Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-06 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 20:45:25 +1000
Stuart Longland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   On a somewhat related note... I've sat back and watched this
> argument for some time now.  Banning people seems like an extremely
> drastic measure.  Sure, it's easy.  It's also easily circumvented,
> and is only a short-term solution.  I don't think it's the answer.

Banning people is not drastic. We do it all the time on #gentoo and we
have rules in place to stop ourselves from becoming power crazed
maniacs as well as giving banned channel users the benefit of the
doubt.

Circumventing (evading) a ban on IRC means giving up your nickname, and
if you happen to value your own name, you won't, hence you will not
evade the ban. The same applies to mailing lists. If you ban a user and
he comes back using a different e-mail address, you just ban him again.
Getting banned from a community happens to be a lot worse than just not
being able to get your point across (i.e. continue the flamewar).

Losing the right to use your own [nick]name / e-mail address within a
community is an extreme penalty indeed, but if the ban is temporary
(in the case of MLs, say two weeks or a month), even the people passing
the ban can live with it.

>   How's this for an idea though... Rather than banning
> *people*... why not temporarily ban a thread?  I know this is easily
> possible on forum threads -- mailing lists are more difficult, but if
> one could lock a thread for a day or so -- that might allow people to
> cool off before picking up the thread again.

Banning certain threads isn't just infeasible (technically impossible),
it's actually worse than banning someone from your community: by
"banning a thread" you censor whoever is left in the community.

And actually, circumventing a "thread ban" is much easier than getting
back on a mailing list: you just start a new thread. In fact it happens
all the time on this list when someone thinks writing a new subject
will make all the difference, or tries to set a new tone to the
conversation. It just does not work.

Banning certain users, perhaps banning them for a period of time to
maybe cool off, is easy to implement and these bans are easy to
maintain. What you are suggesting, i.e. moderating the content of this
list before it even hits our mailboxes, is censorship of the worst
kind, and would be impossible to uphold.

As someone suggested before, maybe the forums.g.o people might like to
chime in and give their view on "debate management"? I wouldn't think
it gets as heated as IRC does, but maybe there are some parallels
between forums and MLs that could be of interest.


Kind regards,
 JeR
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-06 Thread expose
Stuart Longland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  (Gentoo Foundation) wrote:
>   How's this for an idea though... Rather than banning *people*... why
> not temporarily ban a thread?  I know this is easily possible on forum
> threads -- mailing lists are more difficult, but if one could lock a
> thread for a day or so -- that might allow people to cool off before
> picking up the thread again.
Nice idea in general, yet people could harm a discussion even more as in they 
get a tool to delay them as often as they'd like to. Even more would you 
delay a discussion for a day that worked, except that one person felt like it 
would be needed to inject a few drops of hostility by using abusive language.

>   I think in such flamewars, it's *everyone* that needs to cool off, not
> just those who start them.
Of course everyone needs to cool off, but (hopefully) most of us can do this 
themselves, meaning they learned to recognize that they are angry and add the 
task of replying to there todo-list and do it later on during the day.

What I want to say is: To me it looks like  to is a relatively small group of 
people who do get abusive again and again, and after some time others can't 
stand this anymore and fight back --> flame-war
By baning those who get abusive again and again, the problem should thus 
vanish in mist.
On the other hand, if you lock a thread for one day because xyz got abusive 
for the 3rd time this month, everyone is pissed because the discussion is 
stopped, xyz is happy because it is something annoying, and xyz is not really 
likely to stop that because he personally isnt punished, but everyone.

If you got a class to teach, and someone played a joke on you, it is likely to 
work if you punish the whole class with an extra test or more homework, 
because the majority of the class will dislike the one who did it.
The same would happen here, but xyz who was abusive again will not feel that 
he himself is punished harder than anyone else, since he/she wont be beaten 
during the break, speaking metaphorically...


Cheers,

Daniel
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-06 Thread Stuart Longland
Jakub Moc wrote:
> Bryan Østergaard napsal(a):
>> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 03:46:47AM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
>>> And you come here to tell us that people shouldn't get confused by these
>>> 'very few' retirements, that the sun in still shining nicely and we are
>>> recruiting people as always? And that you will continue silently
>>> watching the trolls team associated around mips and ciaranm call people
>>> fuckheads, idiots and making a gutter of something that's supposed to be
>>> a development mailing list?
> 
>> Never said anything like that.
> 
> So, what are you planning to do about this? Sorry, but all I've seen
> here so far is evading the real problem and saying people they should
> ignore ciaranm and alikes. This apparently doesn't work, any other plan?
> 
> Like, any plan to make the mips team totally poisoned by ciaranm's
> stupid elitism and infallibleness behave in a civilized way again?

I should point out here... that not all of the MIPS team are like
Ciaran.  I'll admit, I'm not exactly bursting with technical knowledge
-- there are some big gaps there.  I'd like to change this, however it
isn't going to happen overnight.

Conversely, I'd like to think that many of us do use significantly more
tact than you make out.

On a somewhat related note... I've sat back and watched this argument
for some time now.  Banning people seems like an extremely drastic
measure.  Sure, it's easy.  It's also easily circumvented, and is only a
short-term solution.  I don't think it's the answer.

Nor, I should point out, is treating devrel like the football.  They're
in a very difficult position here -- one I would not like to be placed
in myself.  And in this circumstance, they can't afford to be hasty --
the wrong decision could cost Gentoo dearly in many ways that may not be
apparent to people now.

How's this for an idea though... Rather than banning *people*... why
not temporarily ban a thread?  I know this is easily possible on forum
threads -- mailing lists are more difficult, but if one could lock a
thread for a day or so -- that might allow people to cool off before
picking up the thread again.

I think in such flamewars, it's *everyone* that needs to cool off, not
just those who start them.
-- 
Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter)  .'''.
Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs Developer  '.'` :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   .'.'
http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter :.'

I haven't lost my mind...
  ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-06 Thread expose
"Rob C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am a new Gentoo developer but I have worked on a number of other small
> projects. This list is a disgrace and most flames are nothing but
> showboating. If you have an issue then deal with it directly with whomever
> is causing the problem.
Dealing it who causes the problem is what the rules were meant to do:
They should not change anyones behaviour on a working mailing list, but do so, 
untill a list works again - that is, is (relatively) free of slandering and 
so on.

> Writing cutting comments on the list with no other intention than to
> belittle or discredit a member of the community is unacceptable. *Even* if
> your comments happen correct.
Well, you could hardly forbid people to say "It is a bad idea because xyz 
might happen." _even_ if it was only meant to discredit someone, because
you cant know if it was deliberately harmfull or not. therefore a repetition 
of the same fact for several times is to be avoided, so there is less picking 
on somebody.

> Please, lets use -dev for actual development. Perhaps we can have -bitch or
> -flame for those who really need to vent or to write mails that they know
> are blatant flame fodder.
I feel like the problem is that those who actually flame do feel like it is 
absolutely normal and dont seem to see why it is a bad thing to do, thus 
kindly asking them to stop it wont work, as far as i know of what happened 
yet.

One problem that will likely arise is that some blogs will get even more 
stupid, yet it is easier to avoid reading a blog than to avoid reading 
the -dev list, not to mention that active developers should of course apply 
the same rule of not using invectives in their blog, too.
I think it would brighten the appearence of gentoo somewhat again.
Some users will maybe still flame for a while, but their fuel should run short 
after some time I hope.


Sincerely,

Daniel
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-05 Thread expose
Dear List,

> > 1. Anyone who is impolite get's kicked off.
> Who defines 'impolite'? It's a cultural thing, and given that we have
> developers and users from all over the world, we span a lot of vastly
> different cultures.
I am aware of this issue, but it is not needed to solve it at once or 
perfectly.
It would be a starting point to just define the usage of words commonly used 
for personally attacking someone as impolite (for instance fuck, idiot and so 
on).
The definition should not reference any culture or religion as a codex that is 
to be followed, and I even think that wouldnt be needed, as the definition is 
something that could be developed over time.
Just try to imagine a flame war without insults, without attacking 
personally - would it work? I find it hard to imagine, which is why I suggest 
this as a good point to start with.
Of course one could "flame" by constantly repeating the idea is bad because of 
several facts. But this is where the 2nd rule is to be applied:

> > 2. Anyone who repeatedly and seemingly on purpose tries to harm the
> > discussion will be kicked off.
> And how do you judge whether someone is deliberately trying to harm the
> discussion or is just being careless with his wording or generally
> misguided?
If someone is careless with his wording or generally misguided that often, 
that it feels like it is done deliberately for the rest, thus for the 
majority, where is the difference? It annoys people.
Yet I of course agree, noone should be kicked for being misguided (being 
careless can be switched off), and honestly i do not currently have a 
solution to avoid kicking misguided people that on the other hand does not 
allow abuse. I will tell you as soon as I have an idea, and until that is the 
case, I'd like to quote what "Caleb Cushing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> these are where warnings and apologies come in. plus I think only
> repeated behavior should result in permanent removal.
If you got to apologize and explain why you where misguided again and again, 
you might head over to IRC and ask wether you understood it correctly, if 
it's not on purpose, and if it is, you at least need alot more energy and you 
have less flexibility of spreading you aggression, insults or whatever.


Sincerely,

Daniel


P.S.:
> It's nice to see someone pick up a good point and express it.
Good to know I am not the only one of that or a similar opinion.

Off-Topic at the end:
"Caleb Cushing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -- OFFTOPIC --
> --START FLAME --
> how can you write that long of a letter if you can't read and what
> does a physical illness have to do with reading?
> --END FLAME--
> sorry can't help myself.
well, think of a flu and pyrexia - at least I cannot really read a longer time 
while having one, yet i can think relatively clear for a limited period of 
time and thus write. Personal experiences may vary :-)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-05 Thread Caleb Cushing

these are where warnings and apologies come in. plus I think only
repeated behavior should result in permanent removal.

On 3/5/07, Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 23:07:58 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 1. Anyone who is impolite get's kicked off.

Who defines 'impolite'? It's a cultural thing, and given that we have
developers and users from all over the world, we span a lot of vastly
different cultures.

> 2. Anyone who repeatedly and seemingly on purpose tries to harm the
> discussion will be kicked off.

And how do you judge whether someone is deliberately trying to harm the
discussion or is just being careless with his wording or generally
misguided?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-05 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 23:07:58 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 1. Anyone who is impolite get's kicked off.

Who defines 'impolite'? It's a cultural thing, and given that we have
developers and users from all over the world, we span a lot of vastly
different cultures.

> 2. Anyone who repeatedly and seemingly on purpose tries to harm the
> discussion will be kicked off.

And how do you judge whether someone is deliberately trying to harm the
discussion or is just being careless with his wording or generally
misguided?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-05 Thread Paul Sebastian Ziegler

Thank you.
I am replying off-list because I do not want to create even more flaming.
I'm not a dev. Just a user in terms of gentoo. I'm subscribed to the 
list since I need all the info I can get. And gentoo has definitely come 
a long way in the last few weeks. First that 8-Day-Flame about saving 
Dolphins in gentoo-user, now the dev-war.


It's nice to see someone pick up a good point and express it.
thanks

Paul

[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Dear list, 

Why not simply naming the "formal logic rules" for the "official venue where 
developers (and ex-developers and users) can talk out their disagreements"

to be:
1. Anyone who is impolite get's kicked off.
2. Anyone who repeatedly and seemingly on purpose tries to harm the discussion 
will be kicked off.


Impolite: Do, under _no_ circumstances, use a word MTV would have to mute, or 
that your grandmother (hopefully) wouldnt want to hear you say ;-)


Repeatedly: We are humans, we make faults.

Seemingly: If this wouldnt be part of the rule, there would be endless debates 
on wether it was on purpose or not.


On purpose: We are humans, we make faults, it has to be premeditation or so

Kicked off: There is a group of twelve zillion people who just ban those 
people from the list, or rather, their email-adresses.


harming a discussion: a list of things that can be considered harmfull should 
be set up. sth like "pointing out things that are not relevent" (like 
statements the consist of no more than "i do not like that idea"), or trying 
to shift the issue to sth different, like "oh and besides, you often have 
typos" and so on...sth that does, in no way, help finding a solution is to be 
considered harmfull in the above sense.


I also suggest banning those people from posting only.
Plus is suggest banning to be longer. a 2hr ban wont prevent flaming, but will 
look funny, and is alot of work. (if this was meant seariously)
Banning someone for a week, a month, and finally forever are more reasonable 
time frames i think...


I think those rules would ensure people sit back before replying, and think 
before they write.


There simply is no need to flame, get impolite, or harm a discussion, thus i 
find being as strict as this is okay.
How do you think to politicians discuss problems in parliament? Call each 
other fuckhead if hundrets are watching, screaming through the room while 
throwing chairs and tables? I doubt it.

Things are similar here: We are _alot_ of people and discuss.
Certain rules of civilized discussion, that what's usually taught in 
elementary school, need to be followed here, too. Only that the issue isn't 
that someone can cut someone else off...


If anyone comes up with that the progress of politicians is too slow:
It is slow, because they do break one of the above rules, and because they do 
often search for solutions where there is no objectively clear winner, 
because the want to keep their power, have personal interests, and so on.
And - would you honestly think politicians would get _more_ productive, if 
they started slandering each other?


Yet, here things are somewhat different:
Code is more secure, or faster, or smaller, or in another way "better" than 
other code, depending on what the most important thing is for this piece of 
code.
And a documentation is more or less understandable for the avg. user / dev, or 
is more correct, and thus simply is better.


Here, i feel like we do not fail because we cannot find the solution that's 
best for most of us, but we fail because of personal problems. And those 
could easily be adressed by the above rules, as they in a way - as alot of 
what is to be considered "polite" does - 'remove' a part of our personality 
from the actual progress of discussing, since emotions are suppressed.
Shortening discussions to their functional part is sth that would help to 
adress this issue, and on the other hand people could still become 
("cyber")friends since there is IRC and private discussions need to go on 
anyway.


At least, different personalities are what the current thing is all about, as 
far as i know about it, which (luckily?) isnt that much.


Bryan Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Somehow a lot of people seems to think banning is the only possible
solution. I tend to think that's a horrible idea myself and most of
devrel backs me up on that.
Of course it is a horrible idea, but isnt it better than seeing someone 
constantly insulting people, instead of being productive, functional, 
objective or at least polite?
At the moment I feel like there is no real reason _not_ to insult anyone, for 
those who like to do so, which has to be changed or values will be lost 
completely. It can even be fun to get rid of aggressions collected throughout 
the week at once, yet the gym is the correct place to do so, not this list.



Sincerely,

Daniel


P.S.: I know I did not read the complete thread, yet I am physically ill at 
the moment, not able to read it all. [ <-- fuel your f

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-05 Thread Caleb Cushing

P.S.: I know I did not read the complete thread, yet I am physically ill at
the moment, not able to read it all. [ <-- fuel your flame-o-mat with
this ;-) ]

-- OFFTOPIC --
--START FLAME --
how can you write that long of a letter if you can't read and what
does a physical illness have to do with reading?
--END FLAME--
sorry can't help myself.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-05 Thread expose
Dear list, 

Why not simply naming the "formal logic rules" for the "official venue where 
developers (and ex-developers and users) can talk out their disagreements"
to be:
1. Anyone who is impolite get's kicked off.
2. Anyone who repeatedly and seemingly on purpose tries to harm the discussion 
will be kicked off.

Impolite: Do, under _no_ circumstances, use a word MTV would have to mute, or 
that your grandmother (hopefully) wouldnt want to hear you say ;-)

Repeatedly: We are humans, we make faults.

Seemingly: If this wouldnt be part of the rule, there would be endless debates 
on wether it was on purpose or not.

On purpose: We are humans, we make faults, it has to be premeditation or so

Kicked off: There is a group of twelve zillion people who just ban those 
people from the list, or rather, their email-adresses.

harming a discussion: a list of things that can be considered harmfull should 
be set up. sth like "pointing out things that are not relevent" (like 
statements the consist of no more than "i do not like that idea"), or trying 
to shift the issue to sth different, like "oh and besides, you often have 
typos" and so on...sth that does, in no way, help finding a solution is to be 
considered harmfull in the above sense.

I also suggest banning those people from posting only.
Plus is suggest banning to be longer. a 2hr ban wont prevent flaming, but will 
look funny, and is alot of work. (if this was meant seariously)
Banning someone for a week, a month, and finally forever are more reasonable 
time frames i think...

I think those rules would ensure people sit back before replying, and think 
before they write.

There simply is no need to flame, get impolite, or harm a discussion, thus i 
find being as strict as this is okay.
How do you think to politicians discuss problems in parliament? Call each 
other fuckhead if hundrets are watching, screaming through the room while 
throwing chairs and tables? I doubt it.
Things are similar here: We are _alot_ of people and discuss.
Certain rules of civilized discussion, that what's usually taught in 
elementary school, need to be followed here, too. Only that the issue isn't 
that someone can cut someone else off...

If anyone comes up with that the progress of politicians is too slow:
It is slow, because they do break one of the above rules, and because they do 
often search for solutions where there is no objectively clear winner, 
because the want to keep their power, have personal interests, and so on.
And - would you honestly think politicians would get _more_ productive, if 
they started slandering each other?

Yet, here things are somewhat different:
Code is more secure, or faster, or smaller, or in another way "better" than 
other code, depending on what the most important thing is for this piece of 
code.
And a documentation is more or less understandable for the avg. user / dev, or 
is more correct, and thus simply is better.

Here, i feel like we do not fail because we cannot find the solution that's 
best for most of us, but we fail because of personal problems. And those 
could easily be adressed by the above rules, as they in a way - as alot of 
what is to be considered "polite" does - 'remove' a part of our personality 
from the actual progress of discussing, since emotions are suppressed.
Shortening discussions to their functional part is sth that would help to 
adress this issue, and on the other hand people could still become 
("cyber")friends since there is IRC and private discussions need to go on 
anyway.

At least, different personalities are what the current thing is all about, as 
far as i know about it, which (luckily?) isnt that much.

Bryan Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Somehow a lot of people seems to think banning is the only possible
> solution. I tend to think that's a horrible idea myself and most of
> devrel backs me up on that.
Of course it is a horrible idea, but isnt it better than seeing someone 
constantly insulting people, instead of being productive, functional, 
objective or at least polite?
At the moment I feel like there is no real reason _not_ to insult anyone, for 
those who like to do so, which has to be changed or values will be lost 
completely. It can even be fun to get rid of aggressions collected throughout 
the week at once, yet the gym is the correct place to do so, not this list.


Sincerely,

Daniel


P.S.: I know I did not read the complete thread, yet I am physically ill at 
the moment, not able to read it all. [ <-- fuel your flame-o-mat with 
this ;-) ]  Anyway I hope to have said something helpfull not mentioned 
before...
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-05 Thread Jakub Moc
Bryan Østergaard napsal(a):
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 03:46:47AM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> And you come here to tell us that people shouldn't get confused by these
>> 'very few' retirements, that the sun in still shining nicely and we are
>> recruiting people as always? And that you will continue silently
>> watching the trolls team associated around mips and ciaranm call people
>> fuckheads, idiots and making a gutter of something that's supposed to be
>> a development mailing list?

> Never said anything like that.

So, what are you planning to do about this? Sorry, but all I've seen
here so far is evading the real problem and saying people they should
ignore ciaranm and alikes. This apparently doesn't work, any other plan?

Like, any plan to make the mips team totally poisoned by ciaranm's
stupid elitism and infallibleness behave in a civilized way again? Any
plan to make -dev ML a productive place for development again? Sorry,
ignorance is not a boon, as proved by this thread and many others in the
past.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-05 Thread Harald van Dijk
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 03:25:31PM +, Steve Long wrote:
> Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:
> 
> > Maybe if Ciaran recognized his past faults, begged pardon and promised
> > to be kinder from now and on, everything would be easier for everyone,
> > everything would calm down.
> > 
> I share your dream ;)
> 
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:15:36 -0500 "William L. Thomson Jr."
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> So I we can cut him some slack, and we should all have some level of
> >>> respect, at least in public, towards the father, creator, and founder
> >>> of Gentoo.
> >> 
> >> What kind of response do you think anyone else would have received had
> >> they started repeatedly attacking a project when they didn't even know
> >> what that project was, repeatedly tried to interfere with the
> >> management of a project when they don't know who is involved with or
> >> managing said project, repeatedly posted all kinds of outright lies
> >> after having been told that something was untrue and repeatedly resorted
> >> to ad hominem attacks in a technical discussion?
> >> 
> Bloody hell where did all that come from? Am I missing something, cos I
> certainly haven't seen that on the dev m-l. Maybe it's a core/ irc thing,
> but afaic in the public domain drobbins hasn't done the above.

drobbins has repeatedly claimed that PMS is not a Gentoo project, that
Ciaran is leading PMS, that Ciaran's involvement with PMS requires
developer status, that Gentoo projects require Gentoo copyright, and
more. Having read some of his past and later messages, I don't doubt his
intentions are good, but from this thread alone I initially got the same
impression Ciaran did, except I did not see any actual ad hominem's from
drobbins's side, myself. I did see Ciaran asking drobbins to stop with
them in reply to what he apparently considered one.


pgpCvfkIkMvZj.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-05 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 16:33:31 + Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 16:17:54 +
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What, and make everyone move the development discussion elsewhere?
> > Have you noticed how little development discussion goes on on the
> > forums? Have you ever considered why?
> 
> It's full of trolls. Have you considered why little development
> discussion happens on a development mailing list?

Hm, the development mailing list usually works just fine -- take a
look at the PMS threads where only well-informed people joined in for
perfect examoples. It's only when people jump in on projects when they
don't know what said project is or what it involves and start trying to
derail it that things get messy.

-- 
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: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-05 Thread Roy Marples
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 16:17:54 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What, and make everyone move the development discussion elsewhere?
> Have you noticed how little development discussion goes on on the
> forums? Have you ever considered why?

It's full of trolls. Have you considered why little development
discussion happens on a development mailing list?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-05 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:25:54 + Steve Long
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> What kind of response do you think anyone else would have received
> >> had they started repeatedly attacking a project when they didn't
> >> even know what that project was, repeatedly tried to interfere
> >> with the management of a project when they don't know who is
> >> involved with or managing said project, repeatedly posted all
> >> kinds of outright lies after having been told that something was
> >> untrue and repeatedly resorted to ad hominem attacks in a
> >> technical discussion?
> >> 
> Bloody hell where did all that come from? Am I missing something, cos
> I certainly haven't seen that on the dev m-l. Maybe it's a core/ irc
> thing, but afaic in the public domain drobbins hasn't done the above.

Had you bothered to read the -dev mailing list, you'd see all of that.

> As for his problem with ciaranm, i think a lot of people are fed up
> with that attitude which is why ciaran was banned from the forums.

No, I was banned from the forums for posting a list of the top QA
offenders. Which is pretty amusing, when it's considered fine to
repeatedly bash the QA team, Gentoo developers that the forum mods
don't like and anyone associated with any project the forum mods don't
like.

> I wish you guys would just let the forum moderators moderate this
> mailing list. You'd soon see why the gentoo forums are the envy of
> the support world.

What, and make everyone move the development discussion elsewhere? Have
you noticed how little development discussion goes on on the forums?
Have you ever considered why?

-- 
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: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-05 Thread Caleb Cushing

I wish you guys would just let the forum moderators moderate this mailing
list. You'd soon see why the gentoo forums are the envy of the support
world.


I agree. I also agree with temporary ban's to reduce flame wars.
people need to cool down sometimes.

---concerned gentoo user.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-05 Thread Steve Long
Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:

> Maybe if Ciaran recognized his past faults, begged pardon and promised
> to be kinder from now and on, everything would be easier for everyone,
> everything would calm down.
> 
I share your dream ;)

> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:15:36 -0500 "William L. Thomson Jr."
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> So I we can cut him some slack, and we should all have some level of
>>> respect, at least in public, towards the father, creator, and founder
>>> of Gentoo.
>> 
>> What kind of response do you think anyone else would have received had
>> they started repeatedly attacking a project when they didn't even know
>> what that project was, repeatedly tried to interfere with the
>> management of a project when they don't know who is involved with or
>> managing said project, repeatedly posted all kinds of outright lies
>> after having been told that something was untrue and repeatedly resorted
>> to ad hominem attacks in a technical discussion?
>> 
Bloody hell where did all that come from? Am I missing something, cos I
certainly haven't seen that on the dev m-l. Maybe it's a core/ irc thing,
but afaic in the public domain drobbins hasn't done the above.

Asking questions shouldn't be an issue.

As for his problem with ciaranm, i think a lot of people are fed up with
that attitude which is why ciaran was banned from the forums.

I wish you guys would just let the forum moderators moderate this mailing
list. You'd soon see why the gentoo forums are the envy of the support
world.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-05 Thread Bryan Østergaard
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 03:46:47AM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Bryan Østergaard napsal(a):
> > On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 11:31:56PM +, Hubert Mercier wrote:
> >> What is more, even if Gentoo is always growing, why are people leaving ? 
> >> Personal reasons ? No, in fact I read carefully each of the retire mails 
> >> in the last year : very often people are just fed up with conflicts, 
> >> tired of people just slacking around, etc.. Are these last counted in 
> >> "growing dev base" ? IMHO, Gentoo need a large rethinking of its internal 
> >> structure, and, what is more, a rethinking of its recruitement process. 
> >> But I remember that this point has already been discussed ?
> >>
> > Please don't base your entire opinion on those very few retirement
> > announcements you've seen. Most devs that retire simply run out of time
> > for gentoo due to real life commitments etc. or move on to other open
> > source projects.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Bryan Østergaard
> 
> OK, let me get this straight... You are suggesting here that we are not
> losing enough developers for devrel/userrel to be bothered enough to
> start caring about WTH is going wrong here?
Not at all. But don't bother to read what I actually said. I'm sure that
would be way too much effort on your part.
> 
> Sure, after Flameeyes left we have pam + alsa pretty much unmaintained,
> we've lost a key KDE + sound apps developer + BSD lead; next we've lost
> metalgod who was a member of already pretty understaffed Gnome herd, one
> of 3 members of media-optical herd and sounds apps maintainer as well.
> Then a developer and founder of this distribution who rejoined just
> about a week ago ran away, scared when seeing the state of things.
> That's just for the past month.
> 
> And you come here to tell us that people shouldn't get confused by these
> 'very few' retirements, that the sun in still shining nicely and we are
> recruiting people as always? And that you will continue silently
> watching the trolls team associated around mips and ciaranm call people
> fuckheads, idiots and making a gutter of something that's supposed to be
> a development mailing list?
Never said anything like that.
> 
> Ugh... well done.
And you grabbed the chance to completely distort what I'm saying once
again. Well done indeed.

Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-05 Thread Bryan Østergaard
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 02:22:08AM +, Alex Tarkovsky wrote:
> Bryan Østergaard  gentoo.org> writes:
> 
> Bryan, instead of always addressing the symptoms by asking people to kindly be
> quiet or move things elsewhere, why don't you do something more substantive
> about what ails Gentoo developers?
> 
> You're head of Developer Relations. That makes you partly responsible for
> allowing what should only be minor differences of opinion between developers
> (and ex-developers and users) to balloon out of control until the atmosphere
> around Gentoo becomes so unpleasant some developers decide it's better to quit
> than try to stick around and solve problems. Face it, every time that happens
> you've failed to do your job.
> 
> By trying to silence parties involved in a disagreement you only force their
> differences to manifest in less desirble ways. And when that happens, things
> tend to get really ugly and it inevitably reflects back on Gentoo.
I'm not trying to silence anybody. I'm asking people to stop making
things worse than they already are.
> 
> Also, brushing things over to private email and private blogs is not always 
> the
> answer because the issues behind these disagreements often involve (and just 
> as
> importantly, affect) more than 2 people. Just because Daniel Robbins might now
> be taking things over to his private blog doesn't mean you no longer have to
> deal with the issues he attempted to have a public discussion about.
Uhh, I never said anything like that. The only thing I said related to
his blog was that whatever he's going to do in the future is off-topic
for a gentoo development list if it doesn't involve gentoo development.
I think it was quite clear from the context that wasn't the case, so the
proper place to tell the world about all the cool things Daniels going
to do is his blog imo.
> 
> Gentoo should provide an official venue where developers (and ex-developers 
> and
> users) can talk out their disagreements, and under a few plainly spelled-out 
> and
> easily enforceable guidelines designed to keep the discourse somewhat civil.
> 
Somehow a lot of people seems to think banning is the only possible
solution. I tend to think that's a horrible idea myself and most of
devrel backs me up on that. If people thinks devrel is doing a horrible
job they can ask council to do something about it - replacing devrel or
whatever they'd think would solve it.

But as long as that hasn't happened devrel is going to work on solving
conflicts the best possible way according to their experience and ideas.

Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-04 Thread Jakub Moc
Bryan Østergaard napsal(a):
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 11:31:56PM +, Hubert Mercier wrote:
>> What is more, even if Gentoo is always growing, why are people leaving ? 
>> Personal reasons ? No, in fact I read carefully each of the retire mails 
>> in the last year : very often people are just fed up with conflicts, 
>> tired of people just slacking around, etc.. Are these last counted in 
>> "growing dev base" ? IMHO, Gentoo need a large rethinking of its internal 
>> structure, and, what is more, a rethinking of its recruitement process. 
>> But I remember that this point has already been discussed ?
>>
> Please don't base your entire opinion on those very few retirement
> announcements you've seen. Most devs that retire simply run out of time
> for gentoo due to real life commitments etc. or move on to other open
> source projects.
> 
> Regards,
> Bryan Østergaard

OK, let me get this straight... You are suggesting here that we are not
losing enough developers for devrel/userrel to be bothered enough to
start caring about WTH is going wrong here?

Sure, after Flameeyes left we have pam + alsa pretty much unmaintained,
we've lost a key KDE + sound apps developer + BSD lead; next we've lost
metalgod who was a member of already pretty understaffed Gnome herd, one
of 3 members of media-optical herd and sounds apps maintainer as well.
Then a developer and founder of this distribution who rejoined just
about a week ago ran away, scared when seeing the state of things.
That's just for the past month.

And you come here to tell us that people shouldn't get confused by these
'very few' retirements, that the sun in still shining nicely and we are
recruiting people as always? And that you will continue silently
watching the trolls team associated around mips and ciaranm call people
fuckheads, idiots and making a gutter of something that's supposed to be
a development mailing list?

Ugh... well done.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-04 Thread Alex Tarkovsky
Bryan Østergaard  gentoo.org> writes:

> 
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 11:16:47PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > Alexander Færøy napsal(a):
> > >On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:51:34PM +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > >>What do you plan on doing next with your time?
> > >
> > >How cute, but please take this in private and not in the list. Honestly,
> > >we do not care...
> > 
> > I certainly do care - more than I could ever care about all the 
> > 'valuable input' provided so kindly here by ciaranm, which is so 
> > valuable that it has cost us two developers in two days.
> > 
> Jakub, please stop. While I'm sure many of us (myself included) is
> interested in what Daniel is going to do in the future a development
> list isn't the place.
> 
> Instead, I'm looking forward to reading about it on Daniels blog (Yeah,
> I'm assuming he's going to blog about it).
> 
> Regards,
> Bryan Østergaard

Bryan, instead of always addressing the symptoms by asking people to kindly be
quiet or move things elsewhere, why don't you do something more substantive
about what ails Gentoo developers?

You're head of Developer Relations. That makes you partly responsible for
allowing what should only be minor differences of opinion between developers
(and ex-developers and users) to balloon out of control until the atmosphere
around Gentoo becomes so unpleasant some developers decide it's better to quit
than try to stick around and solve problems. Face it, every time that happens
you've failed to do your job.

By trying to silence parties involved in a disagreement you only force their
differences to manifest in less desirble ways. And when that happens, things
tend to get really ugly and it inevitably reflects back on Gentoo.

Also, brushing things over to private email and private blogs is not always the
answer because the issues behind these disagreements often involve (and just as
importantly, affect) more than 2 people. Just because Daniel Robbins might now
be taking things over to his private blog doesn't mean you no longer have to
deal with the issues he attempted to have a public discussion about.

Gentoo should provide an official venue where developers (and ex-developers and
users) can talk out their disagreements, and under a few plainly spelled-out and
easily enforceable guidelines designed to keep the discourse somewhat civil.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-04 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 23:31:56 + (UTC) Hubert Mercier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the last months, a some talented devs gone, and a few others were 
> thinking to do so. How much more before deciding to simplify our 
> organisation ?

Simplifying it won't help. If Gentoo wants more developers, it has to
do three things:

* Start delivering again. Not just shiny things, although some new shiny
things would help, but also things that users and developers really
need.

* Substantially reduce user-visible breakages and breakages caused by
carelessness or deliberate negligence that take huge amounts of time to
fix.

* Reduce the amount of arcane undocumented voodoo.

The only relevance of organisational issues is whether they help or
hinder in achieving those objectives.

PMS, in a round-about way, helps with all three.

-- 
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: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-04 Thread Bryan Østergaard
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 11:31:56PM +, Hubert Mercier wrote:
> What is more, even if Gentoo is always growing, why are people leaving ? 
> Personal reasons ? No, in fact I read carefully each of the retire mails 
> in the last year : very often people are just fed up with conflicts, 
> tired of people just slacking around, etc.. Are these last counted in 
> "growing dev base" ? IMHO, Gentoo need a large rethinking of its internal 
> structure, and, what is more, a rethinking of its recruitement process. 
> But I remember that this point has already been discussed ?
> 
Please don't base your entire opinion on those very few retirement
announcements you've seen. Most devs that retire simply run out of time
for gentoo due to real life commitments etc. or move on to other open
source projects.

Regards,
Bryan Østergaard
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



[gentoo-dev] Re: Little respect towards Daniel please

2007-03-04 Thread Hubert Mercier

Hi,


Why do people keep repeating this myth? As kloeri pointed out,
developer base keeps growing constantly.


That's really a good news. And yo're right of course, developer base keeps 
growing. But... A problem remains : is a "fresh" developer as "efficient" 
as a "guru" devlopper ?. Of course, I don't mean that fresh devs make bad 
work (thanks guys for the nice work you make, really), I just mean that 
for each "old" dev who retire, a new dev cannot replace him automagically. 
It takes some time, to know each other, learn the way things are used 
to be done, etc.. And especially with such a complex organisation, this 
represents a lot of work !


What is more, even if Gentoo is always growing, why are people leaving ? 
Personal reasons ? No, in fact I read carefully each of the retire mails 
in the last year : very often people are just fed up with conflicts, 
tired of people just slacking around, etc.. Are these last counted in 
"growing dev base" ? IMHO, Gentoo need a large rethinking of its internal 
structure, and, what is more, a rethinking of its recruitement process. 
But I remember that this point has already been discussed ?


In the last months, a some talented devs gone, and a few others were 
thinking to do so. How much more before deciding to simplify our 
organisation ?

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list