On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Daniel Campbell <z...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Other developers are required to subscribe to -dev, and are > expected to follow it so they stay informed.
Developers are not required to subscribe to -dev. > If they missed something covered on the list, they are directed to the > archives and (usually) laughed at. Correct. While nobody is required to follow the lists, acting out of ignorance usually doesn't impress others. Devs are expected to be adults and figure out what they need to follow based on what they intend to contribute to. -core and -dev-announce are the only required subscriptions. > > Great things coming from Gentoo "leadership" here. What will you do when > mgorny starts targeting developers and pitching tantrums over them, too? You act as if this was the only reason that comrel took action. In the cases of appeals I've seen I've yet to see a case where there wasn't something else going on behind the scene that wasn't reasonably severe when they've taken action. I can't vouch for their reasons in this case as I'm not privy to them, and I imagine they're not going to be made public. > This is precisely why we have unmotivated developers > and a bevy of unmaintained packages; nobody wants to contribute to a > distro that treats its users (and developers) so poorly. Go ahead and cite the list of people who have been banned in the last decade. You won't run out of fingers on one hand. Some might cry about it for months, but good luck finding another distro that hasn't banned twice as many in the same span of years. And keep in mind that failing to take action isn't without consequences. When somebody is harassing somebody else (and sometimes more than one other) you don't really get a choice about whether somebody is going to end up leaving, whether of their own accord or not. That is a situation I've seen happen more than once around here behind the scenes. Again, I have no specific knowledge about this particular comrel action - I'm talking about situations I've seen in the past. > A distro should never bend its entire social structure to protect the > feelings of one surly developer (or his/her entourage), Certainly, and that works both ways. > but naturally > since every council member is friends with mgorny and comrel is afraid > to take any action against him, they'll make exceptions to established > procedures and ignore any complaints about the way he treats others. Considering that he won a significantly contested election to Council, I suspect that more people around here approve of mgorny than just the members of the council. And I can certainly vouch that not all council members are necessarily fans of some of his actions, though I suspect that his technical contributions are praised by just about all (rightly, IMO). I've yet to see a discussion between Council members where people were strongly playing favorites the way you imply. > Unfortunately, GLEP 39 does not have a section on recalling or > impeachment... This whole debate has been going on for over a year, and there has been an election in the interim. Do you really think that a majority of developers somehow missed the hundreds of posts on -dev the last time this debate happened? I'm not sure why you think a recall would succeed even if one were possible. Besides, the council hasn't even made any decisions here. This matter was never appealed to the council, so it seems a bit silly to hold them accountable. > This whole situation highlights why the Council has no > business sticking its head into non-technical matters. It's clearly not > up to the task. It's no surprise, since technical skill does not > guarantee or even imply social skill. (or vice-versa) Dealing with social issues is a major part of the Council's purpose, per GLEP 39. I don't think the developers were blind to this in the last election, especially considering all the fiasco this was causing in the months leading up to the election. And again, this particular issue was never appealed to the Council. I'm not sure where else you would see something like this appealed. The Trustees have struggled with simply filing the tax returns. If you don't think that somebody can have both technical and social skills, I'm not sure why you think that somebody could have both financial/legal and social skills. > Would you have done anything different if it were me or some > other developer who was proposing this change? What change are you proposing? > It wouldn't have made it to the Council agenda if he didn't write it, > period. Everyone else would've been told to suck it up and deal with it. This is silly. Go ahead and find a single example of ANYTHING submitted by ANYBODY for the Council agenda which didn't make it onto the agenda in the last five years. I can't vouch for how things worked a decade ago but the process is basically that if somebody replies to the call for agenda items, it goes on the agenda. That doesn't guarantee the outcome that the submitter desired, but I've yet to see anything come up and be dismissed without so much as a reason unless it was retracted by the submitter. And the only item recently submitted that is relevant is the item for the splitting of the mailing list, and the Council hasn't even met to make any decisions one way or another. You're exasperated over something the Council hasn't even done. > And knowing how the Council is, in a few days we'll all get to deal with > the churn of mailing lists to protect one person's ego. Sad. Well, if you have such a problem with the Council why don't you consider: 1. Running for the council and convincing a majority of your peers to elect you. 2. Submit whatever issues you're concerned about to the council to be discussed on the agenda instead of just whining about it on the mailing lists. IMO the reason these discussions never seem to end is because opinions like yours are held by a very tiny minority of developers who assume that they're the opinion of some kind of majority that can't figure out how to vote for the right council members. All they can do is talk endlessly because the governance structure of Gentoo, by design, is intended to prevent the "special treatment to certain members of this community" that you are in fact the one who is seeking. A majority of devs selected a Council to represent their concerns and govern the distro. If you don't like the job they're doing, then don't vote for them. If they're elected anyway, consider that perhaps others are just fine with what is going on... -- Rich
