowed_ to not give his things out to the public." Please change remove this first part of this sentence completely. >changes until such a point where your access has been reinstated, or you may >work with another developer to have them commit changes on your behalf. If >you choose the latter option, please ensure members of the Infrastructure >project have reviewed and approved the proxy relationship to avoid having >access cut off for both developers. IMHO, this is rediculous as well. We already had this discussion during the last incident. Infrastrucure has no hold on what and how developers commit user contributed changes, as long as these changes are lawful (read: license/copyright problems) and no security thread. It's infras job to enforce the permissions as given by devrel. If devrel says, somebody is allowed to commit in the main tree, nobody but devrel should be allowed to revoke this. The only exceptions are those case already stated above. This is how it has been handled so far except in the ciaranm incident. This is how I personally think this should be handled in future. Danny -- Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
