On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 01:34:17 Thomas Tuttle wrote:
>
> Personally, I prefer quicker mechanisms to slower ones, but some people
> dislike real-time communications because they can interrupt their work
> constantly. I think what's important is not the signal-to-noise ratio,
> per se, but the relevant
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:11:55 Seemant Kulleen wrote:
>
> This leaves two courses of action.
>
> 1. Officially install him as such; or
> 2. Stop letting him wield his power over you. (yes, you, not us --
> concentrate on how much you let him affect you).
I guess you know my vote. Option 1 is unacce
Chrissy Fullam wrote:
Could we try to keep this thread, and all the similarly named ones, on
topic? The pointing fingers, trash talking, etc is not furthering anything.
If you don't like councils opinion, or someone elses opinion, well respect
them enough to allow them their own opinion.
The real
Could we try to keep this thread, and all the similarly named ones, on
topic? The pointing fingers, trash talking, etc is not furthering anything.
If you don't like councils opinion, or someone elses opinion, well respect
them enough to allow them their own opinion.
The real topic at hand is about
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 14:37 +0200, Michael Krelin wrote:
That was my thought as well. We (the developers) owe nothing to the
community at large. We are volunteers, and if we want to treat Gentoo as
our own personal toy (which we currently aren't), then so be it.
Of course Gentoo owes to the co
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 06:45 -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
That was my thought as well. We (the developers) owe nothing to the community at
large. We are volunteers, and if we want to treat Gentoo as our own personal toy
(which we currently aren't), then so be it.
Exactl
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 13:14 +1000, Will Briggs wrote:
>> Oh dear. "slight delay" in an email list forum? That's like saying
>> "you can take part in this face-to-face conversation but you have to
>> wait 30 seconds before you can say anything" In effect you reduce that
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 23:30 +0100, George Prowse wrote:
> This is going to crash and burn but wouldn't it be an ideal job
> description for the proctors? Instead of telling people off they could
> just stop people posting. That way you dont even get to know that they
> are even there.
Seeing as
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 13:14 +1000, Will Briggs wrote:
Oh dear. "slight delay" in an email list forum? That's like saying
"you can take part in this face-to-face conversation but you have to
wait 30 seconds before you can say anything" In effect you reduce that
person t
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 14:37 +0200, Michael Krelin wrote:
> >
> > That was my thought as well. We (the developers) owe nothing to the
> > community at large. We are volunteers, and if we want to treat Gentoo as
> > our own personal toy (which we currently aren't), then so be it.
> >
>
> Of cour
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 06:45 -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> That was my thought as well. We (the developers) owe nothing to the community
> at
> large. We are volunteers, and if we want to treat Gentoo as our own personal
> toy
> (which we currently aren't), then so be it.
Exactly.
I work on G
On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 13:14 +1000, Will Briggs wrote:
> Oh dear. "slight delay" in an email list forum? That's like saying
> "you can take part in this face-to-face conversation but you have to
> wait 30 seconds before you can say anything" In effect you reduce that
> person to an on-looker who
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:02:07 +0100
Peter Weller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The moderators should get the final word, end of.
That would only work if Gentoo could find decent moderators who are
prepared to put lots of effort into work that is, let's face it,
entirely unnecessary and serving no point be
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:24:32 -0700
Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All-
>
[..snip..]
>
> We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now
> would be the time.
>
> --taco
Eeer, I think this is one of the most idiotic ideas I've heard since
I started using Gentoo.
As I
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:16:45 +0100
George Prowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Matthias Langer wrote:
> >
> >> no offense, but this is one of the worst proposals i've ever read
> >> on this list; why? because, one of gentoo's major problems is that
> >> it is becoming
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Matthias Langer wrote:
no offense, but this is one of the worst proposals i've ever read on
this list; why? because, one of gentoo's major problems is that it is
becoming more and more a toy exclusively for its own developers.
Gentoo's always been exclusively fo
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:42:44 -0400
Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Talk like this, especially from people I respected, makes me question
> just what its worth to keep going. If Gentoo is only about the devs,
> well, I'm happy with the way things are now, they work for me, so no
> sens
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:54:44 -0400, "Daniel Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> I do like the "gentoo-politics" idea that came up a few weeks ago, which
> was to move politics off gentoo-dev and to another list, but I'd view it
> from another perspective (and avoid the words 'politics'): make
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
>
> Yep, this is all anyone is trying to say. We aren't paid, so we work on
> what we feel like working on, and do what we feel like doing (within
> reason).
>
This is the great difficulty with any open-source project, and yet
Marius Mauch wrote:
I think you're misinterpreting those statements.
Consider if you have choose if you spend your time implementing a
feature that you personally want to have or one that a user wants (and
is of no use to yourself), which one would you choose, assuming that
both have the same cos
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Matthias Langer wrote:
no offense, but this is one of the worst proposals i've ever read on
this list; why? because, one of gentoo's major problems is that it is
becoming more and
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:42:44 -0400
Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > Are you people serious? Let's ban nondevs from bugzilla then? Close
> > #gentoo, disband PR, etc? Not sure if we can keep any sponsors
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Are you people serious? Let's ban nondevs from bugzilla then? Close
> #gentoo, disband PR, etc? Not sure if we can keep any sponsors then...
...or devs...
Seriously, no users == no community. Why? Because devs don't get along
That was my thought as well. We (the developers) owe nothing to the
community at large. We are volunteers, and if we want to treat Gentoo as
our own personal toy (which we currently aren't), then so be it.
Of course Gentoo owes to the community a lot. A lot of its progress,
progress of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> Matthias Langer wrote:
>>> no offense, but this is one of the worst proposals i've ever read on
>>> this list; why? because, one of gentoo's major problems is that it is
>>> becoming more and more a toy
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Matthias Langer wrote:
no offense, but this is one of the worst proposals i've ever read on
this list; why? because, one of gentoo's major problems is that it is
becoming more and more a toy exclusively for its own developers.
Gentoo's always been exclusively for the de
Matthias Langer wrote:
> no offense, but this is one of the worst proposals i've ever read on
> this list; why? because, one of gentoo's major problems is that it is
> becoming more and more a toy exclusively for its own developers.
Gentoo's always been exclusively for the developers. Nobody's pa
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Matthias Langer wrote:
>> by banning non-dev contributors from this list some of you may feel
>> better
>> - but gentoo as a whole will probably suffer. silencing people doesn't
>> make their opinions invalid.
>
> I keep seeing this argument over and over again. Many people
Matthias Langer wrote:
by banning non-dev contributors from this list some of you may feel better
- but gentoo as a whole will probably suffer. silencing people doesn't
make their opinions invalid.
I keep seeing this argument over and over again. Many people are just completely
misunderstandin
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> All-
>
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
> devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
> in
> bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Fact is -dev's volume is getting to the point where it's productivity is
> diminishing. Both with dev <-> dev and dev <-> world. The entire idea
> here is to help correct that and makes things BETTER :)
I hear you. (Although I disagree that there is a relationship
On Friday 13 July 2007 03:41, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
Works for me.
--
Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen
Gentoo Linux Security Team
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Friday 13 July 2007 01:17, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:43:59 -0700
>
> "Chrissy Fullam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > An additional method discussed was to have all non-dev emails on
> > a timeout, pick a number of hours, and then the email if not
> > moderated would be release
Mike Doty wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
gentoo-project list will be created to take o
Dnia 14-07-2007, sob o godzinie 14:03 -0700, Christina Fullam
napisał(a):
[ .. ]
> -core stays private. I really dont see the need to change IMO.
> -project (call it what you will) would be for the off topic, non
> development emails that we so commonly see. this list would be optional
> for all de
Christina Fullam wrote:
> I think everyone is overlooking the part included previously:
> (non-dev sends his email, time period expires and
> no one booted it, so the email rolls through)"
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Then what, exactly, is the damned point? The problem this is
>>suppos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:13:53 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So I should cut it, but I'm leaving it so you see what I'm responding
to.
Seemant, thanks.
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:33 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
> > *sigh*
>
> I
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 20:20 +1000, Will Briggs wrote:
>
> But -dev is where the substantial discussion takes place. -dev would
> still be the "inside loop." And a community based project simply should
> not exclude/reduce (even simply in perception) the community's
> involvement in that loop.
We
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 19:51 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:44:03 -0400
>> "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> To future devs and any new contributing users, they will see -dev as a
>>> ml for developer interaction. They wi
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
I won't leave just because I disagree with some management decision that
Council makes. I might be stubborn and disenchanted for some time
(witness the many murmurs of discontent), but it's against my own best
interests to leave Gentoo. As it was put before, if you leave,
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:13:53PM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
>> My thought is this: everyone should try and evaluate their own behaviour
>> on this list, and the method in which they treat others. If each of us
>> actually thought about the effects of our attitudes, t
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:13:53PM -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> My thought is this: everyone should try and evaluate their own behaviour
> on this list, and the method in which they treat others. If each of us
> actually thought about the effects of our attitudes, this discussion
> might well b
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:33 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> *sigh*
It seems impossible to have any sort of discussion with you (unless one
is in agreement with you, of course, and then one is "clear headed")
without eliciting a *sigh* -- I don't think it's particularly the
healthiest way to have
I'm (obviously) not a dev but contribute some from time to time. Not much more
can be said than has already been stated, but since (I believe) this thread
started out asking for input, I just wanted to toss in a negative vote.
Essentially I don't see it solving any problem and stepping on the toes
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:37:42 -0700, "Chris Gianelloni"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 13:53 -0500, Chris Scullard wrote:
> > Chris
>
> Thanks for a level-headed response, Chris.
>
> I think the biggest source of confusion is that few people went to
> actually read the Council s
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 13:53 -0500, Chris Scullard wrote:
> Chris
Thanks for a level-headed response, Chris.
I think the biggest source of confusion is that few people went to
actually read the Council stuff from last meeting. Some points of
contention that nobody seems to be getting:
- Nobody i
Darren kirby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And what exactly is the bloody point if all of the contributions from
>users are going to rot in some queue until they are no longer relevant?
I think everyone is overlooking the part included previously:
"An additional method discussed was to have all non-
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 19:51 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:44:03 -0400
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To future devs and any new contributing users, they will see -dev as a
> > ml for developer interaction. They will see -project as a place for
> >
Another user here throwing in his two cents (Gentoo must be rich by
now). But I think that the mailing list absolutely needs changes. Like
it or not, after the recent negative press, including the embarassing
Daniel Robbins incident, this list has become a much higher-profile
public face of Gen
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:44:03 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To future devs and any new contributing users, they will see -dev as a
> ml for developer interaction. They will see -project as a place for
> interaction with the community.
Wouldn't that be, uh, -user?
--
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 12:04 -0600, darren kirby wrote:
> quoth the Chris Gianelloni:
>
> > Seriously, how about instead of these childish "if this happens, I'm
> > taking my toys and going home" attitudes,
>
> As opposed to the childish "I don't want to hear from a few outspoken users
> so
> l
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:35 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:14 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > What makes a developer only -dev list any different than developers only
> > having a voice on #gentoo-dev?
>
> It is a change from what we have now and all change is b
quoth the Chris Gianelloni:
> Seriously, how about instead of these childish "if this happens, I'm
> taking my toys and going home" attitudes,
As opposed to the childish "I don't want to hear from a few outspoken users so
let's close up the list" attitude?
> you instead try to determine
> wha
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:33:40 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're trying to solve the problem of people, *ALL* people, treating
> each other like complete crap on our lists.
And three Council members come extremely high up the list of treating
people like crap. Or are [1], [2]
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 08:39 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> I just read an article about this [1]. To summarize, in a volunteer
> community, there needs to be more people enforcing the rules than
> people breaking them. A small group of proctors doesn't work -- we need
> everyone to join in to enfo
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:25:21 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seriously, how about instead of these childish "if this happens, I'm
> taking my toys and going home" attitudes, you instead try to determine
> what you can do to improve a situation you see as bad for Gentoo with
> on
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:14 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> What makes a developer only -dev list any different than developers only
> having a voice on #gentoo-dev?
It is a change from what we have now and all change is bad, mm'kay.
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 03:11 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> What I find absolutely astounding is how much power Ciaran (we all know
> the elephant in the room that motivates this newest council
> announcement) wields over Gentoo.
*sigh*
Why is it that everyone always assumes everything the Counc
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 23:41 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
> Quite frankly, this (if passed) will be Gentoo's deathbed moment, and
> this mail will be one of my last from an official Gentoo account.
Sure. Just like CoC. Or PMS. Or whatever the popular "Gentoo is
dying" topic was prior to that.
If
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:41:33 -0700
> Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 1). Create 1 (ONE) new list, which, for the purposes of this
>> discussion I will call it gentoo-dev-info (the name matters not). The
>> requirement for subscription for all devs would shift fr
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> Thanks for expressing your point of view that clearly. I stand with
> you.
I'm just adding one more comment that I don't think I've seen yet in
this thread. (Although it's been a long thread, and I don't remember
all the points from all the other mails this late in the
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:41:33 -0700
Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1). Create 1 (ONE) new list, which, for the purposes of this
> discussion I will call it gentoo-dev-info (the name matters not). The
> requirement for subscription for all devs would shift from gentoo-dev
> to gentoo-dev-
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:11:55 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've said for a while now (on this list, on my blogs) -- bad behaviour
> happens on this list because we (as a community) allow it to happen.
> If it's not encouraged and trolls are not fed, they die out. Part of
> the
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:08:38 -0400, "William L. Thomson Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 15:26 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:14:00 -0400
> > "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > What makes a developer only -dev list any di
Hi,
As a non-dev who recently joined this list, I think it
would be too bad for me if you made those policy
changes.
Basically, I neither have the skills nor the time
(yet) to even try to become a dev but I truly enjoy
"contributing" once in a while especially for packages
I use at work.
Since I
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 15:26 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:14:00 -0400
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What makes a developer only -dev list any different than developers
> > only having a voice on #gentoo-dev?
>
> The former is where developme
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 15:26 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> If you want businesses to use Gentoo, you need to start offering things
> that make Gentoo a better solution than other distributions. That,
> first and foremost, means technical improvements, an area upon which
> Gentoo is most definitely
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:14:00 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I consider it growing up. Do we want businesses to run and base their
> service/product offerings on Gentoo? If so we must take it seriously.
> Otherwise we are just a hobby distro for the uber geeks.
If you w
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 03:11 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> Thanks for expressing your point of view that clearly. I stand with
> you. Gentoo, for a while, has been taking itself *way* too seriously.
> Perhaps that mentality is part of the inevitability of a project's
> evolution through its own
Mike Doty wrote: [Thu Jul 12 2007, 03:24:32PM CDT]
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to
> where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.
> devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation
> themselves. in addition the gentoo-projec
> We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would
> be the time.
It's like proctors, but worse. The only achievement will be another few devs
retiring.
Btw. I haven't seen any flamewars recently, have you? (probably except what
this thread will become)
--
Best Regard
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Chrissy Fullam wrote:
that post. An additional method discussed was to have all non-dev emails on
a timeout, pick a number of hours, and then the email if not moderated would
be released. (non-dev sends his email, time period expires and no one booted
it, so the email roll
Thanks for expressing your point of view that clearly. I stand with
you. Gentoo, for a while, has been taking itself *way* too seriously.
Perhaps that mentality is part of the inevitability of a project's
evolution through its own stages of life. Or perhaps, it's just human
nature to shriek in a
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 23:41 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
> For far too long the mailing lists, IRC channels, and other media of
> developer communication have been ridden with belligerent,
> inconsiderate, and often-accusatory postings. However, instead of
> removing the few who cause most (if not al
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
> devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
> in
> bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
> gentoo-
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 19:05 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> I think the idea is being taken the wrong way. Why would you think you
> were second class?
Because this is where the development of the Gentoo Linux distribution
is discussed.
I'm not a Gentoo dev either, but I manage to make my
Kevin Lacquement wrote:
Sorry, I should have made it clear - I was agreeing with you there. I'm
not a -dev yet, but if I continue to have the time to work towards it, I
don't want to be blocked because someone decided that users couldn't
give insights to the developers list.
Ah ha, then ye
Kumba wrote:
Here's where we want the non-devs to get access. After all, not all
development and debugging is done by devs. All the current devs were,
at one point, users. Where did they get their start? My bet is they
entered via the -dev mailing list, learned the ropes here, and
event
Kevin Lacquement wrote:
I'm not sure about stuff in -core becoming publicly accessible. After
all, isn't it in the private list for a reason? Perhaps summaries of
-core discussions being forwarded to -dev would be a better option.
However, I'm new to -dev, so if this is what already happens
Kumba wrote:
- I envisioned three mailing lists, essentially:
* core
* dev
* project
- core:private, dev-only mailing list for internal discussion
* Possibility: becomes read-only to the public after
a set time limit, possibly 1, 2,
Mike Doty wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where
only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who
moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition
the gentoo-project list will be created to take ov
One additional note, my proposal doesn't account for controlling
flaming, disrespect or general asshatery (discounting outright
ridiculous things like blatantly insulting people, that's a no-no). That
I am afraid is just one of the natures of communities our size. There is
no way we can curtail p
Olivier Crête wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-07 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in additio
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> All-
>
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
> devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
> in
> bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 02:17 +0200, Robert Buchholz wrote:
> I have to second the voices that a lot of user mails are productive.
> I did
> not do any stats, but I feel that most mails to -dev are currently by
> Gentoo
> devs anyway, so it will not seriously reduce the amount of mail in
> tot
Mike Doty wrote:
> All-
>
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
> devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
> in
> bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
> gentoo-project list will be crea
Am 13.07.2007 um 00:43 schrieb Chrissy Fullam:
The -dev mailing list would be the list for development discussion.
The
reason it does not replace -core is because it would still be open
to be
viewed by the public.
Many devs have stated that they do not wish to read -dev presently
due to
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 00:10 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>> On 7/12/07, Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
>>> public, and leave -dev as it i
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 01:24:32PM -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> We're voting on this next council meeting so if you have input, now would be
> the time.
"Any dev can moderate" is an illusion. Most non-dev messages are
perfectly reasonable ones and I'm pretty sure the smart devs know how
to handle fi
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:43:59 -0700
"Chrissy Fullam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An additional method discussed was to have all non-dev emails on
> a timeout, pick a number of hours, and then the email if not
> moderated would be released. (non-dev sends his email, time period
> expires and no one
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 22:31 +0200, Bryan Østergaard wrote:
>
> Consider this my last post ever to gentoo-dev ML if this really goes
> through. Degrading non-dev contributers like myself to second-class
> citizens is definitely not going to make me want to contribute
> anything more.
I think the id
Mike Doty wrote:
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in
bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
gentoo-project list will be created to take over wh
>The -project mailing list ... is a required list for a dev to join.
Sorry, NOT a required list for devs to join.
Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | GWN Author
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> All-
>
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
> devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate
> in
> bad posts will be subject to moderation themselves. in addition the
On 7/12/07, Mike Doty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All-
>
> We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to
> where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post.
> devs who moderate in bad posts will be subject to moderation
> themselves. in addition the g
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:43:57 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:24 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:
> > All-
> >
> > We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to
> > where only devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev
> > post. de
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:21:40 +0200
Krzysiek Pawlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm for that idea - less problems for infra, no big changes. Would
> the archives of -core be opened too?
That's been discussed several times in the past. Agreement has always
been that any change to the public status
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> My only comment for now is: why not just make -core read only, but
> public, and leave -dev as it is? That way we don't have to muck around
> with deprecating lists and introducing new ones.
I'm for that idea - less problems for infra, no big changes. Would the archives
o
Is this course of tightening all possible restrictions permanent now?
Love,
H
Mike Doty wrote:
All-
We're going to change the -dev mailing list from completely open to where only
devs can post, but any dev could moderate a non-dev post. devs who moderate in
bad posts will be subject to moder
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:31:31PM +0200, Bryan Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Degrading non-dev contributers like myself to second-class
> citizens is definitely not going to make me want to contribute
> anything more.
+1
This move would be shooting Gentoo in the foot, in my opinio
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
