I disagree with fast-tracking this to any official Gentoo documentation. > Be considerate. Your work will be used by other people, and you in > turn will depend on the work of others. Any decision you make will > affect users and colleagues, and we expect you to take those > consequences into account when making decisions.
All of this is obvious, except for who is "we"? > Be respectful. The Gentoo community and its members treat one > another with respect. Odd to make this declarative statement when it isn't true. > Everyone can make a valuable contribution to Gentoo. They can? Making this kind of feel-good blanket statement just detracts from the rest of this document. > We may not always agree, but disagreement is no excuse for > poor behaviour and poor manners. We might all experience some > frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to > turn into a personal attacks. It's important to remember that > a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not > a productive one. This should be shortened to say just what it means: Developers will have more fun, be more productive, and create a better distribution if we concentrate on the issues instead of resorting to personal attacks. > We expect members of the Gentoo community to be > respectful when dealing with other contributors as well as with > people outside the Gentoo project, and with users of Gentoo. Again, who is "we"? > Be collaborative. Gentoo and Free Software are about collaboration > and working together. Collaboration reduces redundancy of work done > in the Free Software world, and improves the quality of the software > produced. You should aim to collaborate with other Gentoo > maintainers, as well as with the upstream community that is > interested in the work you do. Your work should be done > transparently and patches from Gentoo should be given back to the > community when they are made, not just when the distribution > releases. If you wish to work on new code for existing upstream > projects, at least keep those projects informed of your ideas and > progress. It may not be possible to get consensus from upstream or > even from your colleagues about the correct implementation of an > idea, so don't feel obliged to have that agreement before you begin, > but at least keep the outside world informed of your work, and > publish your work in a way that allows outsiders to test, discuss > and contribute to your efforts. This part makes sense, I think... though I don't see the point of codifying it except to "throw the book" at the next Paludis. Frankly I think Ciaran did nothing wrong to restrict distribution on a project he didn't feel was ready for public consumption. It has always seemed to me like the overreactions were the problem. > When you disagree, consult others. Disagreements, both political and > technical, happen all the time and the Gentoo community is no > exception. The important goal is not to avoid disagreements or > differing views but to resolve them constructively. You should turn > to the community and to the community process to seek advice and to > resolve disagreements. We have the Council, Infra, Devrel and Team > Leaders all of which help you decide the right course for Gentoo. What do you mean by "turn to the community and to the community process"? I'm not sure what that entails. And I'm really not sure I understand what the last sentence means. > Repeated disruptive behaviors will be viewed as a security and > stability threat to Gentoo. Classic switching to the passive voice when the actor wishes to be distanced from the action. WHO will view these behaviors as a security and stability threat to Gentoo? Is this a statement the existing developers are making? The foundation? Infra? > Your access to Gentoo infrastructure may > be suspended without notice if it is deemed that you fall into this > category. Again passive voice. WHO will suspect access without notice? WHO will make the decision? (Clearly infra will implement it.) And doesn't "without notice" somehow void the "consult others" bit earlier? > If your 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. This is bogus. If a person's account is suspended, they don't have commit access, they're temporarily not a developer. Mincing words doesn't change things. > You may elect to save up your 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. Anybody can submit work to a developer who can proxy that work into Gentoo. What is this new proxy approval process that Infra has decided to enforce? > If your account is suspended, you may request a hearing with > developer relations which can then make recommendation that your > account be re-instated or permanently disabled if they are unable to > address the problem with your behavior with you. Clearly this sentence states that Infra has usurped the suspension process. It's very disappointing since Devrel has put so much work into a process that has been demoted to "recommendation" status. Aron -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
