On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:21 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> W dniu sob, 09.12.2017 o godzinie 16∶29 -0800, użytkownik Daniel
> Campbell napisał:
>> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 09:22:32PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> > Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017, 19:06:36 CET schrieb William L. Thomson
>> > Jr.:
>> > >
>> > > The day everyone wanted has come, after this message. I will
>> > > unsubscribe not to return. You all won in 2008, and again in 2017.
>> > > Though this time I will not be back. I tried more than most anyone else
>> > > would for a very long time. Gentoo wins I lose, I am fine with that.
>> > >
>> > > Please do not contact me off list in IRC or at all. I am done with the
>> > > Gentoo community!
>> >
>> > <comrel hat>
>> > Independent of whether William now unsubscribed or not, he's now enjoying a
>> > lengthy (1 year until review) vacation from all Gentoo communication
>> > channels.
>> > </comrel hat>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Andreas K. Hüttel
>> > dilfri...@gentoo.org
>> > Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice)
>>
>> So, mgorny threatened to leave if something wasn't done, right? I saw
>> the IRC conversation about unsubscribing from gentoo-dev, as well. IRC
>> is not private, for the record. Other developers are required to
>> subscribe to -dev, and are expected to follow it so they stay informed.
>> If they missed something covered on the list, they are directed to the
>> archives and (usually) laughed at. I see no reason for this expectation
>> to be waived for any single developer. Do I get a free pass if I don't
>> like what someone says?
>>
>> It's not enough to let wltjr leave on his own; you had to create a ban
>> and add a smug, tongue-in-cheek mail to it to maintain the image of
>> doing something. Quite hypocritical of comrel's attitude of secrecy to
>> suddenly announce a ban. It seems to me that secrecy is only adopted
>> when it suits those who stand to benefit from it.
>>
>> Great things coming from Gentoo "leadership" here. What will you do when
>> mgorny starts targeting developers and pitching tantrums over them, too?
>> Are we going to stratify developership further, too? It seems rather
>> clear to me that a few individuals see themselves as the owners of this
>> distro and bend it to suit their whims, using bureacracy to obscure
>> their actions and motivations, segment the community, and block those
>> less experienced. 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.
>>
>> A distro should never bend its entire social structure to protect the
>> feelings of one surly developer (or his/her entourage), 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.
>>
>> Software cannot fix wetware. Plenty of developers get to deal with
>> mgorny's aggressive and insulting tone, yet nothing happens. Gee... I
>> wonder why. Maybe because the upper parts of Gentoo are riddled with
>> cronyism.
>>
>> "Rules for thee, not for me."
>>
>> It's clear to anyone with eyeballs that there is preferential treatment
>> and inconsistent enforcement of rules in this community, and the people
>> in a position to fix it, won't, because they in fact benefit from this.
>>
>> Unfortunately, GLEP 39 does not have a section on recalling or
>> impeachment... 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)
>>
>> I'm tired of people beating around the bush and the facile attempts of
>> tact: why do you give special treatment to certain members of this
>> community? Would you have done anything different if it were me or some
>> other developer who was proposing this change?
>>
>> 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.
>> 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.
>>
>
> Your attack on me is fully unfounded and completely inappropriate. FYI,
> just let me correct a few facts here:
>
> 1. ComRel made its decision long before the discussion was even started
> (and I was unaware of it as well), and -- unless you presume they have
> time travellers there -- had nothing to do with it.
>
> 2. I disagree with the way of announcing the ban as well. I had nothing
> to do with that.
>
> 3. The agenda item wasn't expressing 'feelings of one developer', as you
> know it. It was written by me because I found the time to prepare
> a rationale of *facts* to support it. Don't shoot the messenger.
>
Most of what you provided were baseless assertions. I gave you ample
opportunity to explain why the actions would be taking place, but you
refused to provide any facts.
> 4. Finally, if you really hate me so much, you could at least bother to
> check the facts instead of publicly insulting me based purely on lies.
>
What facts?
Respectfully,
R0b0t1
