[gentoo-dev] Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

[gentoo-dev] Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

[Thomas Anderson]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 312 bytes --]

Here is the summary from Thursday's council meeting. The full log along with the
summary will appear shortly at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council.

Regards,
Thomas
-- 
---------
Thomas Anderson
Gentoo Developer
/////////
Areas of responsibility:
AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council
---------

[-- Attachment #1.2: councilsummary-20090611.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3577 bytes --]

Roll Call:
===========
Betelgeuse: here
Cardoe: here
dertobi123: here 
dev-zero: here
leio: here
lu_zero: here
tanderson(secretary): here
ulm: here

Topics:
===========

     - Short discussion of EAPI 3 progress.
        Zac Medico(zmedico) commented that while no progress had been made, a
        tracker bug had been made[1] for those interested in providing patches
        for and tracking the progress of the EAPI 3 implementation. Ciaran
        McCreesh noted that paludis is ready for EAPI 3 whenever the portage
        implementation is finished.

    - Default contents of ACCEPT_LICENSE(license filtering).
        GLEP23[2] provided a method for users to select what licenses they are
        willing to accept based on a ACCEPT_LICENSE configuration variable. In
        addition it provided for 'license groups' so users could accept or
        decline to use software of a certain license type. What GLEP 23 did not
        specify was the default value of ACCEPT_LICENSE.

        Conclusion:
            The council unanimously voted to have the default ACCEPT_LICENSE
            value as ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -@EULA".

    - BASH 4 in EAPI 3.
        There were three parts to this topic:
            1) Unlocking of feature requests for EAPI 3.
            2) Allowing BASH 4 features in EAPI 3 ebuilds.
            3) Allowing BASH 4 features in all ebuilds with EAPIs >= 3 after a 
               fixed amount of time in gentoo-x86(Overlays could begin use
               immediately).

        Conclusion:
            By a 4-3 decision the council voted not to open the feature list for
            EAPI 3.

    - The banning of igli(Steve Long) from #gentoo-council.
        Tiziano Muller(dev-zero) banned igli from #-council for what he called
        repeated trolling after private warnings. The ban was later reversed by
        Doug Goldstein(Cardoe) because it had not been put to a council vote as
        all bans in #-council are.

        Conclusion:
            No decision yet, the council decided to discuss this issue privately
            on the council@ alias so that precious meeting time is not spent.

    - Define EAPI development/deployment cycles.
        Various Council members expressed support for Ciaran McCreesh's EAPI
        development guidelines as outlined in [3]. However, the discussion
        reached no conclusion and quickly spiraled into a discussion of the
        removal of Ciaran McCreesh's bugzilla privileges.

    - Removal of Ciaran McCreesh's(ciaranm) bugzilla permissions.
        At some point in the last year ciaranm's bugzilla permissions were
        removed. He filed a bug about the issue(#273759) and was talking about
        moving PMS off of Gentoo Infrastructure, a move that some council
        members were strongly opposed to. When asked about the permissions,
        Ciaran had no objections to waiting a few days for the infra to complete
        an investigation into who removed the access and for what reason.

        Conclusion:
            The council voted to reinstate Ciaran's editbugs privileges. Ned
            Ludd (solar) noted that infra will investigate who removed the privileges
            in the first place, and asked for not changing bugzilla privileges before
            this is completed.

[1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273620
[2]: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0023.html
[3]: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_d3a4758c455fded00608e891f525d3cc.xml

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

[Steven J Long]

Thomas Anderson wrote:

> Tiziano Muller(dev-zero) banned igli from #-council for what he called
> repeated trolling after private warnings.

This is inaccurate, and to be frank, a lie.

dev-zero was placed on /ignore by me a couple of weeks previously after
unwelcome /msg'ing wrt dev ML, that he was told was unwelcome, which he
refused to respect. That was the ONLY private discussion we had and had
nothing to do with #-council.

Furthermore, he only banned me 8 hours after I had left the channel.

Additionally, his user-rel issue was only raised AFTER I had raised the
above in #-devrel, a process he chose to ignore until raising in userrel
a couple of hours later, and then later trying to turn #-council into
#-userrel, pretending the devrel issue had never occurred.

(In the interests of accuracy I should point out it was +q not +b.)

If I thought you had both time and inclination to actually reign your
developers in when they step out of line, I'd file a devrel bug against him.
As it is, I don't have the time to be insulted on bugzilla as well as
online, and am just glad there is an election on; none of the user-rel
people I spoke to afterwards knew anything about raising it with you for
review; they only asked for the ban to be rescinded, which it was.

I'd like to ask prospective Council members to answer the question I posted
in my last mail to -project (which I assume you guys read. If not, I suggest
new members consider keeping up to date with it, since many externals find
dev to be beyond the pale. It's not just your developers who get put off by
the nonsense.)

What you put in your summary concerns me an awful lot less than the constant
kowtowing to a supposed authority figure who on inspection is just another
student, making all the classic student mistakes. It's not like others
haven't pointed this out to you over and over; maybe you should start to
consider it for a change?

OK, put it this way: how offended do you think dev-zero would have felt if I
had spoken to him in the way ciaranm addressed trelane in #-council over
the last week or two? Or I'm sure anyone can find PLENTY of examples from
this ML.

Odd that CoC doesn't apply, but others are held up to a much higher standard
and indeed treated most unfairly by people in positions of authority
abusing that position for partisan aims.

And sorry, tanderson, but consider my words of support for your campaign
rescinded after the concerted nature of your part in the politicking. You
clearly have a year or two more of growing-up to do, minimum, AFAIC.
Lovey-dovey words about all getting along and documentation, are not
sufficient to hold up to the rigours of the process you wish to lead.

I'll chalk it up to inexperience on your part, as I know your heart is in
the right place. If I'm wrong, feel free to flame me and I'll revise my
opinion. Nice summaries though.

/me looks forward to seeing gentoofan on the Council in a week or three and
even more to quoting ciara at dev-zero.

(It's OK, it's a joke.)
--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

[Denis Dupeyron]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 132 bytes --]

[...]

This list is for technical discussions only. Also, public mailing-lists are
not for discussing your personal issues.

Denis.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 148 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

[Duncan]

Steven J Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> posted
1354782.qAZS4EUmsO@news.friendly-coders.info, excerpted below, on  Fri, 19
Jun 2009 09:52:18 +0100:

> Thomas Anderson wrote:
> 
>> Tiziano Muller(dev-zero) banned igli from #-council for what he called
>> repeated trolling after private warnings.
> 
> This is inaccurate, and to be frank, a lie.
> 
> dev-zero was placed on /ignore

> Furthermore, he only banned me 8 hours after I had left the channel.

> (It's OK, it's a joke.)

Wow, joke or not, this is the kind of thing that makes me glad I don't do 
IRC.  There's enough of it here, where people get to think about what 
they write before they post (whether they actually /do/ or not...).  I 
don't need more of that sort of stuff in my life.  I wasn't there and 
don't know, and don't care to know, the details.  And my life remains 
much simpler and happier for that. =:^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Duncan<1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> Wow, joke or not, this is the kind of thing that makes me glad I don't do
> IRC.  There's enough of it here, where people get to think about what
> they write before they post (whether they actually /do/ or not...).  I
> don't need more of that sort of stuff in my life.  I wasn't there and
> don't know, and don't care to know, the details.  And my life remains
> much simpler and happier for that. =:^)
>

Denis already pointed out that this is not the place for discussions
like this, even more so since your reply is doubly-offtopic.

Please, do not waste everyone's time and bandwidth with thoughts that
do not belong on this list, and hence they do not care about.


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

[Richard Freeman]

Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:

> Please, do not waste everyone's time and bandwidth with thoughts that
> do not belong on this list, and hence they do not care about.
> 

Let's be nice.  Somehow I don't think Duncan's goal was to get the 
mailing lists to be as flame-filled as he perceives IRC to be...  :)

Agreed that just about everything but the original council summary in 
this thread (and I mean the first original one) probably belongs in 
-project.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

[Denis Dupeyron]

> probably belongs in -project.

Not even in -project, it simply wasn't public mailing-list material.
For those who haven't understood yet, the -dev and -project mailing
lists are not for keeping us informed of your random thought of the
day or lamenting about
why-oh-why-is-the-whole-world-so-unfair-to-me-when-I'm-being-so-nice-to-everybody-no-kidding.
Keep tweeting it though.

Denis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 637 bytes --]

Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>> probably belongs in -project.
> 
> Not even in -project, it simply wasn't public mailing-list material.
> For those who haven't understood yet, the -dev and -project mailing
> lists are not for keeping us informed of your random thought of the
> day or lamenting about
> why-oh-why-is-the-whole-world-so-unfair-to-me-when-I'm-being-so-nice-to-everybody-no-kidding.
> Keep tweeting it though.
> 
> Denis.
> 

Stuff sent to gentoo-dev-announce should only go to a single mailing
list besides the -announce-list. As long as we have -council that should
be used in my opinion.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 261 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

[Steven J Long]

Denis Dupeyron wrote:

> This list is for technical discussions only.
I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not regaled
with countless emails about "technical issues" that were solved 3 years
ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree.

> Also, public mailing-lists
> are not for discussing your personal issues.
>
It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a
Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims.

You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get picked
up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives.

Or like, y'know, put your house in order/ keep that crap outta the archives.
I don't have any more to say on it, but feel free to keep the flamefest
going amongst yourselves.

Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're the
person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision, which
they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the points about
process and try to make out this is my "personal" issue and not an issue of
borked process.

<Data> Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most
intriguing.

As stated, summarise correctly, and even better, follow a more professional
process, and this sub-topic would never have been raised. As it is, this is
about the level of debate I expected; blame the messenger, and avoid our own
problems. I am glad there's an election on.
-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

[Thomas Anderson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3038 bytes --]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 08:09:04AM +0100, Steven J Long wrote:
> Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> 
> > This list is for technical discussions only.
> I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not regaled
> with countless emails about "technical issues" that were solved 3 years
> ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree.
> 

Speaking of juvenile insults, your last mails concerning my summary have had
their fair share of insults towards me(all unfounded and ridiculous). Would you
please stop that?

> > Also, public mailing-lists
> > are not for discussing your personal issues.
> >
> It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a
> Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims.

The summary was not innacurate; If someone is banned, I put down the reason
given _at the time_ for the banning. That seems fairly straightforward. There is
nothing biased(or anything deserving being called a 'lie') in that
summary(notice I used the language "for what he called" indicating that this is
not necessarily my view or the council's view of what occurred, only what reason
was given for the banning). As those who I talk to can attest to, I bend
over backwards to make sure all my summaries are professional and indicate what
the person means, not what others say about their intentionns etc.

I do my best at professional journalism(I am an amateur however) and your
remarks to the contrary show you haven't given thought to how much time and
effort I spend at making it unbiased and accurate.

> You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get picked
> up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives.

See above, especially the part saying "for what he called".
> 
> Or like, y'know, put your house in order/ keep that crap outta the archives.
> I don't have any more to say on it, but feel free to keep the flamefest
> going amongst yourselves.

See above.

> Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're the
> person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision, which
> they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the points about
> process and try to make out this is my "personal" issue and not an issue of
> borked process.

I believe the Council was deciding only on what to do in #-council which is as
stated their turf. Any userrel issues are probably separate to this problem.

> 
> As stated, summarise correctly, and even better, follow a more professional
> process, and this sub-topic would never have been raised.

See above.

> As it is, this is
> about the level of debate I expected; blame the messenger, and avoid our own
> problems. I am glad there's an election on.

So am I, but your slandering of my platform is not appreciated at all.

-- 
---------
Thomas Anderson
Gentoo Developer
/////////
Areas of responsibility:
AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council
---------

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo IRC _is_ better than ML ;)

[Steven J Long]

Duncan wrote:

> Wow, joke or not, this is the kind of thing that makes me glad I don't do
> IRC.
Just to answer this quickly, as I think you're querying my earlier assertion
that gentoo IRC is a lot of fun?

The real point is that on IRC you can just type: /ignore asshat
and you never know that person exists unless someone else is talking to him.
That makes IRC in general a LOT easier to deal with than the ML.

WRT paludis trolling, every year or so there's another couple of devs who
get drawn into that circle. They usually end up a lot more embittered, and
never as friendly as they used to be, ime. I've personally seen three guys
I rated, and used to chat with, go through that process. In any
event, /ignore makes #gentoo-* IRC bearable for me at worst, and
more often it's a lot of fun.

--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

[Steven J Long]

Thomas Anderson wrote:

> Steven J Long wrote:
>> Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>> 
>> > This list is for technical discussions only.
>> I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not
>> regaled with countless emails about "technical issues" that were solved 3
>> years ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree.
>> 
> 
> Speaking of juvenile insults, your last mails concerning my summary have
> had their fair share of insults towards me(all unfounded and ridiculous).
> Would you please stop that?
>
I still can't see any insults; I was actually doing my best to give you the
benefit of the doubt. Clearly you are fairly immature, based on my
interaction with you over the last 3 years, and you did indeed take part in
a concerted political action, which was not at all what it was claimed to
be.

>> > Also, public mailing-lists
>> > are not for discussing your personal issues.
>> >
>> It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a
>> Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims.
> 
> The summary was not innacurate; If someone is banned, I put down the
> reason given _at the time_ for the banning. That seems fairly
> straightforward. There is nothing biased(or anything deserving being
> called a 'lie') in that summary

You weren't the Council member referred to. You really don't appear to have
considered my point of view very much.

<snip> 
> I do my best at professional journalism(I am an amateur however) and your
> remarks to the contrary show you haven't given thought to how much time
> and effort I spend at making it unbiased and accurate.
>
You need to think about not simply putting one side of a story in order to
maintain the appearance of impartiality. Which, as you took part in the
politicking, you didn't have in any case.

As for your time and effort, you put that in because you want to. While I
appreciate it, I also appreciate how much time and effort everyone else
puts in too; most especially the users without whom nothing would get done.
 
>> You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get
>> picked up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives.
> 
> See above, especially the part saying "for what he called".
>>
I was answering the "censor him!" tendency that is so prevalent when Gentoo
devs are being picked up on their behaviour and so reviled when it means
disallowing constant poisonous trolling. IIRC the argument is that "it reads
like 'lex ciaran'"; perhaps that's more an indication of how trollish ciaran
actually behaves than a direct attack on him.

The question is: if we're discussing someone else, would you allow that
behaviour? Given the treatment I've had meted out for a lot less egregious
insults, and never casually dropped into everyday discourse, the answer
clearly is "No."

So again, we come round to why ciaran is allowed to act in ways that no-one
else is, despite having been kicked out twice. Frankly I don't care what
the reason is; just don't pretend the CoC or any of the other rules
you(collectively) have are anything more than a fig-leaf to doing w/e tf
you want in any event. I mean now you're even arguing the Developer
Council should allow non-devs to sit on it (and as ever it's simply to have
an exception for ciaran, as his work is such a shining example.. no wait,
it's evidently *not* that great. Why are we doing this again?)
 
>> Or like, y'know, put your house in order/ keep that crap outta the
>> archives. I don't have any more to say on it, but feel free to keep the
>> flamefest going amongst yourselves.
> 
> See above.
>
Ditto.
 
>> Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're
>> the person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision,
>> which they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the
>> points about process and try to make out this is my "personal" issue and
>> not an issue of borked process.
> 
> I believe the Council was deciding only on what to do in #-council which
> is as stated their turf. Any userrel issues are probably separate to this
> problem.
>
Hmm firstly I was directly addressing one individual about his actions. He
raised it; either let him answer as to his intent, or speak for yourself.

Perhaps you should re-read and reconsider the process in light of what you
now know about userrel not once requesting Council to review, but only for
the ban to be rescinded.

There certainly was no need for it to be discussed in full open Council like
that, apart from trying to embarrass me and force a decision on the userrel
bug in the wrong forum (while quietly ignoring the actual background to
same.)
 
>> 
>> As stated, summarise correctly, and even better, follow a more
>> professional process, and this sub-topic would never have been raised.
> 
> See above.
> 
>> As it is, this is
>> about the level of debate I expected; blame the messenger, and avoid our
>> own problems. I am glad there's an election on.
> 
> So am I, but your slandering of my platform is not appreciated at all.
> 
Please make it clear where I have lied at all. As stated you did take part
in a concerted political end-run around the devrel and userrel procedures.

I've tried to take that as your ignorance of the situation; if you're saying
you were fully cognizant of the process, then you have changed in the last
3 years even more than I thought. You really should consider the totality
of what the other person is saying before you libel them.

As I did in #-devrel AND #-userrel, I'd like to drop this now. As stated it
was only about getting my side of events on the record, since I was given
no opportunity in #-council and indeed zero warning that it was coming. If
that is so hard to comprehend, might I suggest some downtime, as you sound
quite burnt-out to me.

I'll only respond to substantively new issues, and if it all possible I
won't be responding on this thread again. If that offends, it's not
intended.
-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

[Thomas Anderson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7782 bytes --]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:34:48AM +0100, Steven J Long wrote:
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
> 
> > Steven J Long wrote:
> >> Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> >> 
> >> > This list is for technical discussions only.
> >> I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not
> >> regaled with countless emails about "technical issues" that were solved 3
> >> years ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree.
> >> 
> > 
> > Speaking of juvenile insults, your last mails concerning my summary have
> > had their fair share of insults towards me(all unfounded and ridiculous).
> > Would you please stop that?
> >
> I still can't see any insults; I was actually doing my best to give you the
> benefit of the doubt. Clearly you are fairly immature, based on my
> interaction with you over the last 3 years, and you did indeed take part in
> a concerted political action, which was not at all what it was claimed to
> be.

There were no political actions ocurring, I was doing my job. As for insults, I
was referring to:

"This is inaccurate, and to be frank, a lie."

"And sorry, tanderson, but consider my words of support for your campaign
rescinded after the concerted nature of your part in the politicking." <--- Not
exactly an insult but sort of close considering it's not true; call it libel.

"You clearly have a year or two more of growing-up to do, minimum, AFAIC."

"Nice summaries though." Not exactly an insult though it was probably sarcastic.

And of course the insult in the last mail you sent: "Clearly you are fairly
immature" and ignoring the libel about political actions(which is both
unsubstantiated and untrue).

And other in general attitude problems against me.
> >> > Also, public mailing-lists
> >> > are not for discussing your personal issues.
> >> >
> >> It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a
> >> Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims.
> > 
> > The summary was not innacurate; If someone is banned, I put down the
> > reason given _at the time_ for the banning. That seems fairly
> > straightforward. There is nothing biased(or anything deserving being
> > called a 'lie') in that summary
> 
> You weren't the Council member referred to. You really don't appear to have
> considered my point of view very much.

So if I don't agree with you and stand up for the work I've put into something I
merely "haven't" considered what you said? My work is on the line as is my image
of journalism and I certainly double check everything to make sure I am not in
the wrong.

> > I do my best at professional journalism(I am an amateur however) and your
> > remarks to the contrary show you haven't given thought to how much time
> > and effort I spend at making it unbiased and accurate.
> >
> You need to think about not simply putting one side of a story in order to
> maintain the appearance of impartiality. Which, as you took part in the
> politicking, you didn't have in any case.

Please, point out *how* I politicked(especially in my summary). I think you'd
be rather surprised at the outcome. Also point out how I could have been more
impartial so I can improve my process.

> As for your time and effort, you put that in because you want to. While I
> appreciate it, I also appreciate how much time and effort everyone else
> puts in too; most especially the users without whom nothing would get done.

You twisted that sentence of mine. I didn't say you should think twice about it
being innacurrate because I put a lot of work into the summary, I said it
because I had put a lot of work into trying to make it impartial.

> >> You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get
> >> picked up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives.
> > 
> > See above, especially the part saying "for what he called".
> >>
> I was answering the "censor him!" tendency that is so prevalent when Gentoo
> devs are being picked up on their behaviour and so reviled when it means
> disallowing constant poisonous trolling. IIRC the argument is that "it reads
> like 'lex ciaran'"; perhaps that's more an indication of how trollish ciaran
> actually behaves than a direct attack on him.

By that logic you should be silenced for what I know is trolling in this thread.
Think it's fair?


> >> Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're
> >> the person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision,
> >> which they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the
> >> points about process and try to make out this is my "personal" issue and
> >> not an issue of borked process.
> > 
> > I believe the Council was deciding only on what to do in #-council which
> > is as stated their turf. Any userrel issues are probably separate to this
> > problem.
> >
> Hmm firstly I was directly addressing one individual about his actions. He
> raised it; either let him answer as to his intent, or speak for yourself.

Well considering you were replying to *me* on the list it is a logical deduction
that you were talking to me. But sorry for that.
> 
> Perhaps you should re-read and reconsider the process in light of what you
> now know about userrel not once requesting Council to review, but only for

The discussion as I saw it was _all_ about your ban in #-council, not having
anything to do with userrel actions. Note that in the interests of clarity I
even mentioned that the topic was about #-council in the topic of that part of
the summary. As stated, userrel does not decide who can be banned in #-council,
the council does which is what the council topic was about.

> >> 
> >> As stated, summarise correctly, and even better, follow a more
> >> professional process, and this sub-topic would never have been raised.
> > 
> > See above.
> > 
> >> As it is, this is
> >> about the level of debate I expected; blame the messenger, and avoid our
> >> own problems. I am glad there's an election on.
> > 
> > So am I, but your slandering of my platform is not appreciated at all.
> > 
> Please make it clear where I have lied at all. As stated you did take part
> in a concerted political end-run around the devrel and userrel procedures.

How was I involved at all with devrel or userrel? That's a lie right there. For
other insults and slandering see the top of my mail.
> 
> I've tried to take that as your ignorance of the situation; if you're saying
> you were fully cognizant of the process, then you have changed in the last
> 3 years even more than I thought. You really should consider the totality
> of what the other person is saying before you libel them.

I've not libeled anyone, stop saying I have without any proof.

> As I did in #-devrel AND #-userrel, I'd like to drop this now. As stated it
> was only about getting my side of events on the record, since I was given
> no opportunity in #-council and indeed zero warning that it was coming. If
> that is so hard to comprehend, might I suggest some downtime, as you sound
> quite burnt-out to me.

I'm not burnt out(though I'm going on vacation for a week), and please do not
say I am.
> 
> I'll only respond to substantively new issues, and if it all possible I
> won't be responding on this thread again. If that offends, it's not
> intended.

Since most of what you have said in this thread is false or insults that
shouldn't be too hard.
> -- 
> #friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
> 
> 

-- 
---------
Thomas Anderson
Gentoo Developer
/////////
Areas of responsibility:
AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council
---------

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo IRC _is_ better than ML ;)

[Alec Warner]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Steven J
Long<slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> Duncan wrote:
>
>> Wow, joke or not, this is the kind of thing that makes me glad I don't do
>> IRC.
> Just to answer this quickly, as I think you're querying my earlier assertion
> that gentoo IRC is a lot of fun?
>
> The real point is that on IRC you can just type: /ignore asshat
> and you never know that person exists unless someone else is talking to him.
> That makes IRC in general a LOT easier to deal with than the ML.
>
> WRT paludis trolling, every year or so there's another couple of devs who
> get drawn into that circle. They usually end up a lot more embittered, and
> never as friendly as they used to be, ime. I've personally seen three guys
> I rated, and used to chat with, go through that process. In any
> event, /ignore makes #gentoo-* IRC bearable for me at worst, and
> more often it's a lot of fun.

Er, for the old school folks, let me introduce procmail; and for the
new school folks, let me introduce gmail filters.  It turns out you
can filter in email too ;)

>
> --
> #friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
>
>
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

[Alec Warner]

Dear god, if you want argue to death do it in private.

-A

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Thomas Anderson<gentoofan23@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:34:48AM +0100, Steven J Long wrote:
>> Thomas Anderson wrote:
>>
>> > Steven J Long wrote:
>> >> Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > This list is for technical discussions only.
>> >> I look forward to the day when that actually happens, and we are not
>> >> regaled with countless emails about "technical issues" that were solved 3
>> >> years ago, accompanied by juvenile insults at anyone who might disagree.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Speaking of juvenile insults, your last mails concerning my summary have
>> > had their fair share of insults towards me(all unfounded and ridiculous).
>> > Would you please stop that?
>> >
>> I still can't see any insults; I was actually doing my best to give you the
>> benefit of the doubt. Clearly you are fairly immature, based on my
>> interaction with you over the last 3 years, and you did indeed take part in
>> a concerted political action, which was not at all what it was claimed to
>> be.
>
> There were no political actions ocurring, I was doing my job. As for insults, I
> was referring to:
>
> "This is inaccurate, and to be frank, a lie."
>
> "And sorry, tanderson, but consider my words of support for your campaign
> rescinded after the concerted nature of your part in the politicking." <--- Not
> exactly an insult but sort of close considering it's not true; call it libel.
>
> "You clearly have a year or two more of growing-up to do, minimum, AFAIC."
>
> "Nice summaries though." Not exactly an insult though it was probably sarcastic.
>
> And of course the insult in the last mail you sent: "Clearly you are fairly
> immature" and ignoring the libel about political actions(which is both
> unsubstantiated and untrue).
>
> And other in general attitude problems against me.
>> >> > Also, public mailing-lists
>> >> > are not for discussing your personal issues.
>> >> >
>> >> It wasn't my personal issue; it was about an inaccurate summary and a
>> >> Council member blatantly lying and using his position for partisan aims.
>> >
>> > The summary was not innacurate; If someone is banned, I put down the
>> > reason given _at the time_ for the banning. That seems fairly
>> > straightforward. There is nothing biased(or anything deserving being
>> > called a 'lie') in that summary
>>
>> You weren't the Council member referred to. You really don't appear to have
>> considered my point of view very much.
>
> So if I don't agree with you and stand up for the work I've put into something I
> merely "haven't" considered what you said? My work is on the line as is my image
> of journalism and I certainly double check everything to make sure I am not in
> the wrong.
>
>> > I do my best at professional journalism(I am an amateur however) and your
>> > remarks to the contrary show you haven't given thought to how much time
>> > and effort I spend at making it unbiased and accurate.
>> >
>> You need to think about not simply putting one side of a story in order to
>> maintain the appearance of impartiality. Which, as you took part in the
>> politicking, you didn't have in any case.
>
> Please, point out *how* I politicked(especially in my summary). I think you'd
> be rather surprised at the outcome. Also point out how I could have been more
> impartial so I can improve my process.
>
>> As for your time and effort, you put that in because you want to. While I
>> appreciate it, I also appreciate how much time and effort everyone else
>> puts in too; most especially the users without whom nothing would get done.
>
> You twisted that sentence of mine. I didn't say you should think twice about it
> being innacurrate because I put a lot of work into the summary, I said it
> because I had put a lot of work into trying to make it impartial.
>
>> >> You can keep on doing things badly all you like; just expect to get
>> >> picked up on it when you summarise it inaccurately in the archives.
>> >
>> > See above, especially the part saying "for what he called".
>> >>
>> I was answering the "censor him!" tendency that is so prevalent when Gentoo
>> devs are being picked up on their behaviour and so reviled when it means
>> disallowing constant poisonous trolling. IIRC the argument is that "it reads
>> like 'lex ciaran'"; perhaps that's more an indication of how trollish ciaran
>> actually behaves than a direct attack on him.
>
> By that logic you should be silenced for what I know is trolling in this thread.
> Think it's fair?
>
>
>> >> Certainly seems to be what you're best at, after all. Ah oh yes, you're
>> >> the person who stated user-rel wanted Council to review the decision,
>> >> which they said they did not. Curious that you should ignore all the
>> >> points about process and try to make out this is my "personal" issue and
>> >> not an issue of borked process.
>> >
>> > I believe the Council was deciding only on what to do in #-council which
>> > is as stated their turf. Any userrel issues are probably separate to this
>> > problem.
>> >
>> Hmm firstly I was directly addressing one individual about his actions. He
>> raised it; either let him answer as to his intent, or speak for yourself.
>
> Well considering you were replying to *me* on the list it is a logical deduction
> that you were talking to me. But sorry for that.
>>
>> Perhaps you should re-read and reconsider the process in light of what you
>> now know about userrel not once requesting Council to review, but only for
>
> The discussion as I saw it was _all_ about your ban in #-council, not having
> anything to do with userrel actions. Note that in the interests of clarity I
> even mentioned that the topic was about #-council in the topic of that part of
> the summary. As stated, userrel does not decide who can be banned in #-council,
> the council does which is what the council topic was about.
>
>> >>
>> >> As stated, summarise correctly, and even better, follow a more
>> >> professional process, and this sub-topic would never have been raised.
>> >
>> > See above.
>> >
>> >> As it is, this is
>> >> about the level of debate I expected; blame the messenger, and avoid our
>> >> own problems. I am glad there's an election on.
>> >
>> > So am I, but your slandering of my platform is not appreciated at all.
>> >
>> Please make it clear where I have lied at all. As stated you did take part
>> in a concerted political end-run around the devrel and userrel procedures.
>
> How was I involved at all with devrel or userrel? That's a lie right there. For
> other insults and slandering see the top of my mail.
>>
>> I've tried to take that as your ignorance of the situation; if you're saying
>> you were fully cognizant of the process, then you have changed in the last
>> 3 years even more than I thought. You really should consider the totality
>> of what the other person is saying before you libel them.
>
> I've not libeled anyone, stop saying I have without any proof.
>
>> As I did in #-devrel AND #-userrel, I'd like to drop this now. As stated it
>> was only about getting my side of events on the record, since I was given
>> no opportunity in #-council and indeed zero warning that it was coming. If
>> that is so hard to comprehend, might I suggest some downtime, as you sound
>> quite burnt-out to me.
>
> I'm not burnt out(though I'm going on vacation for a week), and please do not
> say I am.
>>
>> I'll only respond to substantively new issues, and if it all possible I
>> won't be responding on this thread again. If that offends, it's not
>> intended.
>
> Since most of what you have said in this thread is false or insults that
> shouldn't be too hard.
>> --
>> #friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
>>
>>
>
> --
> ---------
> Thomas Anderson
> Gentoo Developer
> /////////
> Areas of responsibility:
> AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council
> ---------
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Council meeting summary for meeting on June 11, 2009

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Alec Warner<antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Dear god, if you want argue to death do it in private.
>

But you see, the point is to argue in *public* so that you can show
*everyone* who can last the longest in a shouting marathon!

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan