I'm not trying to escalate the argument but you seem to have misinterpreted my initial message.
On 12/10/15 03:56, Matt Turner wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 1:17 AM, wraeth <wra...@wraeth.id.au> wrote: >> I am one of the users who spoke to idella4 about this, but I wanted >> to repeat this publicly in order to highlight the point of view of >> contributing user as opposed to a developer. >> >> Firstly I would like to say that I appreciate feedback on my work - >> it helps me to improve the quality of my work both for Gentoo and personally. >> >> I also agree whole-heartedly to the concept of the Reviewers >> project, in that highlighting common improvements that could be >> made would benefit both contributors who participate and Gentoo as >> a whole. >> >> Having said that, however, I do not appreciate the method in which >> these criticisms were delivered, and believe it extends beyond the >> idea of the Reviewers project. >> >> I feel that it is inappropriate for criticisms of contributor's >> work to be broadcast on a mailing list that is read not only by the >> developer community, but by users as well, without their consent. >> This is not a case where I am particularly embarrassed or upset - >> if others can learn from my mistakes, then they are mistakes I am >> happy to make (preferably only once). But doing so publicly, with >> identifying information, is inappropriate. > > Good grief. Seriously? Yes, I am being serious. Thanks for asking. > Mailing list review is the *norm* in the free software world. I am aware of this and that it has been the way for quite some time. However, while it may be the norm in the wider FOSS community, it has not been the norm on the gentoo-dev list - certainly people will post things specifically for review, or may highlight critical issues; but it has not until recently been a channel for review of any and all commits that the Reviewers inspect. It is not the fact that there is a review or education process, but that this process was executed with the level of tact and grace becoming of a flock of ducks flying into the side of a building. This education process was implemented in a way that indiscriminately pointed the finger at contributors, developer and user alike, sometimes for things that mattered, and other times for things that simply didn't. What's more, it was implemented without warning and included publishing who the author of those mistakes was without the contributor knowing that it would be used so (you know, since the whole commit header was in this educational message, too). > I haven't seen anything noted that should have caused embarrassment. Perhaps you missed: >> This is not a case where I am particularly embarrassed or upset - >> if others can learn from my mistakes, then they are mistakes I am >> happy to make (preferably only once). > This whole thing, as far as I can see, is about improving the > quality of Gentoo. I have learned from the reviewers reviewing my > commits and the commits of others. It's extremely valuable to do this > in public and the idea that noting an error on a public mailing list > is somehow bad is simply misguided. Perhaps you also missed: >> Firstly I would like to say that I appreciate feedback on my work >> - it helps me to improve the quality of my work both for Gentoo >> and personally. >> >> I also agree whole-heartedly to the concept of the Reviewers >> project, in that highlighting common improvements that could be >> made would benefit both contributors who participate and Gentoo as >> a whole. I am not saying feedback is bad. I am not saying that learning to do better is bad. What I am saying is that until now contributors to Gentoo have received feedback on their work in channels that they elected, whether it was IRC, Bugzilla, Pull Requests or E-Mail; until suddenly their work (or more accurately, the Reviewers teams issues with their work) were getting broadcast to anyone who is subscribed to this list, regardless of if that contributor wanted that kind of public critiquing. I hope this clears up this apparent misunderstanding. Kind Regards; -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) <wra...@wraeth.id.au> GnuPG Key: B2D9F759
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
