Re: [gentoo-dev] Slightly different proposal for a Code of Conduct
From your draft: (note: most parts shamelessly stolen from Christel) In that case, showing only what differs from Christel's proposal would have been a better way to present yours. Denis. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
Who cares about views? It is our distro and we just like to make it better. Right? There is a plethora of potential Gentoo developers out there and this sort of press does nothing for getting them any closer to joining the effort. Secondly, regarding the DW article, surely if it was as baseless as many members of this list suggest, and I am not referring to the specific references in the article, but to the underlying reasons the author may have decided to write it, then DW should have immediately been corrected on the issue and made to publish a retraction. I am not sure this is the case and, while I am only a user and casual contributor, I have become more and more aware of the grumblings and (perceived?) increase in turnover of developers. Thus, with all respect due to current and past developers, could I suggest that regardless of whether or not the DW article is worth consideration, the process of adopting the Communication CoC and the structures required to implement it be followed through in the best interests of all developers and users of the Gentoo project. -- Warwick Chapman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
On 3/14/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:45:01 +0100 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > QA is supposed to avoid fixing other people's code where things are > > actively maintained. > > I usually ask before messing with other's stuff but if I find > something wrong I rather fix it myself while I'm at it (and I'm quite > happy if people does the same for my stuff). > > in the genstef vs hansmi example if hansmi just asked genstef if he > mind if he just change the masking to the proper one and just commit > the local fix he had in place to make paludis happy probably won't be > much to argue. Paludis had nothing to do with that. It was a Portage change that required the update. hansmi's log was from 1-06-2007. The change in portage was added 1-23-07. This was before the discussion and portage fix, when the reason was pure paludis. (http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage?rev=5760&view=rev) -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:45:01 +0100 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > QA is supposed to avoid fixing other people's code where things are > > actively maintained. > > I usually ask before messing with other's stuff but if I find > something wrong I rather fix it myself while I'm at it (and I'm quite > happy if people does the same for my stuff). > > in the genstef vs hansmi example if hansmi just asked genstef if he > mind if he just change the masking to the proper one and just commit > the local fix he had in place to make paludis happy probably won't be > much to argue. Paludis had nothing to do with that. It was a Portage change that required the update. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > QA is supposed to avoid fixing other people's code where things are > actively maintained. I usually ask before messing with other's stuff but if I find something wrong I rather fix it myself while I'm at it (and I'm quite happy if people does the same for my stuff). in the genstef vs hansmi example if hansmi just asked genstef if he mind if he just change the masking to the proper one and just commit the local fix he had in place to make paludis happy probably won't be much to argue. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:30:11 + George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd rather make it known that that sort of backhanded tactics to > > get rid of someone you don't like won't work whoever uses them. > > > You would certainly make that point. then let the other employee > leave and let the employee in question know that it will not be > tolerated in the future. Therefore saving the services of one of the > best employees (and with it money) and also said employee > knows /exactly/ where he stands for the future. And if said employee had already pulled several "I'm resigning" publicity stunts in the past? And if said employee had seen other people trying the same thing unsuccessfully? I think you're missing a clear view of the facts here... Incidentally, I'm unsure as to how your analogy applies here. You keep mentioning 'best employee'. I'm not sure how that fits in. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:19:52 + George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What on earth is going to be a "major visible improvement" to a > command line based package manager that any average Gentoo user is > going to realise? The average user probably only uses a few commands: > emerge -u/p/a/v/--sync/package/world/system and then use > package.keywords/mask/unmask so there are really no fundamental > differences that the average user will notice If you think that that's all a package manager should do, you have a serious lack of imagination. Most users need or would heavily benefit from far more. See http://ciaranm.org/show_post/95 for some modest ideas that have turned out to be useful. > And that really means that portage is no easier/harder than it was 3 > years ago when USE="~x86" emerge foo was consigned to the dustbin Except that now users have to deal with more like a thousand installed packages, and have no sane way of doing simple things like: * Unmasking everything needed to get a particular KDE release in one go * Uninstalling a package along with its now-unused dependencies * Uninstalling a package along with everything depending upon it Why should these things be difficult? > > Sunrise is the canonical example. Also consider the way the forums > > are being run (like it or not, the forums are taken by many to be > > representative of Gentoo's user base)... > > > It seems to most that the forums is the only part of Gentoo that is - > and always has been - running smoothly Smoothly is not productively or effectively. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Removing of package games-rpg/planeshift
Tupone Alfredo schrieb: > games-rpg has been masked on 18 jul 2006 and there is a pending bug > #167547 Broken dependancies in "games-rpg/planeshift-0.3.011" > Removing is planned for this end of week: 17 Mar 2007. > 0.3.011 is wy t old and not compatible with current server versions. BUT see: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155790#c7 maybe it only needs some love after all... Christian -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?
Stephen Bennett wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:35:14 + George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So you'd rather let one of the best employees go rather than chastise a worker who is leaving soon? Thats just cutting off your nose to spite your face. I'd rather make it known that that sort of backhanded tactics to get rid of someone you don't like won't work whoever uses them. You would certainly make that point. then let the other employee leave and let the employee in question know that it will not be tolerated in the future. Therefore saving the services of one of the best employees (and with it money) and also said employee knows /exactly/ where he stands for the future. It is called man-management and people skills, something that is severely lacking in Gentoo at the moment -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
What on earth is going to be a "major visible improvement" to a command line based package manager that any average Gentoo user is going to realise? The average user probably only uses a few commands: emerge -u/p/a/v/--sync/package/world/system and then use package.keywords/mask/unmask so there are really no fundamental differences that the average user will notice How about the speed of search's? the speed of resolving dependancy's? how about the speed that it takes to calculate a dependancy listing after you've already done it once? portage is SLOW. how about getting it to the point where it could be made to incorporate a graphical frontend if wanted. how about providing me a list of packages that are masked instead of making me read and unmask them one at a time.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: That's just it. Portage needs to deliver major visible improvements at the user level for Gentoo to get anywhere. Managing a Gentoo system is much harder now than it was a few years ago, but the tools are largely the same. What on earth is going to be a "major visible improvement" to a command line based package manager that any average Gentoo user is going to realise? The average user probably only uses a few commands: emerge -u/p/a/v/--sync/package/world/system and then use package.keywords/mask/unmask so there are really no fundamental differences that the average user will notice And that really means that portage is no easier/harder than it was 3 years ago when USE="~x86" emerge foo was consigned to the dustbin * The wrong idea of what the user base is, and what the target user base is. Gentoo's direction is too heavily influenced by a small number of extremely noisy ricer forum users, many of whom don't even run Gentoo. Unfortunately, this self-perpetuating clique wields huge amounts of influence. I was certain that Gentoo's direction was influenced by the people working on Gentoo; not ricers. Do you have any examples of when the ricers changed the direction of things in Gentoo. Sunrise is the canonical example. Also consider the way the forums are being run (like it or not, the forums are taken by many to be representative of Gentoo's user base)... It seems to most that the forums is the only part of Gentoo that is - and always has been - running smoothly -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Why I don't think the CoC is a good idea
I have no idea if it's possible but if a topic is deemed to be off topic then can any further replies with that subject be forwarded automatically to another address like gentoo-dev-offtopic so they dont go to gentoo-dev? I believe you can change the destination based on subject with an mta. the question is what does implementing this entail? and being that a subject might be re-used in a completely unrelated (to the original topic) or be put back on topic how do you decide when to remove the forward.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Why I don't think the CoC is a good idea
Luca Barbato wrote: Alexandre Buisse wrote: I'm sorry to have been so long (and I have a lot more to say!) but this is more or less why I think both the idea and its proposed implementation are bad and will ultimately hurt us. I do agree and I add that this current thread so far is a good example on how things could go: - it is long since there are many arguments touched (CoC, improving gentoo, directions and our weak points etc) - it touches also some questions that aren't that easy - nobody has been offensive (yet) lu I have no idea if it's possible but if a topic is deemed to be off topic then can any further replies with that subject be forwarded automatically to another address like gentoo-dev-offtopic so they dont go to gentoo-dev? George -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:35:14 + George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So you'd rather let one of the best employees go rather than chastise > a worker who is leaving soon? Thats just cutting off your nose to > spite your face. I'd rather make it known that that sort of backhanded tactics to get rid of someone you don't like won't work whoever uses them. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?
Ferris McCormick wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:30:32 -0500 Steev Klimaszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Personally I understand why flameeyes took that to bugzilla; how else could he say he'd gone thru the appropriate channels? Devrel (a group, not an individual) weren't set up to respond quickly as others have informed us all. Case in point: you need to distinguish between flameeyes leaving (again) as a publicity stunt because his attempt to blackmail devrel failed and flameeyes' stated reason for leaving... It was an ultimatum. He goes or I go, it was not blackmail. FFS, can we please stop calling it blackmail? As I recall, flameeyes made the statement to kloeri, and kloeri called it blackmail. Whatever you call it, in business, issuing such an ultimatum is one of the quickest ways to become unemployed. So you'd rather let one of the best employees go rather than chastise a worker who is leaving soon? Thats just cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's good to see it has only taken 3 or is it 4 or 5 devs to leave before anyone thinks about doing something. George -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Why I don't think the CoC is a good idea
Alexandre Buisse wrote: > I'm sorry to have been so long (and I have a lot more to say!) but this > is more or less why I think both the idea and its proposed > implementation are bad and will ultimately hurt us. I do agree and I add that this current thread so far is a good example on how things could go: - it is long since there are many arguments touched (CoC, improving gentoo, directions and our weak points etc) - it touches also some questions that aren't that easy - nobody has been offensive (yet) lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:20:37 +0100 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:22:55 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I cannot agree on the Genstef-thingy, nor can I proof you wrong, > >> but I'd be please if in general such things could be done > >> anonymous as it is in some way FUD and might fuel flames...userrel > >> and userreps are there to be talked to about such things. > > > > Well that's my point. Userrel and userreps have nothing to do with > > such things. And although QA and devrel can, in theory, take > > action, it isn't happening. > > saw in the full context looks a bit different than what I was > expecting, a 2byte change that is more or less a syntax nuance could > be as quickly addressed by the reporter than the developer. QA is supposed to avoid fixing other people's code where things are actively maintained. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:22:55 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I cannot agree on the Genstef-thingy, nor can I proof you wrong, but >> I'd be please if in general such things could be done anonymous as it >> is in some way FUD and might fuel flames...userrel and userreps are >> there to be talked to about such things. > > Well that's my point. Userrel and userreps have nothing to do with such > things. And although QA and devrel can, in theory, take action, it > isn't happening. > saw in the full context looks a bit different than what I was expecting, a 2byte change that is more or less a syntax nuance could be as quickly addressed by the reporter than the developer. lu - that now knows that -* has been deprecated in favour of "" or p.mask. (could the repoman be updated to point to a bit of documentation about it?) -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Slightly different proposal for a Code of Conduct
The part about goats kind of scares me :-) On 3/14/07, Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: During discussing the current CoC Draft, i decided to write down a slightly different version, that solves some problems with conflicts of interest and redundancy between different teams - well at least according to me. ;-) Anyway, here it is, and open to comments (which i may not be able to integrate until the meeting due to time issues), merging with the other one or your personal /dev/null. I left some stuff unclear with respect to the Council as i didn't want to put things in there that should be clearly designed by them (e.g. the punishment stuff, or what powers the mailing list mods should get). cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org
[gentoo-dev] Slightly different proposal for a Code of Conduct
During discussing the current CoC Draft, i decided to write down a slightly different version, that solves some problems with conflicts of interest and redundancy between different teams - well at least according to me. ;-) Anyway, here it is, and open to comments (which i may not be able to integrate until the meeting due to time issues), merging with the other one or your personal /dev/null. I left some stuff unclear with respect to the Council as i didn't want to put things in there that should be clearly designed by them (e.g. the punishment stuff, or what powers the mailing list mods should get). cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org Simplified restructured approach to establishing a Code of Conduct. So far, some media are already moderated, while other are not. Furthermore, abusive behaviour in one (or several of them) is likely to have no negative consequences. The aim of this proposal is to address both of these issues by creating a Code of Conduct (CoC) and establishing means for identifying negative behaviour while integrating existing structures. ) Establish a CoC (note: most parts shamelessly stolen from Christel) Desired Behaviour * Be courteous. Respect is, and has to be, earned, but even if someone has not done so there is no reason to assume that their input is worthless, or that they do not deserve a measure of politeness in your response. * Giving accurate information in the spirit of being helpful. * Respectfully disagreeing with or challenging other members. The operative word here is RESPECTFULLY. * Using the correct forum for your post. Bug reports and idle chatter do not belong on the gentoo-dev mailing list; discussion about a wide-ranging change to the tree probably does not belong on Bugzilla. Different fora will also have different standards of behaviour -- a joke that is perfectly acceptable on IRC will be taken differently when made on a mailing list. * Admit the possibility of fault, or of people holding different views. Noone is perfect -- you will get things wrong occasionally. Don't be afraid to admit this. Similarly, while something may seem perfectly obvious to you, others may see it differently. This does not make their contribution less worthwhile, even if they do turn out to be wrong. * If you screw up, apologize sincerely. Unacceptable behaviour Deciding to suspend or ban someone isn't a decision we take lightly, but sometimes it has to happen. Below is a list of things that could get your access suspended. Please keep in mind that the decision to ban (or not) is a subjective one, and is based on many factors. If you ever have questions about our decisions, feel free to talk to us about it. Things that could get you banned/suspended from Gentoo's official communication infrastructure: * Flaming and trolling. * Receiving one (or more) warnings. Usually, you wouldn't be banned for a single warning, but it might happen if we feel your infraction is severe enough. We consider banning to be pretty serious; we take each situation on a case-by-case basis and make sure we always have a consensus for whatever decision we reach. * Constantly purveying misinformation despite repeated warnings. * Being judgmental, mean-spirited or insulting. It is possible to challenge someone (respectfully, of course), in a way that empowers without being judgemental. * Posting/participating only to incite drama or negativity rather than to tactfully share information. * Violating the specific rules of a communication rules, such as the forum rules on forums.gentoo.org or the rules for #gentoo. ) CoC is a minimum standard for all Gentoo media. It has to be followed everywhere. Some media (e.g. the forums, or #gentoo may have additional rules that need to be followed, too). ) Get moderators for unmoderated media This mostly means establishing a group of people who watch over the Gentoo mailing lists and identify non acceptable behaviour. The council may or may not want to give them some powers to unsubscribe/mute/... people at their discretion. (note: Dear council, please figure out yourself what you want them to be able to, and fill it in here.) ) Integrate existing media Existing moderation teams already enforce rules that cover the rules in the CoC, at least in the spirit of the rules. Like the mailing list mods, they have some powers to ban/mute/... people misbehaving. In case of minor offences (like a single swearword in #gentoo), a local warning or +q for a couple of minutes by the local moderators may be enough, and it is not necessary to escalate it further. Depending on the violation (and if it actually violates the CoC), this will be reported UPSTREAM for poss
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:41:10 -0700 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Portage is being incrementally improved. I'm not trying to rag on the > former or the current portage crew; certainly it moves slowly. Much > of it needs rewriting; my preference is to have more tests so that > when stuff gets rewritten people aren't completly ruining the existing > system, so my focus has been on tests and docs. Occasionally I work > on features (glep 42 was one of those). People are free to submit > patches and I think the portage team^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Zac does a decent > job of integrating them. The only recent one that didn't get applied > was the parallelization one; and I think zmedico has some plans for > how he wants to accomplish that. You're avoiding my point. The improvements that are being made are, by and large, insignificant. Portage doesn't need a few little tweaks now and again. It has to start delivering a whole load of major new features (there's no one killer feature), and quickly. GLEP 42 shouldn't be a major undertaking. It should be a day's work. That it isn't is a sign of how seriously screwed up things are. As for submitting patches to Portage... Heh, you know as well as I do that that's a lost cause. If people who've been working on the code for years can't deliver, what hope does anyone else have? > > It's been claimed that Gentoo lacks direction. It's more accurate to > > say that the inability to change Portage prevents Gentoo from going > > anywhere. That small interface improvements can be passed off as a > > big deal and that users get excited over minor config file tweaks is > > indicative of how low people's expectations really are. > > The portage team has always been hesitant to break backwards > compatibility; the advantage of competing programs such as your own > (paludis) and pkgcore is that you don't have the whole of Gentoo's > user-base and you can remain much more agile in that type of space. Largely irrelevant. What you mean there is, "there's no way of changing Portage in such a way that we can be sure it won't explode horribly, because we have no static checking, no design consistency and far too few test cases". > I also think either you are ignoring the changes or you are just > unaware of things that the portage team (aka Zac for the most > part ;)) has been working on. Many of these things are internal > behind the scenes changes and they don't require any user-level > modification. That's just it. Portage needs to deliver major visible improvements at the user level for Gentoo to get anywhere. Managing a Gentoo system is much harder now than it was a few years ago, but the tools are largely the same. > > * The wrong idea of what the user base is, and what the target user > > base is. Gentoo's direction is too heavily influenced by a small > > number of extremely noisy ricer forum users, many of whom don't > > even run Gentoo. Unfortunately, this self-perpetuating clique > > wields huge amounts of influence. > > I was certain that Gentoo's direction was influenced by the people > working on Gentoo; not ricers. Do you have any examples of when the > ricers changed the direction of things in Gentoo. Sunrise is the canonical example. Also consider the way the forums are being run (like it or not, the forums are taken by many to be representative of Gentoo's user base)... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Why I don't think the CoC is a good idea
Hi all, I've been voicing my concern repeatedly on irc, and I believe that it would probably be more effective here. I believe that the solution of adopting a Code of Conduct, especially in this rushed way, will ultimately hurt us, and that the disadvantages far outweight the benefits. Our arguably most valuable resource is the community of developers, who are spending all this time and efforts in gentoo because they have *fun* doing it. And I believe that adding yet another layer of bureaucracy and restricting freedom (even for the good cause) will take away some more of this fun we are desperately needing now. It seems that gentoo is getting itself a full penal system, with a corpus of laws and a team whose job will be to enforce it. It is inevitable that if we engage in this way, we will end up having more and more legal discussions about whether foo did exactly bar as described by article 33.5 alinea b and so can be punished up to a 37 day ban. And as new borderline cases will be examined, more precise laws will be added, sucking up time and fun in trials and multiple appeals, etc. The answer to that remark, and it has already been done in today's discussions, is that we should follow the spirit of the law and not its letter. But then, why do we need a Code of Conduct at all? There is nothing in it that people don't already know and if they choose to still commit the offense, it's either that they don't think it's one or that they choose to ignore the consequences and commit it anyway. In both cases, having a written code won't change a thing. Having a team whose job it is to enforce this good behaviour thing will perhaps change the mind of some of the people who choose the second option, but if repression was really working, why are there still murders and thiefs in our societies? I am more concerned with giving a team some power over what can and what can't be said. If only because sometimes, something can offend someone and not others, or can be misinterpreted, and that in those cases, no one is right or wrong. As has been repeatedly pointed in many occasions, the written media and the differences of languages and cultures make it very difficult to understand the tone of messages and can generate very different reactions. If one is to carefully watch his steps before ever saying anything, it will led straight into politically correct and saying "hearing impaired" instead of "deaf", etc. And it will make the project a lot less fun, by restricting one's freedom of speech. I think that everyone should be free to participate in any discussion as long as some outrageous behaviours like racism are not shown and that the discussion stays on topic. But forcing people to not flame (and how does one define that anyway?) is simply an unnecessary freedom restriction. Great ideas can come from heated discussions, which can even be considered as a sign of good health, since people care enough to defend their ideas with passion. Or sometimes it is just funny, even if not everyone "gets it". As long as one doesn't have to participate to this discussion, I don't see any problem. So my "solution" would be to just let things go as they currently are. If people want to make asses of themselves in public, great, let them do just that. If you don't like someone else, just don't read what they post. But if you freely choose to participate to a flame, live with the consequences, including the possibility of being called names by someone else (I don't know if there is an english equivalent, but a french saying goes like : "it's a gourmet delice to be called an asshole by an idiot") and don't complain afterwards about it, because by acknowledging the very existence of the trolls, you fed them and gave them a target. I'm sorry to have been so long (and I have a lot more to say!) but this is more or less why I think both the idea and its proposed implementation are bad and will ultimately hurt us. Regards, /Alexandre -- Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature. pgpCmy7LaQfUC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:30:32 -0500 Steev Klimaszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > >> Personally I understand why flameeyes took that to bugzilla; how else > >> could he say he'd gone thru the appropriate channels? Devrel (a > >> group, not an individual) weren't set up to respond quickly as others > >> have informed us all. > > > > Case in point: you need to distinguish between flameeyes leaving (again) > > as a publicity stunt because his attempt to blackmail devrel failed and > > flameeyes' stated reason for leaving... > > > > > It was an ultimatum. He goes or I go, it was not blackmail. FFS, can > we please stop calling it blackmail? As I recall, flameeyes made the statement to kloeri, and kloeri called it blackmail. Whatever you call it, in business, issuing such an ultimatum is one of the quickest ways to become unemployed. > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list Regards, - -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6-ecc01.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFF+HzzQa6M3+I///cRAgbrAKDegV4ZTzktAo3xspKdFZtXv4NWgwCgnWHc 0JtrXM0K3jT7G10qqWTrGYI= =ciKo -END PGP SIGNATURE- éí¢^¾§¶(® X§X¬
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems (was: Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo)
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > All that we'd find out is the kind of user that actively follows > requests for information and responds to them. Gentoo currently doesn't > have a way of interacting with all the other users out there... Of course you would only find out about the user that responds to the request. I do still claim that the input could well be worthwhile and I feel proofed by how many tried to achive this in the past, yet sadly failed - which I dont see as a problem, since at least not all tries failed because of technical issues. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > That's the exact opposite of my reading. The so-called mess in the > last couple of weeks is nothing so unusual - happens every few months > or so, and IMO it's more about steam venting than the specific > issues at hand at the time. Responding to the sort of pathetic > blogging seen on Distrowatch is a bad thing, its sends the signal that > rantings on the blog-o-sphere are due some respect, which the article > of the 13th certainly does not. Personally I couldn't care less what anyone (e.g. distrowatch) is writing about gentoo. What I do see however is that the atmosphere on -dev has become such (and is still, even after the latest big flame) that arguments (that often get personal) dominate the discussions. The bad part about it is that it drives away users interested in development, and even worse, developers. This has developed to a point where development discussions is hardly held on the -dev list. I want to stop the main gentoo development forum from becomming a debian^H^H^H^H^H^Hgentoo-politics. Paul ps. If someone wanted to start a gentoo-politics, by all means, go ahead, just don't expect anyone to read it. -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgprrQKZpDyVy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
Caleb Cushing wrote: Perhaps they're more interested in generating ad revenue from whipped-up scandals... or maybe they have a point. distrowatch hpd ranking show's us down from a few years ago we were 7 in '04 9 '05 10 '06 11-12 '07 Yeah, the good old days when Gentoo was the new cool kid in block were over. right now were 12 going up probably from all the sites saying negative things. funny sabayon a gentoo fork and overlay is in 8. I know these statistics aren't 100% accurate (given how they're generated) but maybe they mean something. If you analyze a moment what kind of users navigate through available distros on DW, you will actually see that our rank is better than before. The users that end up on DW, searching for a new distro to fit their needs, are looking mostly for a desktop distro. Since Sabayon is mostly a pre-installed Gentoo build for desktop purposes, we could claim that our score is actually Gentoo.HPD + Sabayon.HPD. On the last 6 months, this would place us on the 4th rank. Not bad for a meta-distribution, isn't it? :) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Caleb Cushing schrieb: > right now were 12 going up probably from all the sites saying negative > things. funny sabayon a gentoo fork and overlay is in 8. I know these > statistics aren't 100% accurate (given how they're generated) but maybe > they mean something. I just had to check that one out. Haven't been to Distrowatch for about a year. Some thoughts I had: *The person addressed here is not Caleb. This is targeted at the "general" public of this list* - - Sabayon is a liveCD. It is created to make people interested. Why? Because this is not the recovery-boot-into-ram-fire-up-bash-and-restore-your-hd sort of LiveCD. This one is full featured. So whom does it target? People who are not sure what they want yet. That is a good thing. I haven't been sure what kind of distro I'd need for years. I probably even have more LiveCDs then AOL-Install CDs in my home - - and there isn't a single week where that ISP doesn't send out it's trash. So people are interested. They want to try before they buy and thus throw in some LiveCD. Everything is working nicely? Cool. Just install it to your HD and you can be sure that there won't be any trouble configuring the Kernel or some daemons. - - BUT: This is Gentoo. Why do you use it? Because it is some easily running mildly secure out of the box distro? Or do you use it because it gives you the power to do whatever you like, taking all the chances to create (and break) your perfect system? Because it will never force you to use something like Yast? Because you can create about anything from a full-fledged high-end gaming machine to a webserver to an embedded system of about 25 MB? And if you want Pentium-M optimized packages with SSP and PIE - no Problem. Just change half a dozen options in make.conf and recompile. You are even able to play around. I got a computer casemodded into a Record Player. It is running Gentoo, boots up in about 5 Seconds and listens to my voice commands in order to play music. No other distro could have been adjusted this drastically. And that is why I (<- subjective individualist opinion) love and use Gentoo. - - I never looked at Gentoo as some sort of mainstream Distribution. If Gentoo intended to win a popularity contest it would work completely differently from the ground up. Most users aren't interested in choices. No matter how much flames/traffic I get on all the Gentoo-related lists (which recently has become a lot), no matter what Distrowatch, Golem or some other site says, no matter how many breakages I get from emerge - -uDv world (as long as I'll still be able to keep my system running) - I'll continue to use Gentoo because it is the only system that fits my needs. I know that right now everyone is quite edgy. That many people try to defend what they are and who they are and that many people are angry. Many of them are right. But opposed to that I want to say something completely different: Thank You. Thanks to all the old devs, thanks to all the new devs, thanks to everyone contributing and thanks to the many whom I've forgotten. In my opinion this is still one of the bests distros around. And you made that possible. My two cents Paul -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFF+HjpaHrXRd80sY8RClkHAKDn3NEB1fmob+I6QNyU2OZFhsW81ACg30eL HV82ePFVhCJpnLSqduoHQeA= =SmR9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems (was: Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo)
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:22:55 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I cannot agree on the Genstef-thingy, nor can I proof you wrong, but > I'd be please if in general such things could be done anonymous as it > is in some way FUD and might fuel flames...userrel and userreps are > there to be talked to about such things. Well that's my point. Userrel and userreps have nothing to do with such things. And although QA and devrel can, in theory, take action, it isn't happening. > > * The wrong idea of what the user base is > > That this can be fixed in a relatively short time of concentrated > working by a single person has been proofed yet. (It has not been me.) > Why not just do it? All that we'd find out is the kind of user that actively follows requests for information and responds to them. Gentoo currently doesn't have a way of interacting with all the other users out there... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Personally I understand why flameeyes took that to bugzilla; how else could he say he'd gone thru the appropriate channels? Devrel (a group, not an individual) weren't set up to respond quickly as others have informed us all. Case in point: you need to distinguish between flameeyes leaving (again) as a publicity stunt because his attempt to blackmail devrel failed and flameeyes' stated reason for leaving... It was an ultimatum. He goes or I go, it was not blackmail. FFS, can we please stop calling it blackmail? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
Hello Alec On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 02:41:10PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > > 11:16:24 <@genstef> hansmi: bah fix your qa stuff yourself if you think > > I am wrong. I wont do something I dont agree with > I would like to also point out that your quoted irc snippet is very weak > as there is no explanation to what the issue is nor why genstef is being > bothered about it. For the sake of completeness, here's the full context: (2006-01-06, 12:08 CET, 11:08 UTC) [12:08:32] genstef: ping, please fix net-www/gnash-0.7.2_p2009. It must not use KEYWORDS="-*" according to http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/ [12:09:50] hansmi: i thought the discussion was still ongoing as to whether that could still be valid [12:11:44] masterdriverz: as far as I know, the devmanual is normative [12:13:49] hansmi: well imho having -* in live and testing ebuild is a good thing [12:14:06] but i know a lot of other people disagree with that viewpoint [12:15:32] * marienz kicks masterdriverz [12:15:35] masterdriverz: No. [12:15:41] *incremental* [12:15:44] :( [12:15:48] masterdriverz: In that case, you set "", not "-*". [12:16:20] lol [12:16:24] hansmi: bah fix your qa stuff yourself if you think I am wrong. I wont do something I dont agree with [12:16:27] it sort of works atm, but I hope that's only because not all ebuilds have been fixed yet [12:16:56] marienz: Paludis doesn't accept it anymore [12:17:20] pkgcore only accepts it some of the time (it breaks rather regularly) [12:18:09] hansmi: i guess if that worked it would be fine... [12:18:57] masterdriverz: There's still p.mask Greets, Michael -- Gentoo Linux developer, http://hansmi.ch/, http://forkbomb.ch/ pgpCtnOYWpCVb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > So you consider it acceptable to remove the user's ability to use > packages and dependencies of those packages because of some personal > dislikes? > It should not be personal dislikes. Such a strong position should be well considered by the ones responsible. Making things personal is highly unprofessional and would hopefully lead to many developers leaving. > What gives Gentoo the right to screw over users in such a manner? Gentoo is gentoo. As a developer I like to think that we keep long term user interests at heart. I also know that I mainly do things out of my own desire. I don't go out looking for users to find out what they want. I look at what I want. (And yes that includes an improved/replaced package manager) What I really don't want however is anyone strongholding gentoo. If it is hurting gentoo to reject the contributions of someone, the situation has already gotten out of hand. I don't believe that people are that irreplaceable. Even if they are, that is something that is damaging to the projects continuity. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpj2RsoW22bZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 23:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >at do you think users will say when told that their system will > remain vulnerable to a remote root hole because Gentoo won't accept a > fix from a particular person? Do you think they'll smile, nod and > accept that their system is about to get taken over by some kid in > Russia, or do you think they'll scream and switch to Ubuntu? As I wrote elsewhere in this thread I think I can safely say that the Security Team is not going to check the origin and behaviour of all patch contributors, for one thing we simply don't have the manpower to do this. So let's just cut the security part off here. -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz) pgpTWCzX6AHP2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems (was: Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo)
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I cannot agree on the Genstef-thingy, nor can I proof you wrong, but I'd be please if in general such things could be done anonymous as it is in some way FUD and might fuel flames...userrel and userreps are there to be talked to about such things. > * The wrong idea of what the user base is That this can be fixed in a relatively short time of concentrated working by a single person has been proofed yet. (It has not been me.) Why not just do it? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 23:02, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:31:17 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, this cannot have any backward application, nor should it. All > > contributions made while respecting the guidelines, are valid > > contributions. Yes, it prevents any further contributions in the > > future - be it package updates, new features, bug corrections or > > security updates. > > So you consider it acceptable to leave Gentoo users open to security > holes and crashes because of some personal dislikes? As a member of the security team I don't see us banning patches from any developer based on their behaviour. So let's just cut of that part of the discussion here. -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz) pgphuqmDEEbgG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:56:31 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could you explain how this is implausible. Removing contributions by > a certain person may be silly or impossible. Refusing to accept new > contributions is, while a very harsh measure, a possibility. Perhaps not implausible in its strictest sense, as it could be done. It would, however, be a monumentally stupid idea in the general case, if said user happened to be a contributor upstream to widely-used packages, or happened to discover an important security bug in such a package. Leaving users without important applications, or vulnerable to security holes, because of what is essentially a personal dislike, is frankly a moronic proposition. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:56:31 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Stephen Bennett wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 > > > > "Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be > > > your answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all > > > that, assuming it's all rethoric, what is your opinion? > > > > I think his intention was to demonstrate that the idea is > > implausible, at best counterproductive and at worst disastrous. > > Which it is, and which he did fairly well. > > Could you explain how this is implausible. Removing contributions by > a certain person may be silly or impossible. Refusing to accept new > contributions is, while a very harsh measure, a possibility. Right up until the point where it leads to data loss, security holes or the inability to use important packages... What do you think users will say when told that their system will remain vulnerable to a remote root hole because Gentoo won't accept a fix from a particular person? Do you think they'll smile, nod and accept that their system is about to get taken over by some kid in Russia, or do you think they'll scream and switch to Ubuntu? Heck, that this even has to be spelt out is pretty scary... (Bear in mind that claiming to have independently rediscovered a hole and indepedently recreated a two line security change is not exactly going to go over well either...) -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
"Caleb Cushing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > right now were 12 going up probably from all the sites saying > negative things. funny sabayon a gentoo fork and overlay is in 8. I > know these statistics aren't 100% accurate (given how they're > generated) but maybe they mean something. Maybe part of the reason is that the list of package versions for Gentoo on distrowatch is inaccurate. For example it gives the versions of gcc and glibc in 'unstable' as 3.4.6 and 2.3.6 respectively when the actual versions are 4.1.2 and 2.5 respectively. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:31:17 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, this cannot have any backward application, nor should it. All > contributions made while respecting the guidelines, are valid > contributions. Yes, it prevents any further contributions in the > future - be it package updates, new features, bug corrections or > security updates. So you consider it acceptable to leave Gentoo users open to security holes and crashes because of some personal dislikes? > No, this does not prevent Gentoo from using software packages where > user XYZ contributes upstream. In my view, if Gentoo does decide to > ban an user and has a good relationship with upstream, we should > alert upstream and provide evidence of the behaviour that led to the > user ban. However, if upstream = user XYZ and the product is just a > Gentoo package, then it should also be blocked - that would be a > clever way to avoid the ban. Any other doubt about my proposal? So you consider it acceptable to remove the user's ability to use packages and dependencies of those packages because of some personal dislikes? What gives Gentoo the right to screw over users in such a manner? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
quoth the Albert Hopkins: > [Comment about Gentoo's non-participation in LSB] > > While I somewhat agree, I think Gentoo's main selling point (at least > for me) is that is the way it stands out from your typical Linux distro. > It's source-based package system was once what distinguished it from the > rest. In summary, I don't think Gentoo should totally adapt to what > "the rest" are going any more than I think Slackware or GoboLinux > should. What I do see is that perhaps there are ideas that Gentoo has > that maybe other distros could benefit from, and vice versa. But > sometimes we have to agree to disagree with "mainstream". > Albert W. Hopkins Exactly. LSBs insistence on using RPM as the "One True Package Manager" seems incredibly daft to me. It was RPM-hell that steered me towards Gentoo all those years ago in the first place. I cannot put into words how much I loathe RPM. Seems to me if Gentoo wholesale adopted the LSB then it would be little more than another Redhat/SuSe clone no? And nobody here wants that, do they? Portage (or the tree as Ciaran puts it) is _still_ the chief reason I use Gentoo, and I rather think it will always be... just another Gentoo luser, -d -- darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..." - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Stephen Bennett wrote: > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 > > "Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your > > answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming > > it's all rethoric, what is your opinion? > > I think his intention was to demonstrate that the idea is implausible, > at best counterproductive and at worst disastrous. Which it is, and > which he did fairly well. Could you explain how this is implausible. Removing contributions by a certain person may be silly or impossible. Refusing to accept new contributions is, while a very harsh measure, a possibility. Paul ps. Let me remind everyone that this is about new conduct, not about past behaviour. If anyone is afraid of the measures, all they have to do is behave properly. -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpNuifNQkgI3.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Last rites dev-java/oscore and oscore-bin
Last rites for dev-java/oscore and oscore-bin Last upstream release July 2005. Still generation 1 java package and will be moved to junkyard overlay. No maintainer and not sure anyone managing herd cares to maintain. It's been p.masked and in 30 days (once overlay is created) it will be removed from tree, and added to the Java junkyard overlay :) -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ. >> > > Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or > refusing to accept updates to their previous contributions? Does this > extend to ignoring security advisories, security patches and critical > bug fix patches published by that person? Does this extend to refusing > to use upstream software that contains code by that person? > > No, this cannot have any backward application, nor should it. All contributions made while respecting the guidelines, are valid contributions. Yes, it prevents any further contributions in the future - be it package updates, new features, bug corrections or security updates. No, this does not prevent Gentoo from using software packages where user XYZ contributes upstream. In my view, if Gentoo does decide to ban an user and has a good relationship with upstream, we should alert upstream and provide evidence of the behaviour that led to the user ban. However, if upstream = user XYZ and the product is just a Gentoo package, then it should also be blocked - that would be a clever way to avoid the ban. Any other doubt about my proposal? -- Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo-forums / Userrel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > * Portage. Gentoo hasn't delivered anything useful or cool for two > years or so. Things like layman are merely workarounds for severe > Portage limitations (not a criticism of layman). Delivery to end users > is based around what's possible with Portage, not what people want or > need. In the mean time, managing a Gentoo system has become much more > complicated due to the increased number of packages on a typical system > and the increased requirements for the average user. Combined with > serious improvements in the competition, Gentoo's benefits are rapidly > diminishing. Until there's a general admission that Portage is severely > holding Gentoo back, anything delivered by Gentoo will be far below > what could really be done. Portage is being incrementally improved. I'm not trying to rag on the former or the current portage crew; certainly it moves slowly. Much of it needs rewriting; my preference is to have more tests so that when stuff gets rewritten people aren't completly ruining the existing system, so my focus has been on tests and docs. Occasionally I work on features (glep 42 was one of those). People are free to submit patches and I think the portage team^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Zac does a decent job of integrating them. The only recent one that didn't get applied was the parallelization one; and I think zmedico has some plans for how he wants to accomplish that. > > It's been claimed that Gentoo lacks direction. It's more accurate to > say that the inability to change Portage prevents Gentoo from going > anywhere. That small interface improvements can be passed off as a big > deal and that users get excited over minor config file tweaks is > indicative of how low people's expectations really are. > The portage team has always been hesitant to break backwards compatibility; the advantage of competing programs such as your own (paludis) and pkgcore is that you don't have the whole of Gentoo's user-base and you can remain much more agile in that type of space. I also think either you are ignoring the changes or you are just unaware of things that the portage team (aka Zac for the most part ;)) has been working on. Many of these things are internal behind the scenes changes and they don't require any user-level modification. > * Similarly, the belief that Portage defines Gentoo and represents a > lot of work. The tree defines Gentoo, and contains far more code than a > mere package manager. > I agree with that statement. > * Low QA expectations. Gentoo's QA isn't any worse than it was two > years ago. However, expectations are much higher due to improvements in > other distributions, and the increase in tree complexity makes > mistakes much more severe. > > Mistakes can be classified as those that can be detected automatically > (things are improving in this area -- for one example, adjutrix is being > used to detect forced downgrades), and those that can't. Reducing the > latter involves education and ensuring that developers are aware of > expectations -- developers shouldn't be relying upon the QA team to do > QA. > > Unfortunately, some developers simply won't fix QA mistakes. When > something like this happens: > > 11:16:24 <@genstef> hansmi: bah fix your qa stuff yourself if you think > I am wrong. I wont do something I dont agree with > > something has to be done to prevent the developer in question from > continuing to hurt the users. > I can agree with parts of your statement. Particularly the expectations are not set out anywhere (not even by the QA team). There are no metrics, no data; it does not surprise me when QA is lax. There is QA policy of course (devmanual and devrel docs) but most of that relies on common sense (when is breaking the rules ok, when is it not, etc...) I said the same thing when Halcy0n led QA; if all the devs can't agree on the expectations of Quality Assurance within Gentoo there is no point in enforcing much of anything (aside from what I would term; black/white QA violations; ie no one in their right mind would think it wasn't a violation). However many violations are in a gray area in between and thus enforcement as well is...gray and not well executed. I would like to also point out that your quoted irc snippet is very weak as there is no explanation to what the issue is nor why genstef is being bothered about it. I realize you most likely meant it as an example of something that often happens (ie dev A does something, dev B calls him on it, dev A and dev B disagree on what proper course of action is; one dev must then have the bigger balls to either revert/fix or back down), however it may be good to use a made up instance in the future; lest your statement be misconstrued. > * The wrong idea of what the user base is, and what the target user > base is. Gentoo's direction is too heavily influenced by a small number > of extremely noisy ricer forum users, many of whom don't even run > Gentoo. Unfortunately,
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
[Oh no! How did I let myself get sucked into a gentoo-dev thread? ;-)] On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 13:31 -0700, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: [...] > I'll just throw out a couple of my own comments: > [ I'm skipping the first one because it doesn't interest me] [Comment about Gentoo's non-participation in LSB] While I somewhat agree, I think Gentoo's main selling point (at least for me) is that is the way it stands out from your typical Linux distro. It's source-based package system was once what distinguished it from the rest. In summary, I don't think Gentoo should totally adapt to what "the rest" are going any more than I think Slackware or GoboLinux should. What I do see is that perhaps there are ideas that Gentoo has that maybe other distros could benefit from, and vice versa. But sometimes we have to agree to disagree with "mainstream". As for "enterprise"... that's fine. Gentoo has traditionally been the kind of distro that throws you just enough rope to hang oneself, so I never really considered it an "enterprise" Linux, but if that is the direction that it wants to head in then it benefit it to make it more known to the general public. [Stuff about distrowatch, other distros and "market" share...] > Gentoo "share of mind" is dropping and dropping rapidly, although I don't > think > it's because of misbehavior in the community. I think it's because: > > a. Daniel Robbins left and went to Microsoft, leaving no "Mr. Gentoo", and I would generalize this more. I would say that "Mr. Gentoo" isn't/wasn't Daniel Robbins but Larry, and in recent times Larry has not enlightened us with his vision of Gentoo and where it's going. We have http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml but where do we go from there? Maybe we need to have a sit down with Larry so we can know what Gentoo really is. > b. No effort to seek corporate support, at least none that I'm aware of. I would also like to generalize this more. Instead of "corporate support" I would say funding, whether it's corporate or what. I think it's important to convince people that they should give us money, and we should have the wisdom and capability of receiving said money and doing something productive with it. > In short, I'm not sure there is any future for *any* "pure community > distro". Somehow Gentoo needs to at least find a marketable defendable > niche and some kind of corporate sponsorship. Maybe embedded will turn > out to be that niche -- I'd love to have even 1/4 of Portage on > something like a Zaurus or "iPhone". It's NFP, but even NFP has to have some sort of structure and unified vision. Even my neighborhood coop has decent solidarity and a marketing strategy. -- Albert W. Hopkins -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
Christian Faulhammer wrote: "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: So please, friends, just ignore it, nothing positive will come of it. Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view on Gentoo even more. From many comments I read we are a dying distro. V-Li Gentoo will never die; it will just get forked and carry on. ;-) Mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 18:18 +0100, Christian Faulhammer wrote: > "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > So please, friends, just ignore it, nothing positive will come of it. > > Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view > on Gentoo even more. From many comments I read we are a dying distro. Gentoo will die the moment nobody cares for it any more; as long as big news sites care to spread some FUD about it every now and then, this is definitely not the case! so heads up - Gentoo is a great distro! -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:31:57 -0700 "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. As far as I'm concerned, the one thing that absolutely positively > should have happened now but hasn't is some scheme where you have > something like Red Hat/Fedora's "green checkmark/red bang" indicator > on your desk, indicating whether your system is up to date, and a > classification of the available updates into security, bug fixes and > enhancements. I don't ever remember how long Red Hat has had that, > and I know Debian and the other apt-based package managers have > something similar, even if it's just a command-line level. On Gentoo, > even with the latest Portage, I do "emerge --sync; emerge -puvDN > world" and just get a list. There's no way to tell which of those are > must-haves for security without reading changelogs. paludis has a --report that wouldn't be to hard to copy or adapt for a graphical environment. The tree doesn't carry information about whether an upgrade is important or not, however (security aside), so one of the following would have to happen for non-security critical updates: * Affected versions would have to be package.masked * A GLEP 42 news item would have to be released * GLSAs would have to be extended to do non-security things. Personally I'd find the second option most useful, and it wouldn't be hard to deliver... > 2. Just last year, the organization that is developing the LSB (Linux > Standard Base) standards got around to forming a working group on > package management. Bluntly put, everybody's package management sucks > in some way or another, and there are three major Linux package > management systems (RPM, apt and Portage) in addition to Perl, > Python, Ruby, PHP and R all having their own package management > systems. But ... the Red Hat/RPM/yum folks were there ... the > Debian/Ubuntu/apt folks were there ... and I think the Perl and > Python people were there ... Gentoo wasn't! The LSB sucks even more than not having a standard at all. This one's been discussed at length previously. > > * Similarly, the belief that Portage defines Gentoo and represents a > > lot of work. The tree defines Gentoo, and contains far more code > > than a mere package manager. > > > The tree, like an ordinary tree, is a complex adaptive system, > including code, developers and users. I obviously don't have the same > insight as a developer, but I think it's in pretty good shape. As > near as I can tell, it's second only to Debian in terms of its size. > There may be more RPMs world-wide than there are .debs or ebuilds, > but they *aren't* all together in one place. The tree is in better shape than Portage, yes. If you think it's ideal, you're probably not asking yourself the right questions... > > * The wrong idea of what the user base is, and what the target user > > base is. Gentoo's direction is too heavily influenced by a small > > number of extremely noisy ricer forum users, many of whom don't > > even run Gentoo. Unfortunately, this self-perpetuating clique > > wields huge amounts of influence. > > You may not know what the user base is, but you can probably get a > pretty good idea of how *large* it is relative to Fedora, Ubuntu, > Debian and openSuSE by doing some simple web page hit statistics > research using publicly-available tools and data. And I think you'll > be amazed at how small that base is. Distrowatch was right about that > part -- Gentoo "share of mind" is dropping and dropping rapidly, > although I don't think it's because of misbehavior in the community. > I think it's because: > > a. Daniel Robbins left and went to Microsoft, leaving no "Mr. > Gentoo", and Eh, that's not really relevant. You're assuming that Daniel was hugely influential right up until he left. That isn't the case. > b. No effort to seek corporate support, at least none that I'm aware of. Gentoo can't deliver anything amazingly useful to corporations with Portage the way it is. If Gentoo had a package manager that could handle managing large numbers of non-identical systems with ease it would have a major selling point. Gentoo doesn't have lots of users because it has nothing to offer most people over the competition. What was unique five years ago is now largely irrlevant due to improvements in the competition. By not keeping up, Gentoo is getting Red Queened. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 21:31, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: > 1. As far as I'm concerned, the one thing that absolutely positively > should have happened now but hasn't is some scheme where you have > something like Red Hat/Fedora's "green checkmark/red bang" indicator on > your desk, indicating whether your system is up to date, and a > classification of the available updates into security, bug fixes and > enhancements. I don't ever remember how long Red Hat has had that, and I > know Debian and the other apt-based package managers have something > similar, even if it's just a command-line level. On Gentoo, even with > the latest Portage, I do "emerge --sync; emerge -puvDN world" and just > get a list. There's no way to tell which of those are must-haves for > security without reading changelogs. Modify and add this to your crontab: 30 6 * * * /usr/bin/glsa-check -d affected 2>&1 | mail -s "`hostname -f`: glsa-check" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note it should all be on one line. HTH -- Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz) pgp2Kf4r0cwnA.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Removing of package games-rpg/planeshift
games-rpg has been masked on 18 jul 2006 and there is a pending bug #167547 Broken dependancies in "games-rpg/planeshift-0.3.011" Removing is planned for this end of week: 17 Mar 2007. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] A User's View of the Code of Conduct
Larry Lines wrote: I learned Linux by installing and hacking and suffering over Gentoo. Exactly one year after installing Gentoo, I was in Hong Kong building and programming for a Linux cluster. There is no other distribution that compresses the learning curve like that. I still can't figure out what is supposed to be easier about running Redhat or Fedora. Sure installation is easier but then you don't know where anything is and you can't tweak anything easily. And that's precisely because a whole generation of RHCEs knows *exactly* where everything is on a Red Hat or Fedora system, and Gentoo puts everything somewhere else. :) If I were an RHCE, I'd have just as much trouble customizing and tweaking a Gentoo (or Debian) box as you would on a Fedora system. I know ... I've flunked the dang RHCE exam *twice* for that very reason! :) It's about repetition, muscle memory, rote learning, etc. -- not about Red Hat being "better" than Gentoo or the other way around. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P) http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
On 14/03/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:30:37 +0100 Alexandre Buisse > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I quite agree with the Patriot act comparison, and I would be >> interested to know what you think our real problems are. >> > > Not a complete list, but probably a good starting point: > > * Portage. Gentoo hasn't delivered anything useful or cool for two > years or so. Things like layman are merely workarounds for severe > Portage limitations (not a criticism of layman). Delivery to end users > is based around what's possible with Portage, not what people want or > need. In the mean time, managing a Gentoo system has become much more > complicated due to the increased number of packages on a typical system > and the increased requirements for the average user. Combined with > serious improvements in the competition, Gentoo's benefits are rapidly > diminishing. Until there's a general admission that Portage is severely > holding Gentoo back, anything delivered by Gentoo will be far below > what could really be done. > > It's been claimed that Gentoo lacks direction. It's more accurate to > say that the inability to change Portage prevents Gentoo from going > anywhere. That small interface improvements can be passed off as a big > deal and that users get excited over minor config file tweaks is > indicative of how low people's expectations really are. > > I don't claim to know everything that users want from the package > manager. I know that everything in [1] has been described by at least > one user as a major advantage for not using Portage. Unfortunately, > most of these aren't things that can be delivered easily with the > current codebase. > > (Incidentally, since someone will probably try this argument: I held > these beliefs long before I started work on a Portage alternative.) > Well, I assume most everyone on this list has read the blog post about Gentoo being unsuitable for servers. If not, I can hunt it down, but it's a starting point for discussions about Portage and package managers. I'll just throw out a couple of my own comments: 1. As far as I'm concerned, the one thing that absolutely positively should have happened now but hasn't is some scheme where you have something like Red Hat/Fedora's "green checkmark/red bang" indicator on your desk, indicating whether your system is up to date, and a classification of the available updates into security, bug fixes and enhancements. I don't ever remember how long Red Hat has had that, and I know Debian and the other apt-based package managers have something similar, even if it's just a command-line level. On Gentoo, even with the latest Portage, I do "emerge --sync; emerge -puvDN world" and just get a list. There's no way to tell which of those are must-haves for security without reading changelogs. 2. Just last year, the organization that is developing the LSB (Linux Standard Base) standards got around to forming a working group on package management. Bluntly put, everybody's package management sucks in some way or another, and there are three major Linux package management systems (RPM, apt and Portage) in addition to Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP and R all having their own package management systems. But ... the Red Hat/RPM/yum folks were there ... the Debian/Ubuntu/apt folks were there ... and I think the Perl and Python people were there ... Gentoo wasn't! There doesn't seem to be any Gentoo representation on the Linux Standards Base at all! So a "standard Linux" will end up being some usable compromise between Red Hat/Fedora, Debian/Ubuntu, Novell/SuSE, Perl/CPAN, Apache, MySQL/PostgreSQL, Python and PHP. > * Similarly, the belief that Portage defines Gentoo and represents a > lot of work. The tree defines Gentoo, and contains far more code than a > mere package manager. > The tree, like an ordinary tree, is a complex adaptive system, including code, developers and users. I obviously don't have the same insight as a developer, but I think it's in pretty good shape. As near as I can tell, it's second only to Debian in terms of its size. There may be more RPMs world-wide than there are .debs or ebuilds, but they *aren't* all together in one place. > * The wrong idea of what the user base is, and what the target user > base is. Gentoo's direction is too heavily influenced by a small number > of extremely noisy ricer forum users, many of whom don't even run > Gentoo. Unfortunately, this self-perpetuating clique wields huge > amounts of influence. > You may not know what the user base is, but you can probably get a pretty good idea of how *large* it is relative to Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian and openSuSE by doing some simple web page hit statistics research using publicly-available tools and data. And I think you'll be amazed at how small that base is. Distrowatch was right about that part -- Gentoo "share of mind" is dropping and dropping rapidly, although I don't think it's becau
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:30:37 +0100 Alexandre Buisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I quite agree with the Patriot act comparison, and I would be interested to know what you think our real problems are. Not a complete list, but probably a good starting point: * Portage. Gentoo hasn't delivered anything useful or cool for two years or so. Things like layman are merely workarounds for severe Portage limitations (not a criticism of layman). Delivery to end users is based around what's possible with Portage, not what people want or need. In the mean time, managing a Gentoo system has become much more complicated due to the increased number of packages on a typical system and the increased requirements for the average user. Combined with serious improvements in the competition, Gentoo's benefits are rapidly diminishing. Until there's a general admission that Portage is severely holding Gentoo back, anything delivered by Gentoo will be far below what could really be done. It's been claimed that Gentoo lacks direction. It's more accurate to say that the inability to change Portage prevents Gentoo from going anywhere. That small interface improvements can be passed off as a big deal and that users get excited over minor config file tweaks is indicative of how low people's expectations really are. I don't claim to know everything that users want from the package manager. I know that everything in [1] has been described by at least one user as a major advantage for not using Portage. Unfortunately, most of these aren't things that can be delivered easily with the current codebase. (Incidentally, since someone will probably try this argument: I held these beliefs long before I started work on a Portage alternative.) Well, I assume most everyone on this list has read the blog post about Gentoo being unsuitable for servers. If not, I can hunt it down, but it's a starting point for discussions about Portage and package managers. I'll just throw out a couple of my own comments: 1. As far as I'm concerned, the one thing that absolutely positively should have happened now but hasn't is some scheme where you have something like Red Hat/Fedora's "green checkmark/red bang" indicator on your desk, indicating whether your system is up to date, and a classification of the available updates into security, bug fixes and enhancements. I don't ever remember how long Red Hat has had that, and I know Debian and the other apt-based package managers have something similar, even if it's just a command-line level. On Gentoo, even with the latest Portage, I do "emerge --sync; emerge -puvDN world" and just get a list. There's no way to tell which of those are must-haves for security without reading changelogs. 2. Just last year, the organization that is developing the LSB (Linux Standard Base) standards got around to forming a working group on package management. Bluntly put, everybody's package management sucks in some way or another, and there are three major Linux package management systems (RPM, apt and Portage) in addition to Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP and R all having their own package management systems. But ... the Red Hat/RPM/yum folks were there ... the Debian/Ubuntu/apt folks were there ... and I think the Perl and Python people were there ... Gentoo wasn't! There doesn't seem to be any Gentoo representation on the Linux Standards Base at all! So a "standard Linux" will end up being some usable compromise between Red Hat/Fedora, Debian/Ubuntu, Novell/SuSE, Perl/CPAN, Apache, MySQL/PostgreSQL, Python and PHP. * Similarly, the belief that Portage defines Gentoo and represents a lot of work. The tree defines Gentoo, and contains far more code than a mere package manager. The tree, like an ordinary tree, is a complex adaptive system, including code, developers and users. I obviously don't have the same insight as a developer, but I think it's in pretty good shape. As near as I can tell, it's second only to Debian in terms of its size. There may be more RPMs world-wide than there are .debs or ebuilds, but they *aren't* all together in one place. * The wrong idea of what the user base is, and what the target user base is. Gentoo's direction is too heavily influenced by a small number of extremely noisy ricer forum users, many of whom don't even run Gentoo. Unfortunately, this self-perpetuating clique wields huge amounts of influence. You may not know what the user base is, but you can probably get a pretty good idea of how *large* it is relative to Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian and openSuSE by doing some simple web page hit statistics research using publicly-available tools and data. And I think you'll be amazed at how small that base is. Distrowatch was right about that part -- Gentoo "share of mind" is dropping and dropping rapidly, although I don't think it's because of misbehavior in the community. I think it's because: a. Daniel Robbins left and went to M
Re: [gentoo-dev] A User's View of the Code of Conduct
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:47:16 -0500 Larry Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So maybe I will stick around and maybe I will find a niche to help out > with that I can feel passionately enough to start a flame war. Yes please, by all means, do that (the helping out part, not the flame war part :) ). You see, behind those people flaming, there is quite a lot of people who don't say a word and just do their work on Gentoo. Of course, I didn't mean to imply that people involved in the flamefests aren't doing any work - some of them are working pretty hard and very well. Just that it is possible to enjoy working on Gentoo without having to wear asbestos suit. :) Kind regards, -- Andrej "Ticho" Kacian Gentoo Linux Developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
Alexandre Buisse wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 20:56:51 +0100, Caleb Cushing wrote: > >>> Perhaps they're more >>> interested in generating ad revenue from whipped-up scandals... >> >> or maybe they have a point. distrowatch hpd ranking show's us down from a >> few years ago we were >> 7 in '04 >> 9 '05 >> 10 '06 >> 11-12 '07 >> right now were 12 going up probably from all the sites saying negative >> things. funny sabayon a gentoo fork and overlay is in 8. I know these >> statistics aren't 100% accurate (given how they're generated) but maybe they >> mean something. > > It probably also means that we are not the latest trendy distro with > bells and whistles everywhere. > But I don't think that basing anything on DW rankings is really a good > idea (and how can one rank a distribution anyway? we don't even know how > many users we have!) > > /Alexandre Why would your server or random user visit distrowatch any way? Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 20:56:51 +0100, Caleb Cushing wrote: > > Perhaps they're more > >interested in generating ad revenue from whipped-up scandals... > > > or maybe they have a point. distrowatch hpd ranking show's us down from a > few years ago we were > 7 in '04 > 9 '05 > 10 '06 > 11-12 '07 > right now were 12 going up probably from all the sites saying negative > things. funny sabayon a gentoo fork and overlay is in 8. I know these > statistics aren't 100% accurate (given how they're generated) but maybe they > mean something. It probably also means that we are not the latest trendy distro with bells and whistles everywhere. But I don't think that basing anything on DW rankings is really a good idea (and how can one rank a distribution anyway? we don't even know how many users we have!) /Alexandre -- Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature. pgp3k6tonTW7d.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
Perhaps they're more interested in generating ad revenue from whipped-up scandals... or maybe they have a point. distrowatch hpd ranking show's us down from a few years ago we were 7 in '04 9 '05 10 '06 11-12 '07 right now were 12 going up probably from all the sites saying negative things. funny sabayon a gentoo fork and overlay is in 8. I know these statistics aren't 100% accurate (given how they're generated) but maybe they mean something.
Re: [gentoo-dev] A User's View of the Code of Conduct
I am replying to this email on the coc because I am pretty much coming from the same place as a user. I haven't been that involved with the community but I have been a user since 2002. I am a developer. It's funny, because I was considering getting more involved with development with Gentoo because I love Gentoo, so I joined the dev list a couple of days ago. Just in time to see the meat of a really nasty flame war. And I thought, "Wow maybe I don't want to be involved in this at all. Hell maybe I don't really want to use this distro at all anymore." But I kept lurking the discussion here and now I think I have changed my mind a bit. I even read the distrowatch article and some of the nastier lklm list exchanges and I have to say. I don't care about the flame wars. Have at it. And who cares what distrowatch has been saying. I remember in 2003 and 2004 reading Debian lists trashing Gentoo as well. Even ridiculing Gentoo. Gentoo is its own bird. You can say that there are choices where other distributions are concerned, but there is no choice for well-managed source distributions. There is only Gentoo. It attracts people that want to do something different and are not afraid of getting into the muck up to their necks. So don't hold back on how you really feel. Let 'em have it. Sling some mud. I was the moderator for a message board for artists and musicians for a site I created for a couple of years back in 2000 and 2001. At the time, somehow a couple of topics came up that started a flame war that lasted for months. Philosophy of art and music and people just jumping down each other's throats. I even had some philosophy professors join the board and started some long lasting threads. But people kept getting hurt and sending me email asking what I was going to do. I realized that I was going to have to start making the interactions more complicated with programming if I was going to moderate. I reprogrammed the site and implemented some rules and everybody left. I still run the site but there is very little interest. People wanted a place to argue and I killed it. I say forget the CoC. Let the flamers flame on. I think with as vague as people seem to want to keep the CoC it is better just to deal with it in a parliamentary way. When someone goes too far, it will be clear to everyone and everyone will know that they need to get rid of that person. And there is nothing wrong with Gentoo. I learned Linux by installing and hacking and suffering over Gentoo. Exactly one year after installing Gentoo, I was in Hong Kong building and programming for a Linux cluster. There is no other distribution that compresses the learning curve like that. I still can't figure out what is supposed to be easier about running Redhat or Fedora. Sure installation is easier but then you don't know where anything is and you can't tweak anything easily. So maybe I will stick around and maybe I will find a niche to help out with that I can feel passionately enough to start a flame war. Larry Lines On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 10:43 -0700, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: > I joined this list mostly to talk about the proposed code of conduct. > Let me state the context up front: > > 1. Some of you know I am a loyal Gentoo user. I run three > "testing-level" (pure ~x86 with an occasional local package mask when > something croaks) systems, I beta-test stuff I'm interested in, etc. I'd > volunteer as a developer if I had the time to do more than test stuff > and all that. Maybe when I retire from my day job. :) > > 2. I don't have any visibility into what exactly is going on in the > developer portion of the Gentoo community. But I can emphatically state > that it *doesn't* seem to be showing up as a reduction in quality of > what's coming onto my systems when I emerge a package! I don't run > anything else, like Ubuntu, Fedora, openSuSE or Debian, so I can't > compare Gentoo with the others. > > 3. I *have* read the dire comments on Distrowatch, but not much of the > auxiliary blogging. I don't visit the IRC channels and I don't in > general inhabit the forums. I am on quite a few of the mailing lists > and, given that I run ~x86, a frequent visitor to Bugzilla. If the dire > predictions are true -- if Gentoo dies -- most likely I will switch to > rPath/Conary and build my own distro, rather than leaping on the Fedora, > openSuSE, or Ubuntu/Debian bandwagon. > > On to the code of conduct. My belief is that it's entirely too weak! I'd > prefer a strict "no asshole" code. Screw up once -- get a stern > reprimand and a 30-day suspension of all privileges. Screw up twice and > it's bye-bye forever! I think there are something like hundreds of > thousands of talented open source developers out there, ranging in age > from maybe 13 to mid-70s or maybe even higher. There are many more of > "us" than there are positions on *all* of the major community open > source projects -- Linux itself,
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:18:58 +0100 Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > So please, friends, just ignore it, nothing positive will come of > > it. > > Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view > on Gentoo even more. From many comments I read we are a dying distro. Yeah; isn't the blog-o-sphere great :/ For a dying distro, we're showing up pretty active on http://cia.navi.cx/ - but then I guess DW aren't interested in anything so mundane as facts. Perhaps they're more interested in generating ad revenue from whipped-up scandals... -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo's problems (was: Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo)
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:30:37 +0100 Alexandre Buisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I quite agree with the Patriot act comparison, and I would be > interested to know what you think our real problems are. Not a complete list, but probably a good starting point: * Portage. Gentoo hasn't delivered anything useful or cool for two years or so. Things like layman are merely workarounds for severe Portage limitations (not a criticism of layman). Delivery to end users is based around what's possible with Portage, not what people want or need. In the mean time, managing a Gentoo system has become much more complicated due to the increased number of packages on a typical system and the increased requirements for the average user. Combined with serious improvements in the competition, Gentoo's benefits are rapidly diminishing. Until there's a general admission that Portage is severely holding Gentoo back, anything delivered by Gentoo will be far below what could really be done. It's been claimed that Gentoo lacks direction. It's more accurate to say that the inability to change Portage prevents Gentoo from going anywhere. That small interface improvements can be passed off as a big deal and that users get excited over minor config file tweaks is indicative of how low people's expectations really are. I don't claim to know everything that users want from the package manager. I know that everything in [1] has been described by at least one user as a major advantage for not using Portage. Unfortunately, most of these aren't things that can be delivered easily with the current codebase. (Incidentally, since someone will probably try this argument: I held these beliefs long before I started work on a Portage alternative.) * Similarly, the belief that Portage defines Gentoo and represents a lot of work. The tree defines Gentoo, and contains far more code than a mere package manager. * Low QA expectations. Gentoo's QA isn't any worse than it was two years ago. However, expectations are much higher due to improvements in other distributions, and the increase in tree complexity makes mistakes much more severe. Mistakes can be classified as those that can be detected automatically (things are improving in this area -- for one example, adjutrix is being used to detect forced downgrades), and those that can't. Reducing the latter involves education and ensuring that developers are aware of expectations -- developers shouldn't be relying upon the QA team to do QA. Unfortunately, some developers simply won't fix QA mistakes. When something like this happens: 11:16:24 <@genstef> hansmi: bah fix your qa stuff yourself if you think I am wrong. I wont do something I dont agree with something has to be done to prevent the developer in question from continuing to hurt the users. * The wrong idea of what the user base is, and what the target user base is. Gentoo's direction is too heavily influenced by a small number of extremely noisy ricer forum users, many of whom don't even run Gentoo. Unfortunately, this self-perpetuating clique wields huge amounts of influence. * The repeated abuse of silly phrases like "Gentoo is about choice", "Gentoo is about the community" and "Gentoo should be about fun" to attempt to rationalise insane policy decisions. Choice, community and fun are all very well, but without a quality distribution they're worthless. The primary goal should be a good distribution, with the rest as things that come about as a result. * Finally, of course, the widespread refusal to accept what the real problems are, when it's much easier to blame everything upon a few people or groups. It might be nice and easy to think that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and is secretly harbouring Bin Laden, particularly when a few disreputable news channels are going around saying it's true, but we all know how acting upon such delusions works out... [1]: http://ciaranm.org/show_post/95 -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:29:38 -0500 Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And something good is coming from it too. They are setting up rules > so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. I believe the move towards creating the CoC was in the pipeline before these outside events took place; it was a response to the surge on gentoo-dev itself, and as such an internally instigated matter. The pressure to get the draft approved in the ridiculously short period of three days in the middle of a week does look like it was affected by the bad PR in junk outlets like DW. If that is the case, then it is most definitely a bad thing. > The mess in the last > couple weeks was not the first either. It will happen again if > nothing is done. That's the exact opposite of my reading. The so-called mess in the last couple of weeks is nothing so unusual - happens every few months or so, and IMO it's more about steam venting than the specific issues at hand at the time. Responding to the sort of pathetic blogging seen on Distrowatch is a bad thing, its sends the signal that rantings on the blog-o-sphere are due some respect, which the article of the 13th certainly does not. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:18:58 +0100 Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view on Gentoo even more. From many comments I read we are a dying distro. Who cares about views? It is our distro and we just like to make it better. Right? Kind regards, JeR Well ... I as a user and Gentoo loyalist certainly care. As long as Gentoo is available and suits my needs better than any of the alternatives, I'll continue to use it and defend it in places like Distrowatch when it gets trashed. But unacceptable behavior of anyone -- a developer or a user -- is just that -- *unacceptable*. And a lack of an effective way of dealing with it *will* kill Gentoo. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P) http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> Personally I understand why flameeyes took that to bugzilla; how else >> could he say he'd gone thru the appropriate channels? Devrel (a >> group, not an individual) weren't set up to respond quickly as others >> have informed us all. > > Case in point: you need to distinguish between flameeyes leaving (again) > as a publicity stunt because his attempt to blackmail devrel failed and > flameeyes' stated reason for leaving... Yawn, Diego left because of various issues, including his inability to let people said stupid things and let them made a fool of themselves alone. Everybody has defects. > >> No one's been complaining about the user forums, apart from ciaran >> afaict > I don't care about forums since I consider them dispersive, people considering them an important feature maybe have different ideas about how to handle them (iterate for each communication medium around). That said I like places where people is nice enough to not capture hate or show hate. lu - that probably would always try to help people getting a clue before suggesting them to use ubuntu. -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:18:58 +0100 Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view > on Gentoo even more. From many comments I read we are a dying distro. Who cares about views? It is our distro and we just like to make it better. Right? Kind regards, JeR -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Am Mittwoch 14 März 2007 19:18 schrieb Mauricio Lima Pilla: > We don't need to bother hunting all the contributions in all open-source > projects to avoid them, as it would be much of a PITA. We can be selective > and not accept code directly submitted by such users, which would clearly > state that some developer is "persona non grata" in our project. I think > the idea is more to prevent somebody that can be technically sound to > poison the environment with their trolling. Dont you already "clearly state the some developer is "persona non grata" in out project" by taking the right to use the official communication channels away from that person? Why shouldnt Dev, who is a friend of xyz although xyz has been banned from all official ways to submit code to the project, read one of xyz's patches, like them, submit them to bugzilla or whatever, get others to like them too, and have them added to the project? You would require every developer to agree on never ever doing this. And - i dont see why that argument of ciaran is bad (or at least not talked about any further): What about security patches? It just wouldnt make any sense. If someone, although banned from all communication channels, gets his code into gentoo, why not let it be - she/he had no chance to offend anyone, and Gentoo wouldnt be dependent upon this person, as the developer who sends this patch as his input will be the responsible person - and will be in trouble if he doesnt understand the code himself or something similarly naive... -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 18:24:58 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 "Ioannis Aslanidis" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your > > answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming > > it's all rethoric, what is your opinion? > > My opinion is that screwing over users is outright irresponsible, and > that trying to make people unpersons has no good consequences. > > This whole rushed response to a tabloid article is scarily like the > Patriot act. How badly are users going to have to suffer before Gentoo > accepts what its real problems are? I quite agree with the Patriot act comparison, and I would be interested to know what you think our real problems are. /Alexandre -- Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature. pgpJouckXPTGz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 15:01:49 Stephen Bennett wrote: > And if refusing to use code credited to that individual means that we > can't use the linux kernel or bash? We don't need to bother hunting all the contributions in all open-source projects to avoid them, as it would be much of a PITA. We can be selective and not accept code directly submitted by such users, which would clearly state that some developer is "persona non grata" in our project. I think the idea is more to prevent somebody that can be technically sound to poison the environment with their trolling. If the developer wanted to avoid us to use his code from other projects, he should think about the licenses used on their submissions. -- Mauricio Lima Pilla [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:04:25 + Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Grant Goodyear wrote: > > Underlying the draft code of conduct is an assumption that > > aggressive and less-than-nice behavior on gentoo-dev is seriously > > harming Gentoo. > > Well you've recently lost two very capable devs as a result of it, > and I understand others have left for similar reasons, so i'd say it > is seriously harming Gentoo. Quite apart from the reputational damage. You need to distinguish between why a developer left and why he said he left. > Personally I understand why flameeyes took that to bugzilla; how else > could he say he'd gone thru the appropriate channels? Devrel (a > group, not an individual) weren't set up to respond quickly as others > have informed us all. Case in point: you need to distinguish between flameeyes leaving (again) as a publicity stunt because his attempt to blackmail devrel failed and flameeyes' stated reason for leaving... > No one's been complaining about the user forums, apart from ciaran > afaict Oh, I assure you I'm not the only person to have serious issues with the forums. A number of Gentoo developers and former Gentoo developers have expressed similar views to mine on the subject... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 19:10:06 +0100, Christian Faulhammer wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > If someone were to publish an article saying "Embedded and arch > > support is killing Gentoo by forcing all the development effort into > > supporting minority platforms rather than those of interest to the > > majority of users", would Gentoo immediately institute a policy > > dropping support for embedded and non-mainstream archs? > > If it was true, it should. So are you saying that the bullshit of the DW article is true? And how do you define "true" anyway, in a manner where a majority (if not all) devs would agree on? /Alexandre -- Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature. pgpVsVGMsAPFn.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-dev vs lkml?
Grant Goodyear wrote: > Underlying the draft code of conduct is an assumption that aggressive > and less-than-nice behavior on gentoo-dev is seriously harming Gentoo. Well you've recently lost two very capable devs as a result of it, and I understand others have left for similar reasons, so i'd say it is seriously harming Gentoo. Quite apart from the reputational damage. > On the other hand, LKML is famous for its flamewars, and nobody claims > that Linux is in serious trouble. Does anybody have a good feeling for > where the difference lies? Are we sure that we're solving the right > problem? (That's not a rhetorical question; I really don't know the > answer.) > Um not qualified to answer the first part, although i think jstubbs gave good points. I'm not sure you are solving the right prob if this is just about the dev m-l. But iirc the flameyes thing started on irc and finished on bugzilla, with a goodbye post to the m-l. Personally I understand why flameeyes took that to bugzilla; how else could he say he'd gone thru the appropriate channels? Devrel (a group, not an individual) weren't set up to respond quickly as others have informed us all. I would advise against trying to impose this on the user forums, however, as there simply isn't any reason to do so. No one's been complaining about the user forums, apart from ciaran afaict, and a kneejerk response could well backfire (ie harm gentoo more). IOW I agree it should be a temporary thing until the longer term implications are bedded in. /Some/ action *is* called for imo. Believe it or not, most users don't care about the devs either; we just like the software. Maybe you could involve the user reps before imposing rules on our forum because yours aren't working right? Most apposite thing I ever heard (doubly so since it comes from Torvalds): "If you develop Free software you get a thick skin. Or you don't develop Free software." I hear Apple're hiring? ;P -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] A User's View of the Code of Conduct
I joined this list mostly to talk about the proposed code of conduct. Let me state the context up front: 1. Some of you know I am a loyal Gentoo user. I run three "testing-level" (pure ~x86 with an occasional local package mask when something croaks) systems, I beta-test stuff I'm interested in, etc. I'd volunteer as a developer if I had the time to do more than test stuff and all that. Maybe when I retire from my day job. :) 2. I don't have any visibility into what exactly is going on in the developer portion of the Gentoo community. But I can emphatically state that it *doesn't* seem to be showing up as a reduction in quality of what's coming onto my systems when I emerge a package! I don't run anything else, like Ubuntu, Fedora, openSuSE or Debian, so I can't compare Gentoo with the others. 3. I *have* read the dire comments on Distrowatch, but not much of the auxiliary blogging. I don't visit the IRC channels and I don't in general inhabit the forums. I am on quite a few of the mailing lists and, given that I run ~x86, a frequent visitor to Bugzilla. If the dire predictions are true -- if Gentoo dies -- most likely I will switch to rPath/Conary and build my own distro, rather than leaping on the Fedora, openSuSE, or Ubuntu/Debian bandwagon. On to the code of conduct. My belief is that it's entirely too weak! I'd prefer a strict "no asshole" code. Screw up once -- get a stern reprimand and a 30-day suspension of all privileges. Screw up twice and it's bye-bye forever! I think there are something like hundreds of thousands of talented open source developers out there, ranging in age from maybe 13 to mid-70s or maybe even higher. There are many more of "us" than there are positions on *all* of the major community open source projects -- Linux itself, GNU, Apache, Gentoo, Debian, Perl, Python, Ruby, etc. Gentoo can afford to be choosy. I personally think Gentoo can't afford *not* to be choosy, given that it has little (if any) corporate support. Finally, let me add that I've never personally experienced what I would consider unacceptable treatment from a Gentoo community member, developer, user, interested bystander, etc. Perhaps if I had, it would change my views. But, as the saying goes, "where there's smoke, there's fire," and I'd prefer not to inhale the smoke. :) -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P) http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > If someone were to publish an article saying "Embedded and arch > support is killing Gentoo by forcing all the development effort into > supporting minority platforms rather than those of interest to the > majority of users", would Gentoo immediately institute a policy > dropping support for embedded and non-mainstream archs? If it was true, it should. V-Li signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:31:57 -0300 Mauricio Lima Pilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or maybe he wanted to make it sound like the idea was implausible, > which it isn't IMO. And if refusing to use code credited to that individual means that we can't use the linux kernel or bash? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
On 14/03/07, Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > So please, friends, just ignore it, nothing positive will come of it. Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view on Gentoo even more. From many comments I read we are a dying distro. V-Li Ha. This is like the "Is the Linux desktop dead" FUD I read a few months ago - IIRC it got deservedly derisive comments from the people on this list when I posted it here. FWIW, that was not written by the same author, but it could have been. News commentary sites are like the stock market - when something insignificant but bad happens the stock goes way down (= doom is predicted), when something insignificant but good happens the stock goes way up (= whatever they're writing about is the cure for cancer, &c.) It's the same prophets of doom who came out of the woodwork over the DuncTank affair in Debian that, in the main, are posting this rubbish. Gentoo will die sooner or later - everything does - but I for one am not going to bury it just because it has "stubbed its toe". Jeff -- Q: What will happen in the Aftermath? A: Impossible to tell, since we're still in the Beforemath. http://latedeveloper.org.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:29:38 -0500 Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And something good is coming from it too. Implementing policy based upon tabloid rantings is hardly 'something good'... If someone were to publish an article saying "Embedded and arch support is killing Gentoo by forcing all the development effort into supporting minority platforms rather than those of interest to the majority of users", would Gentoo immediately institute a policy dropping support for embedded and non-mainstream archs? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
Christian Faulhammer wrote: > "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> So please, friends, just ignore it, nothing positive will come of it. >> > > Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view > on Gentoo even more. From many comments I read we are a dying distro. > > V-Li > And something good is coming from it too. They are setting up rules so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. The mess in the last couple weeks was not the first either. It will happen again if nothing is done. Dale :D :D :D :D -- www.myspace.com/-remove-me-dalek1967
[gentoo-dev] Re: Distrowatch
"Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > So please, friends, just ignore it, nothing positive will come of it. Unfortunately it made its way onto big news site and lowers the view on Gentoo even more. From many comments I read we are a dying distro. V-Li signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 13:06:13 Stephen Bennett wrote: ... > I think his intention was to demonstrate that the idea is implausible, > at best counterproductive and at worst disastrous. Which it is, and > which he did fairly well. Or maybe he wanted to make it sound like the idea was implausible, which it isn't IMO. -- Mauricio Lima Pilla [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] It's just a bit of bash..
Vlastimil Babka wrote: > Steve Long wrote: > > > I wonder if the CoC should also mention such things (remember also > Enrico Weigelt's mails) as unacceptable behaviour. Or is it already > covered by one of the descriptions although I don't see it? > -- > Vlastimil Babka (Caster) > Gentoo/Java Assuming repeatedly behaving in a way opposing to what is listed as acceptable behaviour, I guess that it is covered by: * Using the correct forum for your post. Cheers, Daniel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] It's just a bit of bash..
Steve Long wrote: I wonder if the CoC should also mention such things (remember also Enrico Weigelt's mails) as unacceptable behaviour. Or is it already covered by one of the descriptions although I don't see it? -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev vs lkml?
On Thursday 15 March 2007 00:59, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Underlying the draft code of conduct is an assumption that aggressive > and less-than-nice behavior on gentoo-dev is seriously harming Gentoo. > On the other hand, LKML is famous for its flamewars, and nobody claims > that Linux is in serious trouble. Does anybody have a good feeling for > where the difference lies? The main differences I see are: 1) There is a fairly clear chain of command. 2) Each technical area usually has a clear authority - ie. a spokesman whom is listened to and usually has one's posts challenged with clear respect. 3) Many contributors are paid to do it and thus have the time to spend isolating the technical merits of a post from the flames or, more importantly, time to develop a work ethic that allows that to do such separation habitually. > Are we sure that we're solving the right problem? (That's not a rhetorical > question; I really don't know the answer.) Good question. I wouldn't have a clue as to the best resolution either. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ. > > Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or > refusing to accept updates to their previous contributions? Does this > extend to ignoring security advisories, security patches and critical > bug fix patches published by that person? Does this extend to refusing > to use upstream software that contains code by that person? > A bit excessive, yet I agree it's completely dumb refuse a good contribution just because someone has a bad attitude on the mailing list. OBVIOUSLY it's a pity losing his or her contribution to the discussion just because we cannot use the same language to communicate consistently... lu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] It's just a bit of bash..
RFC on script Hi I'd like some feedback from devs as to the potentially negative implications of a script I have written to wrap emerge (groan!) It's linked here: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-546828.html - and here is sample output from a gcc build: http://phpfi.com/214168 I'm particularly interested in feedback from the PMTs (Package Management Trio and their co-devs) wrt to tree problems, or anyone who can point out stuff I should be doing differently +eg 'cos of losing important emerge output or re: bash- ie gentoo devs. Feedback on script, if such you have, to either private email or the user forum, please. (And if you're there, can you pop into the user reps forum and remind usrs that you like 'em really, and no, the distro isn't going to fall apart. It's not just pkgs that need love..) Client/server: Recent post about samba client install: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-544664.html Poll with not many votes but a clear indication (quick, vote against..) http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-525893.html Possible Enhancements (aka stuff to nick besides +ve thinking) Triage is a concept in WINE that enables usrs to help with the bug-wrangling process: http://kegel.com/wine/qa/#triage Maybe something like that would be useful for gentoo. You certainly have enough users on the forums who want to give something back, but don't have the time nor inclination to become a dev. And getting them to help on bugs would both take some pressure off (eventually) and give them insight into the whole tortuous process. KDE bug tracker: - wish list (enhancement requests but nicer) - votes on bugs, so usrs can say "this affects me" even if wranglers think it 'obvious' to fix - *junior jobs* - minor jobs are posted on-site for anyone to have a go at The nature of discussion v debate In the UK a debate has always meant an argument. I see from dictionary.browse.com.reference or whatever it's called that in the US to debate can actually mean to reflect (as in an internal debate?) Thankfully the first meaning given for the noun is that of an argument. The point is that in a debate there are /opposing/ points of view. The scientific method is to achieve consensus via peer review. As Kuhn pointed out, the way this happens is by avoidance of contra-indicatory data (I'm paraphrasing) ie this doesn't fit my world model so I'm gonna ignore it. This leads to the eventual breakdown of the model, and a "paradigm shift." (Also known as a "course correction" in the political world.) Where I'm going with this is that you cannot avoid disagreements. It is in the nature of the beast to compete, to feel hurt by unkind comments, to attach meaning to noises, yadda yadda. Given this, it is imperative that one plan for those disagreements. So yeah, try to keep it technical all you like, but don't pretend for one minute that development in the real world is only technical. If that were true, we'd all be watching betamax tapes; and running DR-DOS with a Xerox interface. Now there's a nice idea.. ;P Sorry for length. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev vs lkml?
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:59:01 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does anybody have a good feeling for where the difference lies? The difference is that, by and large, the people working on the Linux kernel are honest and prepared to admit what their problems are. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: [Wed Mar 14 2007, 10:02:47AM CDT] > In my view, there's one important penalty missing from this code of > conduct. Actually, the most important penalty - as a last measure, all > input from a person to the project will be denied. What I mean is that > for worst offenders, Gentoo must be ready to deny any contribution. Ick. I should provide a detailed, logical explanation for why I don't like this idea, but it's mostly a visceral response for me--it just feels wrong. If some dev wants to proxy for Joe AnnoyingPerson so that the rest of the community doesn't have to deal with him, then I'm going to be perfectly happy with that arrangement. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpSh0hgB1OjE.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] gentoo-dev vs lkml?
Underlying the draft code of conduct is an assumption that aggressive and less-than-nice behavior on gentoo-dev is seriously harming Gentoo. On the other hand, LKML is famous for its flamewars, and nobody claims that Linux is in serious trouble. Does anybody have a good feeling for where the difference lies? Are we sure that we're solving the right problem? (That's not a rhetorical question; I really don't know the answer.) -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpn7KUuY7aoj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 "Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your > answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming > it's all rethoric, what is your opinion? My opinion is that screwing over users is outright irresponsible, and that trying to make people unpersons has no good consequences. This whole rushed response to a tabloid article is scarily like the Patriot act. How badly are users going to have to suffer before Gentoo accepts what its real problems are? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:38:20 +0100 "Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your > answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming > it's all rethoric, what is your opinion? I think his intention was to demonstrate that the idea is implausible, at best counterproductive and at worst disastrous. Which it is, and which he did fairly well. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Ciaran, honestly and without any offense intention, what would be your answers to the questions you formulated? If you ask all that, assuming it's all rethoric, what is your opinion? On 3/14/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ. Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or refusing to accept updates to their previous contributions? Does this extend to ignoring security advisories, security patches and critical bug fix patches published by that person? Does this extend to refusing to use upstream software that contains code by that person? -- Ioannis Aslanidis 0xB9B11F4E -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Richard Brown wrote:
>> Respectfully, you're wrong. When you're writing a
>> policy document we do need to dissect every word.
>
> I disagree with that. At least in my country, laws are written in a
> flexible enough way to give judges the ability to interprete the law
> to a certain extend, and it works just great. I don't see why we have
> to dissect every word, especially since it makes it so easy to not to
> see the wood for the trees. The goal of the CoC is fairly vague
> ('getting along well'), so why is there a need to specify the way
> ulta-explicit?
>
That may be true but then you run into Judges that start writing the
laws instead of interpreting the law. There needs to be rules and they
need to be spelled out clearly so that the people know what they are.
If a person doesn't understand the rules, then how will they know what
they are doing is wrong.
Basically, if the rules are not clear enough for every body to
understand, then there is no need to have them in the first place.
Please, don't even get me started on loop holes. ;-)
Dale
A lowly user who wants this mess to stop happening.
--
www.myspace.com/-remove-me-dalek1967
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:02:47 -0100 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ. Does this extend to deleting all their previous contributions? Or refusing to accept updates to their previous contributions? Does this extend to ignoring security advisories, security patches and critical bug fix patches published by that person? Does this extend to refusing to use upstream software that contains code by that person? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Hi. Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: > Hiya all, > > As some of you are already aware, I was at the last Council meeting > given a Task. This Task was to draft a proposed Code of Conduct for > Gentoo, and a scheme for enforcing it. The current version of this > proposal can be found at http://dev.gentoo.org/~christel/coc.xml > comments and suggestions both on- and off-list are appreciated. > > Any input will have to be received by Thursday, 15 March, 1200GMT in > order to be useful; the Council will be voting on it later that day at > 2100UTC. > > I would like to thank a few people for their help in getting it to this > stage: the council for review, spb for translating Christelsk into > English (with the help of the OED), nightmorph for making it look > prettier than plain text in vim (without a fancy colourscheme), and > marienz for being sane and reading it over. > > I'd also like to thank our Infrastructure team for working with us and > answering questions regarding the mechanics of enforcing such a code. > > Christelx > > As others have already said, thank you for doing this work. I'm glad to see we're determined to improve communication within Gentoo. However, I also think that 3 days is not enough time for this discussion. This isn't a technical discussion, but it is in no way less important than the discussion about PMS. I only reference that discussion as a currently ongoing discussion that I feel can have the same level of impact as this discussion. I agree that we need a code of conduct that applies to both developers and users. Furthermore, I also agree developers have additional responsibilities. In my view, there's one important penalty missing from this code of conduct. Actually, the most important penalty - as a last measure, all input from a person to the project will be denied. What I mean is that for worst offenders, Gentoo must be ready to deny any contribution. As I see it, this proposed code penalties for developers start by warnings, go to temporary bans from specific communication channels, include removal of bugzilla or commit privileges, include dev status suspension and as a last resort the removal of dev status. As I see it the proposed penalties for users include warnings, suspensions from specific communication channels and as a last resort a ban from gentoo communication channels. I don't see any reference stating that we won't accept any input from banned users. I believe that the greatest reward anyone can have to participate in Gentoo is getting credit for work done on Gentoo. As such, as a last measure, we must be ready to deny such contribution from banned users - even if done through another person. To be clear, I'm not suggesting we should, or for that matter can, force every member of the community to turn his back to bad user XYZ. What I'm proposing is that we don't accept any work from XYZ through any of our users or devs. It's every developer and user choice to decide whether or not they'll keep interacting with user XYZ outside of our channels, but it's a Gentoo decision to not accept work credited to XYZ. -- Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo-forums / Userrel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:28:45 -0100: > As amne asked before, will the proctors have overruling power over > moderators for existing channels? If so, is the council suggesting that > the proctors / devrel / council should "control" the forums moderation > team and the IRC channel ops? As amne also asked, do you propose that > teams work together or that proctors become forum moderators/admins and > channel ops for all official IRC gentoo channels? I read that these will be the acceptable minimums, and that's what the proctors will enforce. As such, they shouldn't interfere with channel and forum mods and the like, unless those mods aren't enforcing these minimums, in which case they still don't really interfere, users are simply subject to both in places where both apply. Additionally (my addition), note that in practice it's "unlikely" that proctors will be able to police every single channel to which the policy applies 24/7. It's just not going to happen. Thus, the practical effect will be that unless a proctor comes across something in their normal duties (as they would if it were here, say, but perhaps not in all the individual lists and all the individual IRC channels and all the various forums), it'll need to be reported to them to see action taken. While a user may do the reporting, on actively moderated channels, those mods are likely to see it and will have already taken action before the report gets processed by the proctors, so there likely won't be any further action necessary. In fact, this will give the mods a bit more (indirect) power, as in addition to controlling whatever they are modding directly, they will be able to report as necessary to the proctors, who can take action at a wider level, thru all Gentoo comms channels, if the abuse was such as to warrant it. While an indirect power, the ability to affect posting privs across all lists and all IRC channels and all forums at once is a power no mod ever had before, directly or indirectly. Now they will, by calling the attention of a proctor to the abuse. As for OTW, that indeed is a special case. I don't do forums that much, however, so I'm not going to even pretend to have a valid opinion on whether proctor policy should apply there and to what degree, if so. It should probably be hashed out in advance, however, if at all possible, just so everybody knows the rules of the game, one way or the other, before they decide to play it. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:25:23 -0500: > Robin H. Johnson wrote: [Tue Mar 13 2007, 06:05:10PM CDT] >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: >> > * Can we find a better name than "the Proctors", please? >> >> Suggestions welcome. We were stuck for other suitable names, and it was >> my own suggestion for proctors, based on the dictionary definition: "an >> official charged with various duties, esp. with the maintenance of good >> order." [1] > > Ubuntu uses "Community Council". I suggested "Community Relations". [I'm replying here as this subthread most directly addresses the concerns I too have, but I'll reference other threadlets as well.] "Procter" seems the precise dictionary definition of what I believe we are after, but if people aren't familiar with it, as seems to be the case... Someone suggested "Communication's Supervisor", which should be simple enough but might be confused with parts of infra. What about "Gentoo Communications Representative" (tho that sounds like userrel/devrel)? Or, getting the authority in there, "Gentoo Council Communications Envoy"? >> > * I highly recommend reading http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct >> > and our new doc side-by-side. The former provides strong, positive >> The Ubuntu guidelines are well-mirrored in the existing etiquette >> policy: >> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml? part=3&chap=2 > > One may argue with the content of either the old etiquette guide or the > Ubuntu Code of Conduct, but I suspect that most would agree that the > Ubuntu Code of Conduct is both more encouraging and better written. I > think it's also much more encouraging and better written than is the > proposed doc, as well. I agree. Regardless of the content and tone, which can be argued, the Ubuntu CoC has things in a clear and logical order, making clear the goal before describing the behavior, then describing behavior that matches that goal, then describing certain behavior that does /not/ match the goal and is therefore discouraged. Finally, the authority and who is responsible for enforcing the policy is noted. One other point. It's quite clear throughout the Ubuntu doc who is being referred to. One of the big problems with the proposed Gentoo document IMO is that in its current form it uses the term "we" far too often, often even in the first sentence of a section, without noting who "we" is except at the top in broad terms (Gentoo). Only the corporate whole "Gentoo" does not fit the usage of "we" in some instances all that well -- a more natural fit would be the enforcers (whatever they may be called) or perhaps the Council, and thus Gentoo thru it. >> However the existing policy has not worked. Reasons and theories behind >> why are rife within Gentoo. > > You're arguing that a much more punitive doc is required because the > previous doc has been ineffective? That's a reasonable argument, but I > don't think I agree. The previous doc had no "moral weight", so to > speak, because it was imposed on devs without any real discussion, and > that's made it hard to enforce. I'd argue here a position I haven't yet seen... exactly. IMO, there are/ were two problems with the current /developer/ etiquette policy. First, it was both in the developer manual and by wording targeted specifically at developers. Non-developer participants in the various communications channels likely will not have seen it, and where it was, it /was/ a bit easy to "forget" about, even for developers that /had/ seen it. It wasn't as if it were channel communication policy, posted or linked prominently at the entry or in each location, so it was easy to "forget" (aka "ignore", if it were deliberate, but let's just assume it's not for now). If it's more visible to everyone, and is generally accepted as applying to all, perhaps it'll be easier to "remember". In line with that observation, a suggestion -- /only/ a suggestion, as I'm sure some won't like it, but I think it needs considered, anyway. Many web forums and IRC channels have a "sticky" guide or at minimum, a link to the rules, visible whenever one enters. That's not so easy on mailing lists or newsgroups. However, newsgroups at least have an accepted solution: a FAQ posted periodically (say biweekly or monthly). Many mailing lists have a subscription/unsubscribe/help reminder sent out periodically, so the idea isn't entirely foreign there either, altho posting of a (behavior) FAQ is a bit less common. I think we seriously need to consider it. We could in fact combine it with a periodic unsubscribe help mailing (which might eliminate a few of the occasional mixed up unsubscribe postings to the list, as well), since Gentoo controls its own mailing lists. Second and I think more important, given it has been developers and former devs that have been the maj
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Hi. Wernfried Haas wrote: [snip] > Please define access. Does that mean they get to ban people from the > forums and all #gentoo-* channels? Do they get mod/op powers or just > request it from the respective forum moderators / channel operators > (who _have_ to follow their orders)? > > [snip] > What exactly is Gentoo's official communication infrastructure? The > mailinglists? _All_ IRC channels? So far #gentoo and #gentoo-dev are > the only channels following some official policy, all others are ruled > by whatever project/owner they have (afaik, correct me if > wrong). Would a ban also affect all #gentoo-* channels and the forums? > Posting on planet? What about gentoo developers calling people names > in non-gentoo channels while wearing a gentoo cloak on irc or being > otherwise easily identified as such (e.g. posting flames to debian > mailing lists using @gentoo.org email)? > [snip] > Kind of answers my question, but i'm still asking for confirmation > because i have a hard time believing it. Do the proctors get to > overrule every team that moderates some communication channel already? > [snip] > > Furthermore this raises an important question for me: > So far, the forums moderators (as well as the ops in #gentoo) have > enforced their policies. As long proctors and mods/ops are of the same > opinion about a person, fine - but what about the following > situations: > > - A developer misbehaves on the forums according to the forums staff > and gets banned by them. > > So far, it has been our policy (not written, and hardly used every 2 > years) to let devrel know about it in case they wanted to do something > else about it. I guess it would make sense to continue that. > What if the proctors disagree with the ban? > > - The proctors think someone is misbehaving on the forums and want him > banned, while the forums staff think it is not ban worthy. What now [snip] I agree with all of the previous points raised by amne and am very interested on how do you propose the proctors, gentoo IRC channel ops, forum moderators and userrel work together. As it seems the proposal is for these guidelines to uphold in every Gentoo communication channel and project, they will affect the MLs, the IRC channels, the forums and projects like the userreps. I think that the rules need to take into account specifics of each communication channel - as an example I would recall the OTW forum, which is subject to a different set of guidelines in the forums. As amne asked before, will the proctors have overruling power over moderators for existing channels? If so, is the council suggesting that the proctors / devrel / council should "control" the forums moderation team and the IRC channel ops? As amne also asked, do you propose that teams work together or that proctors become forum moderators/admins and channel ops for all official IRC gentoo channels? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Introducing the Proctors - Draft Code of Conduct for Gentoo
Richard Brown wrote:
Respectfully, you're wrong. When you're writing a
policy document we do need to dissect every word.
I disagree with that. At least in my country, laws are written in a
flexible enough way to give judges the ability to interprete the law to
a certain extend, and it works just great. I don't see why we have to
dissect every word, especially since it makes it so easy to not to see
the wood for the trees. The goal of the CoC is fairly vague ('getting
along well'), so why is there a need to specify the way ulta-explicit?
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
