From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K9Nvq-0007Nb-33 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:28:22 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D8A25E047B; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:28:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rabble.robbieab.com (rabble.robbieab.com [213.79.38.74]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9968CE047B for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:28:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.71] (helo=pheonix) by rabble.robbieab.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K9Nvm-0003ho-Le for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:28:18 +0100 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:28:37 +0100 From: Robert Bridge To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Agenda [WAS: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for June] Message-ID: <20080619182837.080b5bed@pheonix> In-Reply-To: <200806191211.12363.roy@marples.name> References: <20080611070618.54E4066E24@smtp.gentoo.org> <20080615155052.3376fd83@googlemail.com> <1213839792.4449.7.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> <200806191211.12363.roy@marples.name> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.4.0 (GTK+ 2.12.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 4c59e55e-5c9c-44e6-8c20-35b8583ff248 X-Archives-Hash: d9113383b47ae7c43d2509ad54aa1a7a On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:11:11 +0100 Roy Marples wrote: > On Thursday 19 June 2008 02:43:12 Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > Nope. What I see as a problem is that the primary author and > > current de facto maintainer is so much of an asshole that he was > > forcibly removed from the Gentoo project, which PMS is supposed to > > be written for, and has ostracized (at least) one of the package > > manager's development team with his constant not-so-subtle > > attacks. Quite frankly, I'd prefer see Gentoo take control over > > the specification that defines the most important single feature of > > Gentoo and remove the non-Gentoo developers from its development. > > No offense, but you're not a Gentoo developer any longer and you > > shouldn't have a say in how *we* manage ourselves. You're more > > than welcome to contribute code, fork, or whatever the hell you > > want. This is open source, after all, but that doesn't mean you > > should be allowed to hold the position of power over Gentoo that > > you've been granted. > > I would like to see Gentoo grow some balls and start banning people > from -dev and other media used. I don't mean temporary bans, I mean > for life. > > Yes, it's not nice. Yes, Gentoo should be open for all and encourage > participation from all. However, some people have demonstrated time > and time again over quite a number of years that they wont change no > matter what. These people are posionous [1]. Slightly ironic for me to suggest this, but... It is the gentoo-dev mailing list, restrict posting to gentoo devs (i.e. only people with a @gentoo.org email address) would make a lot of sense. Rob. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list