[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

Hello, everyone.

This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
and solve some of the problems they are facing today.


Problems
========

Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:

1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
person are seriously demotivating to everyone.

2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
you don't even get a single on-topic reply.

3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.


All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
activity.

For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!


Proposal
========

Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
establish the following changes to the mailing lists:

1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.

1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.

1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.

2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.

2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.


Rationale
=========

I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
options to no avail.

The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:

A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
create more noise than leaving the issue as is.

B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
hate speech that carries no value to anyone].

C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].


The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
really solve the problem because:

I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
to themselves.

II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
be lured into discussing with them.

III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
as a sign of shameful silent admittance.


Yet another alternative that was proposed was to establish moderation of
the mailing lists. However, Infrastructure has replied already that we
can't deploy effective moderation with the current mailing list software
and I'm not aware of anyone willing to undergo all the necessary work to
change that.

Even if we were able to overcome that and be able to find a good
moderation team that can effectively and fairly moderate e-mails without
causing huge delays, moderation has a number of own problems:

α) the delays will make discussions more cumbersome, and render posting
confusing to users,

β) they will implicitly cause some overlap of replies (e.g. when N
different people answer the same question because they don't see earlier
replies until they're past moderation),

γ) the problem will be solved only partially -- what if a reply contains
both valuable info and personal attack?


Seeing that no other effort so far has succeeded in solving the problem,
splitting the mailing lists seems the best solution so far. Most
notably:

а. Developer mailing lists are restored to their original purpose.

б. It is 'fair'. Unlike with disciplinary actions, there is no judgment
problem, just a clear split between 'developers' and 'non-developers'.

в. 'Expert users' are still provided with a mailing list where they can
discuss Gentoo without being pushed down into 'user support' channels.

г. Active contributors (in particular recruits) can still obtain posting
access to the mailing lists, much like they do obtain it to #gentoo-dev
right now. However, if they start misbehaving we can just remove that
without the risk of evasion.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[R0b0t1]

Hello,

In every mailing list conversation, there are at least three people:
the two conversing, and the future reader. I point this out as I think
it important that everyone realize that not all posts are written for
those immediately participating in the conversation.

Some time ago I was offered some equipment due to my history of
open-source contributions to a variety of projects. I asked the donor
to forward it (or money) to the Gentoo foundation, but they declined,
citing a general distaste for the management of software projects in
general and specific issues they believed existed within Gentoo.


On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
>

If you have in fact discussed this off list with people who agree, I
think it is important that you invite them to comment. Not only will
it show support for what you have detailed, it will allow them to
explain the problems they have in greater detail, so that perhaps a
solution that does not involve restricting list access could be found.

It may be that I am misunderstanding your language, but what you have
presented does not leave many things open for discussion. It seems
like what you have presented is to be either accepted or rejected as
is. Seeing as my opinion does not matter, it further seems like it
will simply be accepted as is.

>
> Problems
> ========
>
> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
>
> 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
>

No one has any right to not be offended. If Gentoo developers are
receiving criticism for their behavior, then perhaps it would be best
that they critically analyze their actions and the effect that they
have on other people.

As far as I am aware most developers never get harassed and go quietly
on about their business. I have even asked some questions similar to
the questions I have asked on this list that people have felt were
adversarial. However, these developers didn't seem to mind my
questions and spent 5 minutes or so of their time on a response.

> 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
>

Does the list have a digest subscription option? I find that extremely
helpful for one list I am subscribed to (Perl6 development) which is
very high volume. On the other hand, lots of offtopic chatter would
still be hard to sort through, but I think it needs to be considered
whether the chatter the list currently receives is truly off topic.
What if it is simply concerns or subjects that the OP did not want to
consider? Does that make it off topic? Is the problem more involved
than previously thought?

> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
>

In the case of actual support requests, it might be worth taking some
kind of action against the user, but the general level of competence
of Gentoo users makes me wary that this may be a mischaracterization
of the intent of the email. If something like a "support request"
percolates to gentoo-dev, it may be of a similar vein as a complaint
about a bug resolution. Complaining about bug resolutions seems valid,
especially if questions on the tracker have been ignored.

Some developers in particular seem to not appreciate being held
accountable for their actions. In most notable cases, all anyone ever
does is ask for an explanation as to why something occurred - and in
most notable cases, that question is ignored, with no recourse left to
the user or contributor.

Personally, I tried to ask why eix's "optimizations" flag was removed,
when other packages *do the exact same thing.* Still no response. How
am I supposed to interpret this?

>
> All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> activity.
>
> For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
>

It may be that this is separate from the content of the mailing list.
Do some of the developers simply not like the format of a mailing
list? A lot of projects are now using Slack and Discourse in addition
to IRC. I personally do not like either of those services, but some
people think they allow reduce response times, aid in comprehension,
allowing greater involvement of developers.

As it is, it seems to me like a lot of development happens on IRC and off list.

>
> Proposal
> ========
>
> Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
>
> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
>
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
>
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
>
>
> Rationale
> =========
>
> I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
> options to no avail.
>

There is an option that has not been discussed, and that is
questioning why the gentoo-dev list receives offtopic replies,
personal attacks, and trolling.

> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
>
> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
>
> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
>
> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
>

People only ever do things that make sense. Again, I invite the people
who are being attacked to consider why someone cares enough to bother
to do that. Bored teenagers go to #archlinux to have pissing contests,
not #gentoo.

>
> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> really solve the problem because:
>

To me this sounds like ComRel realized it is too easy to turn good
intentions into fascism.

> I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> to themselves.
>
> II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
> be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> be lured into discussing with them.
>
> III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
> the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
>

It is also entirely possible that a new user will see the troll, agree
with the troll, and not want to contribute to Gentoo because they
think the troll is right.

>
> Yet another alternative that was proposed was to establish moderation of
> the mailing lists. However, Infrastructure has replied already that we
> can't deploy effective moderation with the current mailing list software
> and I'm not aware of anyone willing to undergo all the necessary work to
> change that.
>
> Even if we were able to overcome that and be able to find a good
> moderation team that can effectively and fairly moderate e-mails without
> causing huge delays, moderation has a number of own problems:
>
> α) the delays will make discussions more cumbersome, and render posting
> confusing to users,
>
> β) they will implicitly cause some overlap of replies (e.g. when N
> different people answer the same question because they don't see earlier
> replies until they're past moderation),
>
> γ) the problem will be solved only partially -- what if a reply contains
> both valuable info and personal attack?
>

I agree with this logic, but please be careful - it states a problem,
presupposes a single solution, and then concludes that there is only
one course of action based on the critique applied to that one
solution. This is partly why I see the proposal as something which
does not seem to be accommodating to alternate viewpoints. It makes
addressing this section with an alternate viewpoint difficult, and if
I ignore it then it looks like I ignored part of your argument.

>
> Seeing that no other effort so far has succeeded in solving the problem,
> splitting the mailing lists seems the best solution so far. Most
> notably:
>
> а. Developer mailing lists are restored to their original purpose.
>
> б. It is 'fair'. Unlike with disciplinary actions, there is no judgment
> problem, just a clear split between 'developers' and 'non-developers'.
>
> в. 'Expert users' are still provided with a mailing list where they can
> discuss Gentoo without being pushed down into 'user support' channels.
>
> г. Active contributors (in particular recruits) can still obtain posting
> access to the mailing lists, much like they do obtain it to #gentoo-dev
> right now. However, if they start misbehaving we can just remove that
> without the risk of evasion.
>

I feel this is still a fairly large barrier to involvement. Getting
people to the point they want to contribute or have the knowledge to
contribute is the hard part, and what this will make harder to do.


Respectfully,
     R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[kuzetsa]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 504 bytes --]

1 / 1b seems reasonable for mitigating signal/noise issues.

(previously unaware non-dev subscribers //currently// could post)


On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> ...establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
>
> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Vincent-Xavier JUMEL]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1608 bytes --]

Hello there,

Le 03 décembre à 00:18 Michał Górny a écrit
> Hello, everyone.
> 
> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> 
> 
> Problems
> ========
> 
> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> 
I've been a Gentoo user and gentoo-dev@ mailing list subscriber for
around ten years and some of your action and decision bother me a lot.
This one seems to be one of the last and I'm considering quitting Gentoo
in favour of some other and more friendly place.

I've been wondering for year if it was worth becoming a “official”
Gentoo developer or if maintaining my own (maybe crappy but usefull)
ebuilds in my repo was sufficient.

Instead of dealing with everyone in a blow that could send away
(expert) users, maybe you could deal only with the nay-sayers that you
speak of.

In my opinion, I mostly find your work admirable but your answers non
constructive, and full of insults too.
-- 
Vincent-Xavier JUMEL Id: https://keybase.io/vincentxavier https://blog.thetys-retz.net

Société Libre, Logiciel Libre http://www.april.org/adherer
Parinux, logiciel libre à Paris : http://www.parinux.org

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6966 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
>
>
> Problems
> ========
>
> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
>
> 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
>
> 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
>
> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
>
>
> All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> activity.
>
> For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!


>
> Proposal
> ========
>
> Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
>
> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.


> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
>
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
>
>
> Rationale
> =========
>
> I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
> options to no avail.
>
> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
>
> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
>
> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
>
> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
>

A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you are proposing.
The only difference is
that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowed to post.
But lets say hyptothetically
Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-dev
list. If ComRel will not take any action
(due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo?

This isn't to say I advocate against trying, but it might just end up the
same as today.


>
> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> really solve the problem because:
>
> I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> to themselves.
>
> II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
> be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> be lured into discussing with them.
>
> III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
> the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
>

So now we only silently consent to misbehavior on mailing lists besides
'gentoo-dev'?

-A


>
>
> Yet another alternative that was proposed was to establish moderation of
> the mailing lists. However, Infrastructure has replied already that we
> can't deploy effective moderation with the current mailing list software
> and I'm not aware of anyone willing to undergo all the necessary work to
> change that.
>
> Even if we were able to overcome that and be able to find a good
> moderation team that can effectively and fairly moderate e-mails without
> causing huge delays, moderation has a number of own problems:
>
> α) the delays will make discussions more cumbersome, and render posting
> confusing to users,
>
> β) they will implicitly cause some overlap of replies (e.g. when N
> different people answer the same question because they don't see earlier
> replies until they're past moderation),
>
> γ) the problem will be solved only partially -- what if a reply contains
> both valuable info and personal attack?
>
>
> Seeing that no other effort so far has succeeded in solving the problem,
> splitting the mailing lists seems the best solution so far. Most
> notably:
>
> а. Developer mailing lists are restored to their original purpose.
>
> б. It is 'fair'. Unlike with disciplinary actions, there is no judgment
> problem, just a clear split between 'developers' and 'non-developers'.
>
> в. 'Expert users' are still provided with a mailing list where they can
> discuss Gentoo without being pushed down into 'user support' channels.
>
> г. Active contributors (in particular recruits) can still obtain posting
> access to the mailing lists, much like they do obtain it to #gentoo-dev
> right now. However, if they start misbehaving we can just remove that
> without the risk of evasion.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8394 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Róbert Čerňanský]

On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 00:18:04 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> 
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> 
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> 
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> 
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has
> now.

Hi Michał,

I fully understand and support the need of pure dev to dev
mailing list.  On the other side I also see the need for an official
(mailing list) channel through which users can reach developers.  And
with the proposed change we (users) loose that channel.  I am not sure
if gentoo-expert was meant to be such channel; if not could you please
consider it?  If yes then I think gentoo-dev-user or gentoo-user-dev
would be more appropriate name.

Best regards,
Robert


-- 
Róbert Čerňanský
E-mail: openhs@tightmail.com
Jabber: hs@jabber.sk

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1071 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
>

On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it be
better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators who
move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
the specific posts if necessary?

2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
>
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
>

I'm not sure this will be worth it. Who exactly do you think is the
audience for this mailing list? What is the goal? How is it different from
existing mailing lists?

Cheers,

Dirkjan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1653 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Damo Brisbane]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6894 bytes --]

As a relative newbie I wonder about the format generally of the lists,
however "unbroken", I would be concerned about a dated look. Also, IMO
anything requiring "manual restructuring" - verses automation - I am a
little suspicious of. If dumb stuff is coming through, why cant the good
stuff be automatically curated and presented on top of existing lists? ie
run a PoC, curated content targeting mobile users. From there drivers may
emerge for incorporating updates or come back to suggestions herein.

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
>
>
> Problems
> ========
>
> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
>
> 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
>
> 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
>
> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
>
>
> All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> activity.
>
> For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
>
>
> Proposal
> ========
>
> Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
>
> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
>
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
>
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
>
>
> Rationale
> =========
>
> I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
> options to no avail.
>
> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
>
> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
>
> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
>
> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
>
>
> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> really solve the problem because:
>
> I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> to themselves.
>
> II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
> be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> be lured into discussing with them.
>
> III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
> the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
>
>
> Yet another alternative that was proposed was to establish moderation of
> the mailing lists. However, Infrastructure has replied already that we
> can't deploy effective moderation with the current mailing list software
> and I'm not aware of anyone willing to undergo all the necessary work to
> change that.
>
> Even if we were able to overcome that and be able to find a good
> moderation team that can effectively and fairly moderate e-mails without
> causing huge delays, moderation has a number of own problems:
>
> α) the delays will make discussions more cumbersome, and render posting
> confusing to users,
>
> β) they will implicitly cause some overlap of replies (e.g. when N
> different people answer the same question because they don't see earlier
> replies until they're past moderation),
>
> γ) the problem will be solved only partially -- what if a reply contains
> both valuable info and personal attack?
>
>
> Seeing that no other effort so far has succeeded in solving the problem,
> splitting the mailing lists seems the best solution so far. Most
> notably:
>
> а. Developer mailing lists are restored to their original purpose.
>
> б. It is 'fair'. Unlike with disciplinary actions, there is no judgment
> problem, just a clear split between 'developers' and 'non-developers'.
>
> в. 'Expert users' are still provided with a mailing list where they can
> discuss Gentoo without being pushed down into 'user support' channels.
>
> г. Active contributors (in particular recruits) can still obtain posting
> access to the mailing lists, much like they do obtain it to #gentoo-dev
> right now. However, if they start misbehaving we can just remove that
> without the risk of evasion.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7719 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Damo Brisbane]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7193 bytes --]

"suspicious of" to strong a word - "wary of" !

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Damo Brisbane <dhatchett2@gmail.com> wrote:

> As a relative newbie I wonder about the format generally of the lists,
> however "unbroken", I would be concerned about a dated look. Also, IMO
> anything requiring "manual restructuring" - verses automation - I am a
> little suspicious of. If dumb stuff is coming through, why cant the good
> stuff be automatically curated and presented on top of existing lists? ie
> run a PoC, curated content targeting mobile users. From there drivers may
> emerge for incorporating updates or come back to suggestions herein.
>
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello, everyone.
>>
>> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
>> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
>> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
>> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
>>
>>
>> Problems
>> ========
>>
>> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
>> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
>> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
>> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
>>
>> 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
>> pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
>> be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
>> person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
>>
>> 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
>> I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
>> really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
>> in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
>> you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
>>
>> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
>> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
>> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
>> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
>>
>>
>> All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
>> use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
>> demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
>> either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
>> activity.
>>
>> For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
>> and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
>> of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
>>
>>
>> Proposal
>> ========
>>
>> Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
>> establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
>>
>> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
>> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>>
>> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>>
>> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
>> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
>>
>> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
>> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
>>
>> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
>>
>>
>> Rationale
>> =========
>>
>> I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
>> would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
>> options to no avail.
>>
>> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
>> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
>> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
>> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
>>
>> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
>> create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
>>
>> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
>> hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
>>
>> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
>> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
>>
>>
>> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
>> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
>> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
>> really solve the problem because:
>>
>> I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
>> nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
>> to themselves.
>>
>> II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
>> be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
>> be lured into discussing with them.
>>
>> III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
>> silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
>> the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
>> as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
>>
>>
>> Yet another alternative that was proposed was to establish moderation of
>> the mailing lists. However, Infrastructure has replied already that we
>> can't deploy effective moderation with the current mailing list software
>> and I'm not aware of anyone willing to undergo all the necessary work to
>> change that.
>>
>> Even if we were able to overcome that and be able to find a good
>> moderation team that can effectively and fairly moderate e-mails without
>> causing huge delays, moderation has a number of own problems:
>>
>> α) the delays will make discussions more cumbersome, and render posting
>> confusing to users,
>>
>> β) they will implicitly cause some overlap of replies (e.g. when N
>> different people answer the same question because they don't see earlier
>> replies until they're past moderation),
>>
>> γ) the problem will be solved only partially -- what if a reply contains
>> both valuable info and personal attack?
>>
>>
>> Seeing that no other effort so far has succeeded in solving the problem,
>> splitting the mailing lists seems the best solution so far. Most
>> notably:
>>
>> а. Developer mailing lists are restored to their original purpose.
>>
>> б. It is 'fair'. Unlike with disciplinary actions, there is no judgment
>> problem, just a clear split between 'developers' and 'non-developers'.
>>
>> в. 'Expert users' are still provided with a mailing list where they can
>> discuss Gentoo without being pushed down into 'user support' channels.
>>
>> г. Active contributors (in particular recruits) can still obtain posting
>> access to the mailing lists, much like they do obtain it to #gentoo-dev
>> right now. However, if they start misbehaving we can just remove that
>> without the risk of evasion.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Michał Górny
>>
>>
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8228 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 13∶52 -0500, użytkownik Alec Warner
napisał:
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hello, everyone.
> > 
> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > 
> > 
> > Problems
> > ========
> > 
> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > 
> > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
> > 
> > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
> > 
> > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
> > 
> > 
> > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> > activity.
> > 
> > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
> 
> 
> > 
> > Proposal
> > ========
> > 
> > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> > establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > 
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > 
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> 
> 
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > 
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> > 
> > 
> > Rationale
> > =========
> > 
> > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
> > options to no avail.
> > 
> > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
> > 
> > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
> > 
> > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
> > 
> > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
> > 
> 
> A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you are proposing.
> The only difference is
> that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowed to post.
> But lets say hyptothetically
> Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-dev
> list. If ComRel will not take any action
> (due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo?

Well, I believe the main difference is that the approval process makes
it harder to evade a ban.

If you need a voice, you need to get a developer to vouch for you.
If you have just been banned, you won't immediately regain the access
for the same identity. And unless you've actively maintaining a second
identity for yourself, you won't get immediate access to evade the ban.

Yes, it only solves the problem temporarily. However, 'temporarily' is
sometimes enough to avoid the immediate 'shitstorm' (I'm sorry for
lacking a better word for it) that results in some people not being able
to accept their ban.

As for point B, I believe that there is also a serious difference when
the user is pointed to another channel where he can express his opinion
freely.

> This isn't to say I advocate against trying, but it might just end up the
> same as today.
> 
> 
> > 
> > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> > really solve the problem because:
> > 
> > I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> > nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> > to themselves.
> > 
> > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
> > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> > be lured into discussing with them.
> > 
> > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> > silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
> > the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> > as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
> > 
> 
> So now we only silently consent to misbehavior on mailing lists besides
> 'gentoo-dev'?

Yes, that's pretty much the idea. I have failed to convince people who
could solve the problem to do so. So I'm falling back to cleaning up my
own backyard to at least solve one part of the problem that particularly
bothers me.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1538 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 09:30:36PM +0100, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> >
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> >
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> >
> 
> On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it be
> better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators who
> move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
> the specific posts if necessary?

I prefer this approach, I'm not in favor of closing -dev and -project.
However, I don't see anything wrong with putting specific users on
moderation for a while as long as the mailing list software we have can
support doing this.

> 
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> >
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> >
> 
> I'm not sure this will be worth it. Who exactly do you think is the
> audience for this mailing list? What is the goal? How is it different from
> existing mailing lists?

In particular, how is it different from gentoo-user? There's nothing
stopping devs from subscribing there.

Thanks,

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 19∶34 +0100, użytkownik Vincent-Xavier 
JUMEL napisał:
> Hello there,
> 
> Le 03 décembre à 00:18 Michał Górny a écrit
> > Hello, everyone.
> > 
> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > 
> > 
> > Problems
> > ========
> > 
> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > 
> 
> I've been a Gentoo user and gentoo-dev@ mailing list subscriber for
> around ten years and some of your action and decision bother me a lot.
> This one seems to be one of the last and I'm considering quitting Gentoo
> in favour of some other and more friendly place.
> 
> I've been wondering for year if it was worth becoming a “official”
> Gentoo developer or if maintaining my own (maybe crappy but usefull)
> ebuilds in my repo was sufficient.

I'm sorry that you feel this way but I respect your choice.

> Instead of dealing with everyone in a blow that could send away
> (expert) users, maybe you could deal only with the nay-sayers that you
> speak of.

Multiple people have tried, and as explained in the long rationale we
haven't had any success. If you have a constructive ideas how to solve
the problem otherwise, we're open to hear them. That's the whole purpose
of this thread.

> In my opinion, I mostly find your work admirable but your answers non
> constructive, and full of insults too.

Truth is, people change in toxic environments. I can't solve all
the problems immediately but I believe this is the first step towards
improving things, also in myself and other developers having problems.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 20∶19 +0100, użytkownik Róbert
Čerňanský napisał:
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 00:18:04 +0100
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > 
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > 
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> > 
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > 
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has
> > now.
> 
> Hi Michał,
> 
> I fully understand and support the need of pure dev to dev
> mailing list.  On the other side I also see the need for an official
> (mailing list) channel through which users can reach developers.  And
> with the proposed change we (users) loose that channel.  I am not sure
> if gentoo-expert was meant to be such channel; if not could you please
> consider it?  If yes then I think gentoo-dev-user or gentoo-user-dev
> would be more appropriate name.
> 

The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through Bugzilla.
This gives the best chance for focused discussion on the specific issue
without unnecessary distraction for other developers who are not
interested in the specific topic.

And yes, gentoo-expert would be a secondary way of reaching developers
in specific technical topics. However, depending on the atmosphere
around the new channel some developers may decide not to use it (much
like they choose to ignore -dev currently).

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 21∶30 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan
Ochtman napisał:
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > 
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > 
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> > 
> 
> On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it be
> better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators who
> move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
> the specific posts if necessary?

I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj
has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did,
moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low-
traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well.

> 
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > 
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> > 
> 
> I'm not sure this will be worth it. Who exactly do you think is the
> audience for this mailing list? What is the goal? How is it different from
> existing mailing lists?

The audience is expect users who usually don't need basic support
but instead want to discuss the development of Gentoo and want to have
some impact on where it goes.

The main goal is to be able to restore more developers to gentoo-dev@,
and be able to focus it on feedback and reviews.

In other words, the goal is that if the attitude on gentoo-expert
becomes impossible to bear, the developers can unsubscribe from that
list without actually losing the ability to give feedback on important
Gentoo issues.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dirkjan

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

W dniu sob, 02.12.2017 o godzinie 19∶33 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1
napisał:
> Hello,
> 
> In every mailing list conversation, there are at least three people:
> the two conversing, and the future reader. I point this out as I think
> it important that everyone realize that not all posts are written for
> those immediately participating in the conversation.
> 
> Some time ago I was offered some equipment due to my history of
> open-source contributions to a variety of projects. I asked the donor
> to forward it (or money) to the Gentoo foundation, but they declined,
> citing a general distaste for the management of software projects in
> general and specific issues they believed existed within Gentoo.

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the topic at hand. There are many
issues within Gentoo. I'm trying to address one of them.

> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Hello, everyone.
> > 
> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > 
> 
> If you have in fact discussed this off list with people who agree, I
> think it is important that you invite them to comment. Not only will
> it show support for what you have detailed, it will allow them to
> explain the problems they have in greater detail, so that perhaps a
> solution that does not involve restricting list access could be found.

This sentence merely focuses on 'don't shoot the messenger' part which
will happen anyway. Those people won't come here to '+1' the proposal
because this mailing list is not supposed to be about mail popularity
contests.

Also because they don't want to be targeted by people misbehaving here.
In fact, a number of them already pinged me today privately showing
support, and some of them told me exactly that -- that they don't want
to become a target of aggression. A few participants of this mailing
list have shown harassment towards people that stood up to them --
including constant insults on various public and private channels.

> 
> It may be that I am misunderstanding your language, but what you have
> presented does not leave many things open for discussion. It seems
> like what you have presented is to be either accepted or rejected as
> is. Seeing as my opinion does not matter, it further seems like it
> will simply be accepted as is.

I simply don't believe that after so many iterations there's any more
option that hasn't been tried or rejected already.

> > 
> > Problems
> > ========
> > 
> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > 
> > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
> > 
> 
> No one has any right to not be offended. If Gentoo developers are
> receiving criticism for their behavior, then perhaps it would be best
> that they critically analyze their actions and the effect that they
> have on other people.
> 
> As far as I am aware most developers never get harassed and go quietly
> on about their business. I have even asked some questions similar to
> the questions I have asked on this list that people have felt were
> adversarial. However, these developers didn't seem to mind my
> questions and spent 5 minutes or so of their time on a response.
> 
> > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
> > 
> 
> Does the list have a digest subscription option? I find that extremely
> helpful for one list I am subscribed to (Perl6 development) which is
> very high volume. On the other hand, lots of offtopic chatter would
> still be hard to sort through, but I think it needs to be considered
> whether the chatter the list currently receives is truly off topic.
> What if it is simply concerns or subjects that the OP did not want to
> consider? Does that make it off topic? Is the problem more involved
> than previously thought?
> 
> > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
> > 
> 
> In the case of actual support requests, it might be worth taking some
> kind of action against the user, but the general level of competence
> of Gentoo users makes me wary that this may be a mischaracterization
> of the intent of the email. If something like a "support request"
> percolates to gentoo-dev, it may be of a similar vein as a complaint
> about a bug resolution. Complaining about bug resolutions seems valid,
> especially if questions on the tracker have been ignored.
> 
> Some developers in particular seem to not appreciate being held
> accountable for their actions. In most notable cases, all anyone ever
> does is ask for an explanation as to why something occurred - and in
> most notable cases, that question is ignored, with no recourse left to
> the user or contributor.
> 
> Personally, I tried to ask why eix's "optimizations" flag was removed,
> when other packages *do the exact same thing.* Still no response. How
> am I supposed to interpret this?

I'm sorry but the purpose of this thread is not to convince you that
the problems exist. If you haven't experienced them already, then it
would be polite of you to either accept them as a fact, or do some
research yourself.

I understand that you might want to know things. However, it is
generally impolite if someone 'comes late to the party' and starts
shouting questions that the existing participants know answers to
already. This is distorting to the conversation at hand.

In such a situation, as I said it is usually polite to try to find
the answers yourself or politely and privately query one
of the participants who you are acquainted to or is otherwise able
and willing to help you.

> 
> > 
> > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> > activity.
> > 
> > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
> > 
> 
> It may be that this is separate from the content of the mailing list.
> Do some of the developers simply not like the format of a mailing
> list? A lot of projects are now using Slack and Discourse in addition
> to IRC. I personally do not like either of those services, but some
> people think they allow reduce response times, aid in comprehension,
> allowing greater involvement of developers.
> 
> As it is, it seems to me like a lot of development happens on IRC and off list.

Yes. Sometimes only because IRC is much faster. Sometimes because using
mailing lists becomes impossible due to problems listed above.

> > 
> > Proposal
> > ========
> > 
> > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> > establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > 
> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > 
> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> > 
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > 
> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> > 
> > 
> > Rationale
> > =========
> > 
> > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
> > options to no avail.
> > 
> 
> There is an option that has not been discussed, and that is
> questioning why the gentoo-dev list receives offtopic replies,
> personal attacks, and trolling.

People's private issues are not topic of this mailing list. It is
generally impolite and unprofessional to discuss them publicly. Please
don't do that.

> > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
> > 
> > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
> > 
> > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
> > 
> > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
> > 
> 
> People only ever do things that make sense. Again, I invite the people
> who are being attacked to consider why someone cares enough to bother
> to do that. Bored teenagers go to #archlinux to have pissing contests,
> not #gentoo.
> 
> > 
> > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> > really solve the problem because:
> > 
> 
> To me this sounds like ComRel realized it is too easy to turn good
> intentions into fascism.
> 
> > I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> > nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> > to themselves.
> > 
> > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
> > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> > be lured into discussing with them.
> > 
> > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> > silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
> > the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> > as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
> > 
> 
> It is also entirely possible that a new user will see the troll, agree
> with the troll, and not want to contribute to Gentoo because they
> think the troll is right.
> 
> > 
> > Yet another alternative that was proposed was to establish moderation of
> > the mailing lists. However, Infrastructure has replied already that we
> > can't deploy effective moderation with the current mailing list software
> > and I'm not aware of anyone willing to undergo all the necessary work to
> > change that.
> > 
> > Even if we were able to overcome that and be able to find a good
> > moderation team that can effectively and fairly moderate e-mails without
> > causing huge delays, moderation has a number of own problems:
> > 
> > α) the delays will make discussions more cumbersome, and render posting
> > confusing to users,
> > 
> > β) they will implicitly cause some overlap of replies (e.g. when N
> > different people answer the same question because they don't see earlier
> > replies until they're past moderation),
> > 
> > γ) the problem will be solved only partially -- what if a reply contains
> > both valuable info and personal attack?
> > 
> 
> I agree with this logic, but please be careful - it states a problem,
> presupposes a single solution, and then concludes that there is only
> one course of action based on the critique applied to that one
> solution. This is partly why I see the proposal as something which
> does not seem to be accommodating to alternate viewpoints. It makes
> addressing this section with an alternate viewpoint difficult, and if
> I ignore it then it looks like I ignored part of your argument.
> 
> > 
> > Seeing that no other effort so far has succeeded in solving the problem,
> > splitting the mailing lists seems the best solution so far. Most
> > notably:
> > 
> > а. Developer mailing lists are restored to their original purpose.
> > 
> > б. It is 'fair'. Unlike with disciplinary actions, there is no judgment
> > problem, just a clear split between 'developers' and 'non-developers'.
> > 
> > в. 'Expert users' are still provided with a mailing list where they can
> > discuss Gentoo without being pushed down into 'user support' channels.
> > 
> > г. Active contributors (in particular recruits) can still obtain posting
> > access to the mailing lists, much like they do obtain it to #gentoo-dev
> > right now. However, if they start misbehaving we can just remove that
> > without the risk of evasion.
> > 
> 
> I feel this is still a fairly large barrier to involvement. Getting
> people to the point they want to contribute or have the knowledge to
> contribute is the hard part, and what this will make harder to do.

A mailing list is not strictly essential to contributing to Gentoo.
I can't think of it being to much use of any recently recruited
developers.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Matt Turner]

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
>
> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> create more noise than leaving the issue as is.

That's absurd. "We shouldn't enforce rules because people can break the rules"

> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> hate speech that carries no value to anyone].

That's absurd. There's no reason to have to tolerate non-constructive
conversation on our own mailing lists. Classify it as off topic. We
tell people their posts are off topic for a particular mailing list
all the time.

> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].

That's absurd. You have to look at where the problem starts to fix it,
not engage in whataboutism.

> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> really solve the problem because:

That's absurd. The whole point of bringing problems to ComRel is so
they can solve it. Telling people to deal with it is explicitly not
solving the problem.


The Gentoo community (not just the developers) would stand to benefit
from a capable and competent ComRel team. It's very sad that we don't
have that.

Unfortunately, my experience is much the same as yours. ComRel
explicitly refused to act when a bug reporter was repeatedly abusive,
instead arguing that he didn't do anything wrong and that I shouldn't
be so offended. Even the user disagreed with ComRel, apologizing and
saying that his own behavior was out of line when I confronted him.
That's absurd.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Gerion Entrup]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3181 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 3. Dezember 2017, 22:43:19 CET schrieb Michał Górny:
> W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 21∶30 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan
> Ochtman napisał:
> > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > > 
> > > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > > 
> > > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> > > 
> > 
> > On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it be
> > better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators who
> > move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
> > the specific posts if necessary?
> 
> I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj
> has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did,
> moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low-
> traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well.
> 
> > 
> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > > 
> > > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> > > 
> > 
> > I'm not sure this will be worth it. Who exactly do you think is the
> > audience for this mailing list? What is the goal? How is it different from
> > existing mailing lists?
> 
> The audience is expect users who usually don't need basic support
> but instead want to discuss the development of Gentoo and want to have
> some impact on where it goes.
> 
> The main goal is to be able to restore more developers to gentoo-dev@,
> and be able to focus it on feedback and reviews.
> 
> In other words, the goal is that if the attitude on gentoo-expert
> becomes impossible to bear, the developers can unsubscribe from that
> list without actually losing the ability to give feedback on important
> Gentoo issues.
If core Gentoo developers don't read the expert list, I'm not seeing a high
value in such a list.

I'm a long term Gentoo user, but have read this list a few month only, so
correct me, if I'm wrong. I've seen the main usage of this list in three
aspects:
1. Review and discussion of new (technical) features (eclasses, EAPI, package
manager specs).
2. Information about unmaintained packages.
3. Input and proposals from users.

Splitting the list would reduce the meaning of gentoo-dev to the first point.
The second point has to be handled on the expert list (or both lists), so
proxy maintainers can reply. The third point can only be handled on the expert
list, but core developers have to read it, otherwise the whole point would be
meaningless.

In other projects with similar problems but the technical possibility to moderate
some "code of conduct" was adopted, so moderators can ban users on that base
for a fixed amount of time.

Gerion


> 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Dirkjan
> 
> 


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Richard Bradfield]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1765 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 11:33:11PM +0100, Gerion Entrup wrote:
>I'm a long term Gentoo user, but have read this list a few month only, so
>correct me, if I'm wrong. I've seen the main usage of this list in three
>aspects:
>1. Review and discussion of new (technical) features (eclasses, EAPI, package
>manager specs).
>2. Information about unmaintained packages.
>3. Input and proposals from users.
>
>Splitting the list would reduce the meaning of gentoo-dev to the first point.
>The second point has to be handled on the expert list (or both lists), so
>proxy maintainers can reply. The third point can only be handled on the expert
>list, but core developers have to read it, otherwise the whole point would be
>meaningless.
>
>In other projects with similar problems but the technical possibility to moderate
>some "code of conduct" was adopted, so moderators can ban users on that base
>for a fixed amount of time.
>
>Gerion

I'm normally just a lurker in this list, so the changes are unlikely to affect me
directly, but I think Gerion hits it on the head here.

Is there such a stratification between "Gentoo Developers" (and those
'blessed' by such developers) and "Expert Gentoo Users" that justifies
silo-ing the two groups off into their own mailing lists?

If this distinction is present and vitally important, then by all means
create a separate list, but is the reduction in traffic really worth the
loss of input from your long-term, but "non developer" users?

If this is really a moderation issue, surely the bad actors will simply move
their alleged trolling to the -experts list, which will cause the core
developers to cease reading it, leading to a breakdown in the user to
developer discussions that currently take place via -dev?

--
Richard

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Matt Turner]

A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list:

There's been research, on this, and the study by harvard business
school was summarized and discussed by NPR in 2015:

[ Turns out toxic coworkers are more
than just an annoyance. A new study
out of the Harvard Business School
warns that bullying workers are more costly,
even if they are more productive. ] -- NPR description

https://www.npr.org/2015/12/16/460024322/harvard-business-school-study-highlights-costs-of-toxic-workers
https://goo.gl/g8Ujuk (short URL of the same)

With gentoo being a non-profit organization, an alternative way to
view it could be the trade-off of seeing developers / maintainers /
staff leave, and any "lost profits" are in the form of community
relations, image, and willingness for ongoing productive work by those
who remain with the gentoo organization.

Research paper itself (which includes supporting 57 citations)

http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf
https://goo.gl/42A8v7 (short URL of the same)

... and was itself cited a dozen or times:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5443947091657980238
https://goo.gl/obvdzh (short URL of the same)

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> With gentoo being a non-profit organization, an alternative way to
> view it could be the trade-off of seeing developers / maintainers /
> staff leave

It isn't just the risk of leaving, but the risk of them never joining
in the first place.

If a flamewar goes back and forth, then it creates an environment
where only people who like to participate in flamewars will want to
join (thus creating a positive feedback loop).

If a troll periodically posts and everybody ignores them, then it
creates an environment where it seems as if the developers ignore the
users (an outsider could mistake trolling for questions/feedback), and
thus people will assume it is a toxic environment and not want to
join.

While I'm sure toxic coworkers are a problem in any organization, I
suspect they're far more impactful when the organization effectively
broadcasts their activity to the entire world.

I'm all for free expression.  That doesn't mean that Gentoo needs to
expend its resources to broadcast messages that actually harm Gentoo,
or provide a platform for people who have done egregious things (like
unwanted gender-based attention, attacking people over disabilities,
or whatever), whether the victims of such activities have been dragged
through the mud publicly or not.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[kuzetsa]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 975 bytes --]

More than zero posts on this thread are consistent with this point:

On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.

If things are a bug, it should be filed as a bug: when there's a fault, or a
feature request, or any other thing which can go to the tracker, so b.g.o
is the right place if it affects multiple configurations and needs
addressed.

Anything [mis]configuration related, or if it's unclear could likely go
to an
official support channel if it's gentoo-specific, or even upstream support.
An expert user list would be a fine place for that too.

Not all resolutions require a developer, and this likely includes
misunderstandings or disagreements on how things were handled too.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[kuzetsa]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 731 bytes --]


On 12/03/2017 07:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> With gentoo being a non-profit organization, an alternative way to
>> view it could be the trade-off of seeing developers / maintainers /
>> staff leave
> It isn't just the risk of leaving, but the risk of them never joining
> in the first place.
>
> If a flamewar goes back and forth, then it creates an environment
> {snip}

1) Yes. It's hard to recruit when the organization seems unpleasant.
2) The point of a dev list should be development. (not flames)
3) That paper has tables which are over my head. (but interesting)
4) Is this on more than list now? The subject line confused me.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Peter Stuge]

Hi Michał,

Michał Górny wrote:
> major problems with some of the posters for more than a year.

Please believe me when I say that I know what this feels like.

I want to applaud and thank everyone who has been tackling/discussing
this issue in private, and I especially want to applaud taking action!

I however disagree with the proposal to move the problem.

I would like to encourage everyone, but in particular devs, to watch
this 18 min talk by Donnie Berkholz from 2012, about Gentoo actually:

Assholes are Ruining Your Project
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZSli7QW4rg

If you don't want to, then the most important take-away as stated by
Donnie and supported by my own experience having "my" project ruined
is:

Do not tolerate bad behavior by anyone!


> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> the problem.

While reading your message, I kept thinking to myself: "isn't this
the very purpose of ComRel?"

I only have a non-dev understanding of ComRel, but I agree with Matt that
inaction in this situation is a failure of ComRel, and that should not be
to the detriment of any constructive contributor on gentoo-dev.


> A. Bans can be trivially evaded
> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion

Mh, so-so. It is important to take action which clearly rejects
unacceptable behavior. Otherwise any behavior is per definition
implicitly accepted, which attracts assholes.


> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse

This should *also* not be accepted. Equal standards for what is
acceptable and what is not must apply to everyone.

It could be argued that different people deserve different sanctions.
I would agree with that only as far as there is a mentoring process in
place, requiring a third party to work on eliminating bad behavior.

I think that's the purpose of DevRel for developer<->developer, and
ComRel for developer<->non-developer.

Yes, such mentoring requires a non-negligable committment to
non-trivial work.

It is clearly not always possible to mentor bad behavior away. Then
that person must be shut out to save the environment, whether a
long-standing developer or not!


Coming back to the concrete proposal, I think a better course of
action is to demonstrate strong leadership, by speaking out in force
against bad behavior, every time.

In order to have something to lean on, it can be super helpful to
have a code-of-conduct in place, and was already mentioned.

I had to think about code-of-conduct for a long time, before my
mental model of them "clicked". I consider them to be about
explicitly stating the community expectations for good behavior,
and as an agreed-upon reference for (sometimes unpleasant, but
incredibly important) forceful action in reponse to bad behavior.


> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> the trolls'.

I find this highly inadequate.


I urge either ComRel or other leadership to take as forceful action
as is neccessary against bad behavior, to uphold a healthy
environment.

Selective moderation is a more technically sophisticated ban. If
possible that's cool. If not possible that's perfectly fine. Just
ban. Keep banning if the bad behavior resurfaces with another
identity.

Please do not relent. It is not fair to yourself or your colleagues.


Thank you and keep up the excellent effort everyone

//Peter

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8016 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 13∶52 -0500, użytkownik Alec Warner
> napisał:
> > On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but
> it
> > > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> > > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> > > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> > >
> > >
> > > Problems
> > > ========
> > >
> > > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> > > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> > > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> > > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> > >
> > > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> > > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> > > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> > > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
> > >
> > > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> > > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> > > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> > > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst,
> sometimes
> > > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
> > >
> > > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> > > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> > > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> > > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
> > >
> > >
> > > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible
> to
> > > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> > > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> > > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> > > activity.
> > >
> > > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> > > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> > > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Proposal
> > > ========
> > >
> > > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> > > establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > >
> > > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > >
> > > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> > >
> > > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> > > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> >
> >
> > > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> > > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> > >
> > > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has
> now.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rationale
> > > =========
> > >
> > > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> > > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all
> other
> > > options to no avail.
> > >
> > > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> > > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> > > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> > > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
> > >
> > > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> > > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
> > >
> > > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> > > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
> > >
> > > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> > > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
> > >
> >
> > A B and C would equally apply to the "gentoo-dev" list you are proposing.
> > The only difference is
> > that there is some 'vetting' process for people who are allowed to post.
> > But lets say hyptothetically
> > Alec is an active contributor and is posting spammily to the gentoo-dev
> > list. If ComRel will not take any action
> > (due to A B and C) what is the difference to the status quo?
>
> Well, I believe the main difference is that the approval process makes
> it harder to evade a ban.
>
> If you need a voice, you need to get a developer to vouch for you.
> If you have just been banned, you won't immediately regain the access
> for the same identity. And unless you've actively maintaining a second
> identity for yourself, you won't get immediate access to evade the ban.
>

Oh it was not clear we would ban people from the proposed 'gentoo-dev' list
based on your proposal.
Is someone (Comrel?) willing to do that?


>
> Yes, it only solves the problem temporarily. However, 'temporarily' is
> sometimes enough to avoid the immediate 'shitstorm' (I'm sorry for
> lacking a better word for it) that results in some people not being able
> to accept their ban.


I tend to agree with the above; but that being said:

This still feels like a half-measure? Until the community is willing to
part with some of the contributors who "add value" but who act
inappropriately...I'm not sure the half-measures are sufficient. At some
point we must say "we value a community that is safe more than individual
contributors". We certainly see some measure of the negatively in terms of
recruitment volume (people not joining due to the process, or due to the
hostile development environment) as well as the developers who contribute
less or leave entirely.

Are the contributions of these "inappropriate" contributors really so
necessary for the operation of Gentoo? Perhaps if we improved the community
(by enforcing the standards we already have) we might increase our
developer ranks by tapping into the people who have been turned off by the
past behavior of the community.

-A




> As for point B, I believe that there is also a serious difference when
> the user is pointed to another channel where he can express his opinion
> freely.


> > This isn't to say I advocate against trying, but it might just end up the
> > same as today.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> > > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> > > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this
> doesn't
> > > really solve the problem because:
> > >
> > > I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> > > nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> > > to themselves.
> > >
> > > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber
> will
> > > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> > > be lured into discussing with them.
> > >
> > > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> > > silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly,
> because
> > > the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> > > as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
> > >
> >
> > So now we only silently consent to misbehavior on mailing lists besides
> > 'gentoo-dev'?
>
> Yes, that's pretty much the idea. I have failed to convince people who
> could solve the problem to do so. So I'm falling back to cleaning up my
> own backyard to at least solve one part of the problem that particularly
> bothers me.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10179 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[kuzetsa]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1452 bytes --]


On 12/03/2017 08:19 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> this 18 min talk by Donnie Berkholz from 2012, about Gentoo actually: 

Someone in private linked that video to me today. Yeah :(

> Do not tolerate bad behavior by anyone!
--snip--
> It is important to take action which clearly rejects
> unacceptable behavior. Otherwise any behavior is per definition
> implicitly accepted, which attracts assholes.

You're not wrong. I've seen FOSS/Libre communities (and non-compsci
peer-directed projects) fall apart when "radical free speech"
went unchecked. The only people who stayed were even more effective
when it came to what seemed like intentionally driving off anyone
who dissented / spoke out against their disrespectful behaviors.

> Coming back to the concrete proposal, I think a better course of
> action is to demonstrate strong leadership, by speaking out in force
> against bad behavior, every time.
>
> In order to have something to lean on, it can be super helpful to
> have a code-of-conduct in place, and was already mentioned.
--snip--
> I urge either ComRel or other leadership to take as forceful action
> as is neccessary against bad behavior, to uphold a healthy
> environment.
>
--snip--
> Please do not relent. It is not fair to yourself or your colleagues.
>
>
> Thank you and keep up the excellent effort everyone
>
> //Peter

Yes please. I don't want to see gentoo end because of ... rudeness.



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[R0b0t1]

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> W dniu sob, 02.12.2017 o godzinie 19∶33 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1
> napisał:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In every mailing list conversation, there are at least three people:
>> the two conversing, and the future reader. I point this out as I think
>> it important that everyone realize that not all posts are written for
>> those immediately participating in the conversation.
>>
>> Some time ago I was offered some equipment due to my history of
>> open-source contributions to a variety of projects. I asked the donor
>> to forward it (or money) to the Gentoo foundation, but they declined,
>> citing a general distaste for the management of software projects in
>> general and specific issues they believed existed within Gentoo.
>
> I'm not sure if this is relevant to the topic at hand. There are many
> issues within Gentoo. I'm trying to address one of them.
>

The point is that actions of [some of] the developers are affecting
the public perception of Gentoo to the point at least one person
hasn't wanted to donate.

>> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > Hello, everyone.
>> >
>> > This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
>> > seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
>> > a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
>> > and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
>> >
>>
>> If you have in fact discussed this off list with people who agree, I
>> think it is important that you invite them to comment. Not only will
>> it show support for what you have detailed, it will allow them to
>> explain the problems they have in greater detail, so that perhaps a
>> solution that does not involve restricting list access could be found.
>
> This sentence merely focuses on 'don't shoot the messenger' part which
> will happen anyway. Those people won't come here to '+1' the proposal
> because this mailing list is not supposed to be about mail popularity
> contests.
>

No, but policy changes are. They should be critically analyzed. I'm
not going to pretend like I can vote, but I can try to make you feel
bad about not answering my questions.

> Also because they don't want to be targeted by people misbehaving here.
> In fact, a number of them already pinged me today privately showing
> support, and some of them told me exactly that -- that they don't want
> to become a target of aggression. A few participants of this mailing
> list have shown harassment towards people that stood up to them --
> including constant insults on various public and private channels.
>

Again, no one has any right to not be offended. For something of this
nature I feel public support should be necessary.

>>
>> It may be that I am misunderstanding your language, but what you have
>> presented does not leave many things open for discussion. It seems
>> like what you have presented is to be either accepted or rejected as
>> is. Seeing as my opinion does not matter, it further seems like it
>> will simply be accepted as is.
>
> I simply don't believe that after so many iterations there's any more
> option that hasn't been tried or rejected already.
>

As noted, there is one: analyzing the actions of those who are being
"attacked" to see why people are bothering to do it in the first
place. I sincerely doubt the offensive parties are doing what they are
doing without cause.

But no, the Gentoo developers are always above reproach.

>> >
>> > Problems
>> > ========
>> >
>> > Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
>> > project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
>> > beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
>> > of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
>> >
>> > 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
>> > pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
>> > be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
>> > person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
>> >
>>
>> No one has any right to not be offended. If Gentoo developers are
>> receiving criticism for their behavior, then perhaps it would be best
>> that they critically analyze their actions and the effect that they
>> have on other people.
>>
>> As far as I am aware most developers never get harassed and go quietly
>> on about their business. I have even asked some questions similar to
>> the questions I have asked on this list that people have felt were
>> adversarial. However, these developers didn't seem to mind my
>> questions and spent 5 minutes or so of their time on a response.
>>
>> > 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
>> > I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
>> > really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
>> > in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
>> > you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
>> >
>>
>> Does the list have a digest subscription option? I find that extremely
>> helpful for one list I am subscribed to (Perl6 development) which is
>> very high volume. On the other hand, lots of offtopic chatter would
>> still be hard to sort through, but I think it needs to be considered
>> whether the chatter the list currently receives is truly off topic.
>> What if it is simply concerns or subjects that the OP did not want to
>> consider? Does that make it off topic? Is the problem more involved
>> than previously thought?
>>
>> > 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
>> > the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
>> > everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
>> > resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
>> >
>>
>> In the case of actual support requests, it might be worth taking some
>> kind of action against the user, but the general level of competence
>> of Gentoo users makes me wary that this may be a mischaracterization
>> of the intent of the email. If something like a "support request"
>> percolates to gentoo-dev, it may be of a similar vein as a complaint
>> about a bug resolution. Complaining about bug resolutions seems valid,
>> especially if questions on the tracker have been ignored.
>>
>> Some developers in particular seem to not appreciate being held
>> accountable for their actions. In most notable cases, all anyone ever
>> does is ask for an explanation as to why something occurred - and in
>> most notable cases, that question is ignored, with no recourse left to
>> the user or contributor.
>>
>> Personally, I tried to ask why eix's "optimizations" flag was removed,
>> when other packages *do the exact same thing.* Still no response. How
>> am I supposed to interpret this?
>
> I'm sorry but the purpose of this thread is not to convince you that
> the problems exist. If you haven't experienced them already, then it
> would be polite of you to either accept them as a fact, or do some
> research yourself.
>

Your job is not to convince me, personally, but the future reader of
this list. If you have given up on doing so then you have admitted
that you do not want to be held accountable for your actions because
you do not feel you need to explain why you are doing what you are
doing.

> I understand that you might want to know things. However, it is
> generally impolite if someone 'comes late to the party' and starts
> shouting questions that the existing participants know answers to
> already. This is distorting to the conversation at hand.
>

I am not shouting. I am politely, but pointedly, asking questions that
you ostensibly should already have the answer to. If you do not have
the answer, then I feel it is clear to future readers of the list that
you are making decisions for nonsensical reasons.

> In such a situation, as I said it is usually polite to try to find
> the answers yourself or politely and privately query one
> of the participants who you are acquainted to or is otherwise able
> and willing to help you.
>

I have. I can't trawl years of mailing list archives to find the
problematic posts, nor do I think I would want to read those posts
anyway. I am also incapable of understanding in a short time a
years-long problem.

I tried to figure out why wltjr was pushed out of the Gentoo and
couldn't do it. What I can find makes it seem like someone was overly
sensitive and was able to get ComRel to overreact. Granted, wltjr is
at times not well spoken, but I really have a hard time understanding
how anyone thought he had anything but good intentions.

From my point of view it makes everyone involved look ridiculous,
wltjr less so. Consequently I am not very inclined to believe you and
the unnamed parties when they say they have a valid complaint. My
experience is full of people being offended at things like (what most
people would consider) polite disagreement.

Then again, you can do what you want and ignore me - I can't do
anything about it.

>>
>> >
>> > All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
>> > use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
>> > demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
>> > either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
>> > activity.
>> >
>> > For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
>> > and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
>> > of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
>> >
>>
>> It may be that this is separate from the content of the mailing list.
>> Do some of the developers simply not like the format of a mailing
>> list? A lot of projects are now using Slack and Discourse in addition
>> to IRC. I personally do not like either of those services, but some
>> people think they allow reduce response times, aid in comprehension,
>> allowing greater involvement of developers.
>>
>> As it is, it seems to me like a lot of development happens on IRC and off list.
>
> Yes. Sometimes only because IRC is much faster. Sometimes because using
> mailing lists becomes impossible due to problems listed above.
>
>> >
>> > Proposal
>> > ========
>> >
>> > Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
>> > establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
>> >
>> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
>> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
>> >
>> > 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>> >
>> > 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
>> > upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
>> >
>> > 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
>> > a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
>> >
>> > 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
>> >
>> >
>> > Rationale
>> > =========
>> >
>> > I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
>> > would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
>> > options to no avail.
>> >
>>
>> There is an option that has not been discussed, and that is
>> questioning why the gentoo-dev list receives offtopic replies,
>> personal attacks, and trolling.
>
> People's private issues are not topic of this mailing list. It is
> generally impolite and unprofessional to discuss them publicly. Please
> don't do that.
>

If the messages are being posted to gentoo-dev then I don't see why
you consider the issue private. At least one party intends it to be
public, probably because it's not a personal attack and is related to
Gentoo.

Sadly, since you do not feel it necessary for those slighted to list
their complaints in some form or another, nobody but them and yourself
will know a problem ever existed.

>> > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
>> > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
>> > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
>> > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
>> >
>> > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
>> > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
>> >
>> > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
>> > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
>> >
>> > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
>> > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
>> >
>>
>> People only ever do things that make sense. Again, I invite the people
>> who are being attacked to consider why someone cares enough to bother
>> to do that. Bored teenagers go to #archlinux to have pissing contests,
>> not #gentoo.
>>
>> >
>> > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
>> > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
>> > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
>> > really solve the problem because:
>> >
>>
>> To me this sounds like ComRel realized it is too easy to turn good
>> intentions into fascism.
>>
>> > I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
>> > nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
>> > to themselves.
>> >
>> > II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
>> > be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
>> > be lured into discussing with them.
>> >
>> > III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
>> > silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
>> > the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
>> > as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
>> >
>>
>> It is also entirely possible that a new user will see the troll, agree
>> with the troll, and not want to contribute to Gentoo because they
>> think the troll is right.
>>
>> >
>> > Yet another alternative that was proposed was to establish moderation of
>> > the mailing lists. However, Infrastructure has replied already that we
>> > can't deploy effective moderation with the current mailing list software
>> > and I'm not aware of anyone willing to undergo all the necessary work to
>> > change that.
>> >
>> > Even if we were able to overcome that and be able to find a good
>> > moderation team that can effectively and fairly moderate e-mails without
>> > causing huge delays, moderation has a number of own problems:
>> >
>> > α) the delays will make discussions more cumbersome, and render posting
>> > confusing to users,
>> >
>> > β) they will implicitly cause some overlap of replies (e.g. when N
>> > different people answer the same question because they don't see earlier
>> > replies until they're past moderation),
>> >
>> > γ) the problem will be solved only partially -- what if a reply contains
>> > both valuable info and personal attack?
>> >
>>
>> I agree with this logic, but please be careful - it states a problem,
>> presupposes a single solution, and then concludes that there is only
>> one course of action based on the critique applied to that one
>> solution. This is partly why I see the proposal as something which
>> does not seem to be accommodating to alternate viewpoints. It makes
>> addressing this section with an alternate viewpoint difficult, and if
>> I ignore it then it looks like I ignored part of your argument.
>>
>> >
>> > Seeing that no other effort so far has succeeded in solving the problem,
>> > splitting the mailing lists seems the best solution so far. Most
>> > notably:
>> >
>> > а. Developer mailing lists are restored to their original purpose.
>> >
>> > б. It is 'fair'. Unlike with disciplinary actions, there is no judgment
>> > problem, just a clear split between 'developers' and 'non-developers'.
>> >
>> > в. 'Expert users' are still provided with a mailing list where they can
>> > discuss Gentoo without being pushed down into 'user support' channels.
>> >
>> > г. Active contributors (in particular recruits) can still obtain posting
>> > access to the mailing lists, much like they do obtain it to #gentoo-dev
>> > right now. However, if they start misbehaving we can just remove that
>> > without the risk of evasion.
>> >
>>
>> I feel this is still a fairly large barrier to involvement. Getting
>> people to the point they want to contribute or have the knowledge to
>> contribute is the hard part, and what this will make harder to do.
>
> A mailing list is not strictly essential to contributing to Gentoo.
> I can't think of it being to much use of any recently recruited
> developers.
>

No, but the majority of developers seem standoffish, particularly the
ones that are most closely associated with the project. Perhaps there
are a lot of idiots. I don't know. But I doubt your proposal will make
it any easier for people to begin contributing.

Respectfully,
     R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[R0b0t1]

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 8:56 PM, kuzetsa <kuzetsa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes please. I don't want to see gentoo end because of ... rudeness.
>

Be careful, it is easy to disguise rudeness as tact.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1485 bytes --]

On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote:
> A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list:
>
> There's been research, on this, and the study by harvard business
> school was summarized and discussed by NPR in 2015:
>
> [ Turns out toxic coworkers are more
> than just an annoyance. A new study
> out of the Harvard Business School
> warns that bullying workers are more costly,
> even if they are more productive. ] -- NPR description
>
> https://www.npr.org/2015/12/16/460024322/harvard-business-school-study-highlights-costs-of-toxic-workers
> https://goo.gl/g8Ujuk (short URL of the same)
>
> With gentoo being a non-profit organization, an alternative way to
> view it could be the trade-off of seeing developers / maintainers /
> staff leave, and any "lost profits" are in the form of community
> relations, image, and willingness for ongoing productive work by those
> who remain with the gentoo organization.
>
> Research paper itself (which includes supporting 57 citations)
>
> http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf
> https://goo.gl/42A8v7 (short URL of the same)
>
> ... and was itself cited a dozen or times:
>
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5443947091657980238
> https://goo.gl/obvdzh (short URL of the same)
>
I refer you also to a former Gentoo developer's talk on "A$$holes on
your project" ... [1]

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZSli7QW4rg


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 919 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it
> be
> > better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators
> who
> > move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
> > the specific posts if necessary?
>
> I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj
> has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did,
> moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low-
> traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well.
>

Maybe we should move to a more modern list manager? I'm pretty sure mailman
can do this kind of stuff trivially. It feels bad if we have to institute
suboptimal processes due to crappy tooling, if better alternatives are
readily available.

Regards,

Dirkjan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1364 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

W dniu pon, 04.12.2017 o godzinie 14∶18 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan
Ochtman napisał:
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > > On the face of it, I like this proposal. On the other hand, wouldn't it
> > 
> > be
> > > better if we just had more active list moderators? That is, moderators
> > 
> > who
> > > move problematic user's posts to moderated by default, and then withhold
> > > the specific posts if necessary?
> > 
> > I don't think this is really technically feasible. I don't know if mlmmj
> > has the specific feature you're asking for, and even if it did,
> > moderation with mlmmj is practically impossible to use. Even for low-
> > traffic channel like gentoo-dev-announce@ it's not working well.
> > 
> 
> Maybe we should move to a more modern list manager? I'm pretty sure mailman
> can do this kind of stuff trivially. It feels bad if we have to institute
> suboptimal processes due to crappy tooling, if better alternatives are
> readily available.
> 

I'm all for it, as long as someone is actually going to do the necessary
work within the next, say, 4 weeks. I'd really like to avoid once again
having no resolution whatsoever just to wait for never-to-come upgrade.

I should point out that this includes:

1. Switch to another mailing list software without breaking stuff. This
needs someone from Infra really willing and being able to do it.

2. Establishing a clear policy on how moderation should be performed.
Without a clear policy, the effects could be far worse than status quo.

3. Establishing a good and trusted moderators team. Normally I'd say
ComRel could do that but given their inability to react within the last
year...

So, anyone volunteering to do the work?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 14∶06 -0800, użytkownik Matt Turner
napisał:
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> > members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> > of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> > the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
> > 
> > A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> > create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
> 
> That's absurd. "We shouldn't enforce rules because people can break the rules"
> 
> > B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> > hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
> 
> That's absurd. There's no reason to have to tolerate non-constructive
> conversation on our own mailing lists. Classify it as off topic. We
> tell people their posts are off topic for a particular mailing list
> all the time.
> 
> > C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> > lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
> 
> That's absurd. You have to look at where the problem starts to fix it,
> not engage in whataboutism.
> 
> > The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> > the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> > now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> > really solve the problem because:
> 
> That's absurd. The whole point of bringing problems to ComRel is so
> they can solve it. Telling people to deal with it is explicitly not
> solving the problem.
> 
> 
> The Gentoo community (not just the developers) would stand to benefit
> from a capable and competent ComRel team. It's very sad that we don't
> have that.
> 
> Unfortunately, my experience is much the same as yours. ComRel
> explicitly refused to act when a bug reporter was repeatedly abusive,
> instead arguing that he didn't do anything wrong and that I shouldn't
> be so offended. Even the user disagreed with ComRel, apologizing and
> saying that his own behavior was out of line when I confronted him.
> That's absurd.

I have to formally point out that during this Council's term we haven't
had a single complaint about actions (or lack thereof) of ComRel.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Michał Górny]

W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 23∶59 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1
napisał:
> As noted, there is one: analyzing the actions of those who are being
> "attacked" to see why people are bothering to do it in the first
> place. I sincerely doubt the offensive parties are doing what they are
> doing without cause.

Most of the affected developers are perfectly aware of the purpose of
those attacks. If there was anything to be done to resolve the situation
peacefully, we'd have done it long time ago. However, we can't and are
not going to yield to people's unfounded demands based purely
on the pressure inflicted by their misbehavior.

I believe this is as far as I can answer you. Going beyond that goes
into public judgment of private issues which is unacceptable on this
mailing list.

> But no, the Gentoo developers are always above reproach.

This remark is highly inappropriate.

> > I'm sorry but the purpose of this thread is not to convince you that
> > the problems exist. If you haven't experienced them already, then it
> > would be polite of you to either accept them as a fact, or do some
> > research yourself.
> > 
> 
> Your job is not to convince me, personally, but the future reader of
> this list. If you have given up on doing so then you have admitted
> that you do not want to be held accountable for your actions because
> you do not feel you need to explain why you are doing what you are
> doing.

It is quite ironic that you worry about a 'future reader' needing to be
convinced in this past post (presuming you have some infinite knowledge
of what kind of details would a 'future reader' consider satisfying)
and at the same time you clearly reject to search for any past posts
on the topic.

Also, I should point out that you don't get to tell me what my job is.
If you believe this thread should contain such data, please collect it
yourself in your own time and include it in a reply. However, I should
point out that you should respect all the rules we're talking about.
I'd rather spend the time doing something that is of much greater
importance of Gentoo users than some potential decision that will
probably no longer be remembered in 12 months, except in snarky
comments.

> > I understand that you might want to know things. However, it is
> > generally impolite if someone 'comes late to the party' and starts
> > shouting questions that the existing participants know answers to
> > already. This is distorting to the conversation at hand.
> > 
> 
> I am not shouting. I am politely, but pointedly, asking questions that
> you ostensibly should already have the answer to. If you do not have
> the answer, then I feel it is clear to future readers of the list that
> you are making decisions for nonsensical reasons.

I should point out that your personal attacks are also unacceptable.
If you disagree with the proposal, then please focus on discussing facts
and not trying to prove your opponent's incompetence.

> > People's private issues are not topic of this mailing list. It is
> > generally impolite and unprofessional to discuss them publicly. Please
> > don't do that.
> > 
> 
> If the messages are being posted to gentoo-dev then I don't see why
> you consider the issue private. At least one party intends it to be
> public, probably because it's not a personal attack and is related to
> Gentoo.

One side being unprofessional does not excuse the other from being so.
It only causes very unfair 'community judgment' where community judges
based on abusive facts of one side where the other side is unable to
provide counter-arguments without violating the privacy rules.

Please consider that you have exhausted all the time I had available for
you. Please do not expect any further answers from me, and give others
a fair chance of getting developers' attention.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Christopher Head]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1657 bytes --]

On December 3, 2017 1:35:23 PM PST, "Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through Bugzilla.
>This gives the best chance for focused discussion on the specific issue
>without unnecessary distraction for other developers who are not
>interested in the specific topic.

While this is true for bugs, is it true for everything else as well? Bugzilla seems to me to be a more reactive, rather than proactive, tool when dealing with changes of behaviour in particular packages, eclasses, etc.. That is to say, if I object to the current behaviour in a particular eclass, in Portage, or in some core package with high impact, I can file a bug. If someone is considering changing behaviour and I want to voice my opinion on that proposal, Bugzilla is less helpful. Case 1, the developer does it without non-dev-community input and I am left with the only choice being to object after the fact, when my system is already broken. Case 2, the developer files a bug describing the change and then implements it; in this case, we suffer from the problem that Bugzilla isn’t so easily discoverable, given the number of bugs filed; gentoo-dev has the nice property that the maintainers self-select which proposed changes are important enough to announce, which Bugzilla doesn’t do. So if I wanted to be notified of all important changes to core system packages on Bugzilla, today, I would have to (1) choose the set of packages to follow myself, probably missing a few in the process, and (2) filter out the unimportant bug mail which currently never reaches this list at all.

-- 
Christopher Head

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 675 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[kuzetsa]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2182 bytes --]

On 12/04/2017 01:11 PM, Christopher Head wrote:
> On December 3, 2017 1:35:23 PM PST, "Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through Bugzilla.
>> This gives the best chance for focused discussion on the specific issue
>> without unnecessary distraction for other developers who are not
>> interested in the specific topic.
> While this is true for bugs, is it true for everything else
> as well? Bugzilla seems to me to be a more reactive, rather
> than proactive, tool when dealing with changes of behaviour
> in particular packages, eclasses, etc.
--snip--
>  Bugzilla isn’t so easily discoverable, given the number of
> bugs filed; gentoo-dev has the nice property that the
> maintainers self-select which proposed changes are important
> enough to announce, which Bugzilla doesn’t do. So if I wanted
> to be notified of all important changes to core system
> packages on Bugzilla, today, I would have to (1) choose the
> set of packages to follow myself, probably missing a few in
> the process, and (2) filter out the unimportant bug mail
> which currently never reaches this list at all.

Reading the gentoo-dev list will still be an option. If there's
a bug already open for a planned change (as often happens when
blockers are expected, etc.), filing a bug and marking as a
blocker will be an option. If the behavior is known in
advance that it will break your configuration or workflow,
etc. I think it's still fine to file a bug about the oversight
before implemented occurs. If not appropriate to file as a bug,
there are project aliases you can mail concerns to.
{reference below}

On the other hand, if it's not obvious there will be breakage,
then posting to the gentoo-dev list can't prevent it. Also,
the original proposal did state that non-devs who contribute
can request post permission, as needed.
{reference below}

On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
>
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1685 bytes --]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:15:32 +0000
"M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:

> On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote:
> > A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list:
> >
> > http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf
> > https://goo.gl/42A8v7 (short URL of the same)
> >
> > ... and was itself cited a dozen or times:
> >
> > https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5443947091657980238
> > https://goo.gl/obvdzh (short URL of the same)

Anyone paying any attention to current events?  Quite many business and
governments have gone out of their way to protect and hide the actions
of abusers. In most causes because they were money makers. I think that
may contradict the article entirely.

Steve Jobbs was a toxic coworker. Most titans in tech would fall more
into toxic category. Ever hear of Balmer raging or Gates? Ellison?
Google any of their names or others with a hole and see what you get....

> I refer you also to a former Gentoo developer's talk on "A$$holes on
> your project" ... [1]
> 
> [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZSli7QW4rg

Based on this graph have things gotten better since 08?
https://youtu.be/-ZSli7QW4rg?t=3m

Most every action since has hurt Gentoo big time. I left from 08 - 15.
I am not part of any of that. Why did it not recover with driving so
many out? That does way more harm than keeping people in....

A lesson many have yet to learn...

As Donnie said conflict is good...
https://youtu.be/-ZSli7QW4rg?t=5m5s

As Steve Jobbs said in this metaphor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Yv-UdsmSo


-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[kuzetsa]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1048 bytes --]

On 12/04/2017 01:51 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:15:32 +0000
> "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
>
>> On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote:
>>> A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list:
>>>
>>> http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf
>>> https://goo.gl/42A8v7 (short URL of the same)
>>>
>>> ... and was itself cited a dozen or times:
>>>
>>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5443947091657980238
>>> https://goo.gl/obvdzh (short URL of the same)
> Anyone paying any attention to current events?  Quite many business and
> governments have gone out of their way to protect and hide the actions
> of abusers. In most causes because they were money makers. I think that
> may contradict the article entirely.
>
1) harvard business school research publication, not an "article"
2) if things don't change, I'll be one of the people to quit.
3) gentoo already has documented instances of people leaving.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2327 bytes --]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:51 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:15:32 +0000
> "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
>
> > On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list:
> > >
> > > http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-057_
> d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf
> > > https://goo.gl/42A8v7 (short URL of the same)
> > >
> > > ... and was itself cited a dozen or times:
> > >
> > > https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5443947091657980238
> > > https://goo.gl/obvdzh (short URL of the same)
>
> Anyone paying any attention to current events?  Quite many business and
> governments have gone out of their way to protect and hide the actions
> of abusers. In most causes because they were money makers. I think that
> may contradict the article entirely.
>

Clearly if Gentoo could be successful if millions of people were killed; we
would not choose to kill millions of people.
Clearly if Gentoo could be successful if dozens of people were harassed; we
would not choose to harass dozens of people?

I think the advocacy is that people want a community where Gentoo can be
successful without needing to harass anyone. A noble goal eh?
If the cost of a successful Gentoo is people being harassed because it
cannot sustain a safe community; perhaps Gentoo shouldn't exist?

-A


> Steve Jobbs was a toxic coworker. Most titans in tech would fall more
> into toxic category. Ever hear of Balmer raging or Gates? Ellison?
> Google any of their names or others with a hole and see what you get....
>
> > I refer you also to a former Gentoo developer's talk on "A$$holes on
> > your project" ... [1]
> >
> > [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZSli7QW4rg
>
> Based on this graph have things gotten better since 08?
> https://youtu.be/-ZSli7QW4rg?t=3m
>
> Most every action since has hurt Gentoo big time. I left from 08 - 15.
> I am not part of any of that. Why did it not recover with driving so
> many out? That does way more harm than keeping people in....
>
> A lesson many have yet to learn...
>
> As Donnie said conflict is good...
> https://youtu.be/-ZSli7QW4rg?t=5m5s
>
> As Steve Jobbs said in this metaphor
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Yv-UdsmSo
>
>
> --
> William L. Thomson Jr.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4040 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1788 bytes --]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:57:16 -0500
kuzetsa <kuzetsa@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/04/2017 01:51 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:15:32 +0000
> > "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote:  
> >>> A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf
> >>> https://goo.gl/42A8v7 (short URL of the same)
> >>>
> >>> ... and was itself cited a dozen or times:
> >>>
> >>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5443947091657980238
> >>> https://goo.gl/obvdzh (short URL of the same)  
> > Anyone paying any attention to current events?  Quite many business
> > and governments have gone out of their way to protect and hide the
> > actions of abusers. In most causes because they were money makers.
> > I think that may contradict the article entirely.
> >  
> 1) harvard business school research publication, not an "article"

If you read it is called a working paper. Working Paper 16-057 
Which is an article, or more work in progress subject to review,
feedback, changes, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_paper
https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/about/about.html
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/article

They have many 1502
http://www.hbs.edu/

Its confusing because on one page says Dylan Harvard Business School.
But he's clearly at Northwestern University. I assume a student at
Harvard Business school. Not sure hes relation.

Dylan Minor 
Harvard Business School 

Dylan Minor
Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/directory/minor_dylan.aspx

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Róbert Čerňanský]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:34:49 -0500
kuzetsa <kuzetsa@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/04/2017 01:11 PM, Christopher Head wrote:
> > On December 3, 2017 1:35:23 PM PST, "Michał Górny"
> > <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:  
> >> The best way to reach specific Gentoo developers is through
> >> Bugzilla. This gives the best chance for focused discussion on the
> >> specific issue without unnecessary distraction for other
> >> developers who are not interested in the specific topic.  
> > While this is true for bugs, is it true for everything else
> > as well? Bugzilla seems to me to be a more reactive, rather
> > than proactive, tool when dealing with changes of behaviour
> > in particular packages, eclasses, etc.  
> Reading the gentoo-dev list will still be an option. If there's
> a bug already open for a planned change (as often happens when
> blockers are expected, etc.), filing a bug and marking as a
> blocker will be an option. If the behavior is known in
> advance that it will break your configuration or workflow,
> etc. I think it's still fine to file a bug about the oversight
> before implemented occurs. If not appropriate to file as a bug,
> there are project aliases you can mail concerns to.

There are also matters like this one where Bugzilla is not very
appropriate medium, IMO.  For example instead of replaying to list I
would file a new bug with title "Users maybe will not be allowed to post
to gentoo-dev" and state my opinion there?

Regards,
Robert


-- 
Róbert Čerňanský
E-mail: openhs@tightmail.com
Jabber: hs@jabber.sk

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2629 bytes --]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:17:00 -0500
Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> Clearly if Gentoo could be successful if millions of people were
> killed; we would not choose to kill millions of people.
> Clearly if Gentoo could be successful if dozens of people were
> harassed; we would not choose to harass dozens of people?
> 
> I think the advocacy is that people want a community where Gentoo can
> be successful without needing to harass anyone. A noble goal eh?
> If the cost of a successful Gentoo is people being harassed because it
> cannot sustain a safe community; perhaps Gentoo shouldn't exist

The fact that you were the one who caused the problems for me in 08.
Who reported me to DevRel in 08 Alec? Are you proud of that some many
years later? Did that help the Foundation or Gentoo? I was gone from
08-15 yet things did not improve and you are still here.

That you ended up as a Trustee is ironic. Drive me out take my place
and do nothing. Which Gentoo never did get any official status with IRS.
No filings beyond the ones Daniel Robbins paid for out of his own
pocket.... When he created the Foundation and donated Gentoo to the
foundation. Least the work I did for the Foundation is visible and
stands to this very day. Same bank account I helped establish after
calling banks for 2 months solid post 911. Asking things like we have
an international foundation with trustees not in the US. Does not ring
any bells for money laundering or terrorism....

Perhaps people like you should not cause problems for and drive people
like me away. Then maybe Gentoo would have a real legal foundation,
budgets, weekly news letter paying for development, reimbursing
developers for travel, conferences, etc. Pretty much everything FreeBSD
has going on. You can see me referencing them any times in the -nfp
logs from when I was a Trustee.

Not to mention the lack of technical contributions. I can't find you
Alec where are your commits? Or other activity?

wlt@ws /usr/portage
$ git shortlog -s -n --all | grep -i Thomson
    55  William L. Thomson Jr
wlt@ws /usr/portage
$ git shortlog -s -n --all | grep -i Alec
wlt@ws /usr/portage
$ git shortlog -s -n --all | grep -i Warner

Keeping all this out of tree
https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo

Much less other work on the Foundation. This is clear the people
responsible for killing and harming Gentoo. Many like you remain from
2008. Still being just as destructive, masquerading as constructive.
While doing what? Technical or Foundation wise?

Show me the money :)

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3286 bytes --]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:17:00 -0500
> Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > Clearly if Gentoo could be successful if millions of people were
> > killed; we would not choose to kill millions of people.
> > Clearly if Gentoo could be successful if dozens of people were
> > harassed; we would not choose to harass dozens of people?
> >
> > I think the advocacy is that people want a community where Gentoo can
> > be successful without needing to harass anyone. A noble goal eh?
> > If the cost of a successful Gentoo is people being harassed because it
> > cannot sustain a safe community; perhaps Gentoo shouldn't exist
>
> The fact that you were the one who caused the problems for me in 08.
> Who reported me to DevRel in 08 Alec? Are you proud of that some many
> years later? Did that help the Foundation or Gentoo? I was gone from
> 08-15 yet things did not improve and you are still here.
>
> That you ended up as a Trustee is ironic. Drive me out take my place
> and do nothing. Which Gentoo never did get any official status with IRS.
> No filings beyond the ones Daniel Robbins paid for out of his own
> pocket.... When he created the Foundation and donated Gentoo to the
> foundation. Least the work I did for the Foundation is visible and
> stands to this very day. Same bank account I helped establish after
> calling banks for 2 months solid post 911. Asking things like we have
> an international foundation with trustees not in the US. Does not ring
> any bells for money laundering or terrorism....
>
> Perhaps people like you should not cause problems for and drive people
> like me away. Then maybe Gentoo would have a real legal foundation,
> budgets, weekly news letter paying for development, reimbursing
> developers for travel, conferences, etc. Pretty much everything FreeBSD
> has going on. You can see me referencing them any times in the -nfp
> logs from when I was a Trustee.
>
>
I think you make my point sir; not debase it. You did (and continue to do)
many things, that are in fact
valuable. However, you also contributed very negatively to the community.
This isn't a simple maths
problem where as long as one does enough good they can offset the bad. I'm
fairly confident the
community doesn't want such an environment (and have repeatedly rejected it
in the past.)


> Not to mention the lack of technical contributions. I can't find you
> Alec where are your commits? Or other activity?
>
> wlt@ws /usr/portage
> $ git shortlog -s -n --all | grep -i Thomson
>     55  William L. Thomson Jr
> wlt@ws /usr/portage
> $ git shortlog -s -n --all | grep -i Alec
> wlt@ws /usr/portage
> $ git shortlog -s -n --all | grep -i Warner
>
> Keeping all this out of tree
> https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo
>
> Much less other work on the Foundation. This is clear the people
> responsible for killing and harming Gentoo. Many like you remain from
> 2008. Still being just as destructive, masquerading as constructive.
> While doing what? Technical or Foundation wise?
>

And yet still somehow people think what I say is valuable, even when I have
not committed to the tree in years. Odd that.

-A


>
> Show me the money :)
>
> --
> William L. Thomson Jr.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4435 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 190 bytes --]

>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017, William L Thomson wrote:

[quote omitted]

Can you keep this out of gentoo-dev, please? You personal
reminiscences are very off-topic in this mailing list.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Vincent-Xavier JUMEL]

Le 2017-12-03 22:31, Michał Górny a écrit :
> Multiple people have tried, and as explained in the long rationale we
> haven't had any success. If you have a constructive ideas how to solve
> the problem otherwise, we're open to hear them. That's the whole 
> purpose
> of this thread.

Once or twice in 10 years, in a French association devoted to Free 
Software Advocacy such troll arise.

Since closing list and recreating new one isn't a solution, someone has 
to step in :
1/ First warn firmly that inacceptable behavior is not tolerated
2/ after first warn, expell the offenser from the list.

This extreme solution is taken by asociation representative, after 
trying to settle a resolution.

Even if the nay-sayer have made some valuable contribution, you could 
set him out. If he come back, just unravel him and his method so every 
one will know him and apply a Usenet Death Penalty

> Truth is, people change in toxic environments. I can't solve all
> the problems immediately but I believe this is the first step towards
> improving things, also in myself and other developers having problems.

Please do rembember that you can't solve all earth problems, not even 
all Gentoo problems :)

-- 
Vincent-Xavier JUMEL GPG Id: 0x14ABB3F2 http://thetys-retz.net

Rejoignez les 5334 adhérents de l'April http://www.april.org/adherer
Parinux, logiciel libre à Paris : http://www.parinux.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6939 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 12:18:04AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
> 
> This is something that's been talked about privately a lot lately but it
> seems that nobody went forward to put things into motion. SO here's
> a proposal that aims to improve the condition of our mailing lists
> and solve some of the problems they are facing today.
> 
> 
> Problems
> ========
> 
> Currently the developer-oriented mailing lists gentoo-dev and gentoo-
> project are open to posting by everyone. While this has been generally
> beneficial, we seem to be having major problems with some
> of the posters for more than a year. Off hand, I can think of three:
> 
> 1. Repeating attacks against Gentoo and/or Gentoo developers (including
> pure personal attacks). While it is understandable that some people may
> be frustrated and need to vent off, repeating attacks from the same
> person are seriously demotivating to everyone.
> 
> 2. Frequent off-topics, often irrelevant to the thread at hand.
> I understand that some of those topics are really interesting but it is
> really time-consuming to filter through all the off-topic mails
> in search of data relevant to the topic at hand. What's worst, sometimes
> you don't even get a single on-topic reply.
> 
> 3. Support requests. Some of our 'expert users' have been abusing
> the mailing lists to request support (because it's easier to ask
> everyone than go through proper channels) and/or complain about bug
> resolutions. This is a minor issue but still it is one.
> 
> 
> All of those issues are slowly rendering the mailing lists impossible to
> use. People waste a lot of time trying to gather feedback, and get
> demotivated in the process. A steadily growing number of developers
> either stop reading the mailing lists altogether, or reduce their
> activity.
> 
> For example, eclass reviews usually don't get more than one reply,
> and even that is not always on-topic. And after all, getting this kind
> of feedback is one of the purposes of the -dev mailing list!
> 
> 
> Proposal
> ========
> 
> Give the failure of other solutions tried for this, I'd like to
> establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> 
> 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> 
> 1a. Subscription (reading) and archives will still be open.
> 
> 1b. Active Gentoo contributors will be able to obtain posting access
> upon being vouched for by an active Gentoo developer.
> 
> 2. A new mailing list 'gentoo-expert' will be formed to provide
> a discussion medium for expert Gentoo users and developers.
> 
> 2a. gentoo-expert will have open posting access like gentoo-dev has now.
> 
> 
> Rationale
> =========
> 
> I expect that some of you will find this a drastic measure. However, I
> would like to point out that I believe we've already exhausted all other
> options to no avail.
> 
> The problems of more abusive behavior from some of the mailing list
> members have been reported to ComRel numerous times. After the failure
> of initial enforcement, I'm not aware of ComRel doing anything to solve
> the problem. The main arguments I've heard from ComRel members were:
> 
> A. Bans can be trivially evaded, and history proves that those evasions
> create more noise than leaving the issue as is.
> 
> B. People should be allowed to express their opinion [even if it's pure
> hate speech that carries no value to anyone].
> 
> C. The replies of Gentoo developers were worse [no surprise that people
> lose their patience after being attacked for a few months].
> 
> 
> The alternative suggested by ComRel pretty much boiled down to 'ignore
> the trolls'. While we can see this is actually starting to happen right
> now (even the most determined developers stopped replying), this doesn't
> really solve the problem because:
> 
> I. Some people are really determined and continue sending mails even if
> nobody replies to them. In fact, they are perfectly capable of replying
> to themselves.
> 
> II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
> be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> be lured into discussing with them.
> 
> III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
> the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
> 
> 
> Yet another alternative that was proposed was to establish moderation of
> the mailing lists. However, Infrastructure has replied already that we
> can't deploy effective moderation with the current mailing list software
> and I'm not aware of anyone willing to undergo all the necessary work to
> change that.
> 
> Even if we were able to overcome that and be able to find a good
> moderation team that can effectively and fairly moderate e-mails without
> causing huge delays, moderation has a number of own problems:
> 
> α) the delays will make discussions more cumbersome, and render posting
> confusing to users,
> 
> β) they will implicitly cause some overlap of replies (e.g. when N
> different people answer the same question because they don't see earlier
> replies until they're past moderation),
> 
> γ) the problem will be solved only partially -- what if a reply contains
> both valuable info and personal attack?
> 
> 
> Seeing that no other effort so far has succeeded in solving the problem,
> splitting the mailing lists seems the best solution so far. Most
> notably:
> 
> а. Developer mailing lists are restored to their original purpose.
> 
> б. It is 'fair'. Unlike with disciplinary actions, there is no judgment
> problem, just a clear split between 'developers' and 'non-developers'.
> 
> в. 'Expert users' are still provided with a mailing list where they can
> discuss Gentoo without being pushed down into 'user support' channels.
> 
> г. Active contributors (in particular recruits) can still obtain posting
> access to the mailing lists, much like they do obtain it to #gentoo-dev
> right now. However, if they start misbehaving we can just remove that
> without the risk of evasion.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
> 
> 

I don't think this plan will have the effect you're going for, but let's
be honest here: the "RFC" is just a formality; the decision's already
been made.

If the "real leaders" of Gentoo want to divide and fragment the
community, it's their prerogative. As we tell users who do something
they're not supposed to: You get to keep the pieces.

~zlg

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer, Trustee, Treasurer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1285 bytes --]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:54:38 -0500
Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> I think you make my point sir; not debase it. You did (and continue
> to do) many things, that are in fact
> valuable

What else may I have done since 08 had things been otherwise?
Gentoo's loss.

> However, you also contributed very negatively to the  community.

That is because the community needs to change. The atmosphere is
negative without me. I was gone from 08-15. So I am to blame for that
period.

> This isn't a simple maths  problem where as long as one does enough
> good they can offset the bad. I'm fairly confident the  community
> doesn't want such an environment (and have repeatedly rejected it in
> the past.)

My simple math shows you have been here the entire time. Clearly you
are not capable of making things better. Yet had a direct hand in
making it worse. Good job!

You could at least realize being here since 2008. If your not the one
making it better. Maybe do not give others a hard time or creating more
noise. I do not feel you are part of the solution I am sorry. You had
close to a decade to make a difference. This is where things are and I
am not to blame for Gentoo's entire community and/or atmosphere.


-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 601 bytes --]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:29:26 +0100
Vincent-Xavier JUMEL <endymion+gentoo@thetys-retz.net> wrote:
> 
> Please do rembember that you can't solve all earth problems, not even 
> all Gentoo problems :)

Technology is no means to resolve social issues. Our use of technology
is bringing about entirely new unique social issues. Technology creates
more social issues than it solves.

People all over the world will never get along. That does not mean they
should not have a place where they all come together for the benefit of
all. That is where magic happens!


-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1899 bytes --]

Sorry last one, directed to Alec, but all should read.

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:08:51 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>
> You could at least realize being here since 2008. If your not the one
> making it better. Maybe do not give others a hard time or creating
> more noise. I do not feel you are part of the solution I am sorry.
> You had close to a decade to make a difference. This is where things
> are and I am not to blame for Gentoo's entire community and/or
> atmosphere

Alec I am not blaming you for all of Gentoo's issues, nor is any one
person responsible. What I do fault you for is the situation involving
me since 2008. Which at many times you could clear the air telling your
side which you admitted then only on -core. You let things spiral, and
you started it all. Thanks, but I would appreciate an apology. It was
wrong and has had cascading effects for over a decade now. Hardly your
intentions then or now.

You made a mistake, and eagerly went to DevRel reporting me. Which
started a ball rolling no one could stop. That simple admission can
change the tide some. If anything will clear up the misconception that
I was kicked when I left. Less than a week or so after stepping down as
a trustee.

Requested retirement out of protest or disgust is not the same as
being kicked.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/135927#c7

Anytime an elected Trustee doing good work steps down mid term. Others
should wonder why. If they leave entirely after. Someone did something
to drive them away. Its simple logic. Much less show others respect
which I was never. Which continues to this day. People will disrespect
me before showing respect. Others take it to an extreme, and its all
tolerated because its me, wltr the drama troll destroying Gentoo who
won't go away. Despite the fact I did for years....


-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 361 bytes --]

On 12/04/2017 10:36 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Sorry last one, directed to Alec, but all should read.

I hope you really mean that, we've all heard you complaining about this
too many times already.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[kuzetsa]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 865 bytes --]


On 12/02/2017 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> II. This practically assumes that every new mailing list subscriber will
> be able to recognize the problem. Otherwise, new people will repeatedly
> be lured into discussing with them.
>
> III. In the end, it puts Gentoo in a bad position. Firstly, because it
> silently consents to misbehavior on the mailing lists. Secondly, because
> the lack of any statement in reply to accusations could be seen
> as a sign of shameful silent admittance.
>

Can confirm:

This was the first gentoo-dev thread I've ever posted to.

I was frustrated in this thread mainly because I wasn't
100% certain if the persons who were making this thread -
let's say "difficult" - I wasn't sure if they were
developers/contributors, or just people who wandered into
the list. archive readers might get confused too.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Peter Stuge]

Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 12:18:04AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > I'd like to establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > 
> > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> 
> I don't think this plan will have the effect you're going for,

I agree, and I'll double down on my previous comment on this proposal:

I consider the proposal to be the wrong solution.


> but let's be honest here: the "RFC" is just a formality; the decision's
> already been made.

I hope that a mere proposal doesn't automatically mean policy change.


> If the "real leaders" of Gentoo want to divide and fragment the
> community, it's their prerogative.

When there is a request for comments, there should also be comments. :)

Far too many fall into the simple trap that is tribalism, and I'd like
to encourage everyone on this list to not be that kind of person,
because there really is no "us and them", there is only "us".


> As we tell users who do something they're not supposed to: You get
> to keep the pieces.

Well, let's see what happens, now that both developers and
non-developers have clearly spoken out *against* this proposal.


Kind regards

//Peter

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Nils Freydank]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1216 bytes --]

Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2017, 18:02:21 CET schrieb Michał Górny:
> W dniu pon, 04.12.2017 o godzinie 14∶18 +0100, użytkownik Dirkjan
> 
> Ochtman napisał:
> > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> [...]
> 
> I'm all for it, as long as someone is actually going to do the necessary
> work within the next, say, 4 weeks. I'd really like to avoid once again
> having no resolution whatsoever just to wait for never-to-come upgrade.
> 
> I should point out that this includes:
> [...]
> 2. Establishing a clear policy on how moderation should be performed.
> Without a clear policy, the effects could be far worse than status quo.
I’m working on a draft for a ruleset and will send it to the list (as a new 
thread). However, this may take until the end of this week.

> 3. Establishing a good and trusted moderators team. Normally I'd say
> ComRel could do that but given their inability to react within the last
> year...
> 
> So, anyone volunteering to do the work?
I would do it, but IMHO it’s inappropriate if I would do that as a non-dev/
normal user.

-- 
GPG fingerprint: '766B 8122 1342 6912 3401 492A 8B54 D7A3 FF3C DB17'
Holgersson

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3365 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:59:40AM +0000, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Daniel Campbell wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 12:18:04AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > I'd like to establish the following changes to the mailing lists:
> > > 
> > > 1. Posting to gentoo-dev@ and gentoo-project@ mailing lists will be
> > > initially restricted to active Gentoo developers.
> > 
> > I don't think this plan will have the effect you're going for,
> 
> I agree, and I'll double down on my previous comment on this proposal:
> 
> I consider the proposal to be the wrong solution.
> 
> 
> > but let's be honest here: the "RFC" is just a formality; the decision's
> > already been made.
> 
> I hope that a mere proposal doesn't automatically mean policy change.
> 

If proposals come from a select couple of people, there are high odds
that it's been discussed privately and the relevant people've been
convinced or otherwise pushed to implement the change. By the time it
hits the list, any cricitism is met with "too bad, we're doing it
anyway". I'm not sure how new you are to Gentoo, but it's been this way
since at least 2012.

> 
> > If the "real leaders" of Gentoo want to divide and fragment the
> > community, it's their prerogative.
> 
> When there is a request for comments, there should also be comments. :)
> 
> Far too many fall into the simple trap that is tribalism, and I'd like
> to encourage everyone on this list to not be that kind of person,
> because there really is no "us and them", there is only "us".
> 

I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
be dropped or rejected. It will likely be a silent rejection, so the
fallout is minimal. The plan itself is a manifestation of tribalism.
The "us" is a select group of people who've been blessed by mgorny and
friends.  Everyone else is deemed a "do nothing" or some other insult,
regardless of their history or efforts with the distribution. Yes,
talking about that is ugly, but it's the truth. I've been on the
receiving end of it multiple times and have been witness to it many
others. It shows up in just about every corner of Gentoo. Creating a
technical schism won't fix it.

> 
> > As we tell users who do something they're not supposed to: You get
> > to keep the pieces.
> 
> Well, let's see what happens, now that both developers and
> non-developers have clearly spoken out *against* this proposal.
> 

I'm not holding my breath on any positive change, but we'll see. It's
not like we have a choice in the matter. I guess we'll have to subscribe
to yet another mailing list if we want to stay informed. Maybe in a
year's time, we'll have gentoo-dev-expert as well, so the Chosen Ones
don't have to deal with developers they don't like.

This is my last mail in this thread. I've made my points and know they
will fall on deaf ears. You're not wrong in your approach; I don't share
that faith, is all. So I hope you don't interpret this as me yelling at
you.

> 
> Kind regards
> 
> //Peter
> 

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer, Trustee, Treasurer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Aaron W. Swenson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 677 bytes --]

On 2017-12-03 00:18, Michał Górny wrote:
> …snip…

I understand, and sympathize with, the motivation to create another list
and restrict gentoo-dev. And, I agree with most of the points,
especially given some of the more recent events.

I still vote no.

gentoo-dev is supposed to be for open discussions on the development of
Gentoo. I’ve come to expect to have some not so pleasant or diplomatic
replies.

Yes, there are a couple individuals that are being awfully noisy, but
the vaster majority are not. By splitting the list, we’re just moving that
noise elsewhere so we can ignore them.

This proposal avoids rather than addresses the problem.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 376 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
> developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
> incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
> be dropped or rejected.

And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?

Pretty much every organization I've ever been in would quietly show
such a person the door unless the victim went public with the
allegations.  Most normal people wouldn't want to be a part of an
organization that didn't do such a thing.

Apparently though in Gentoo some prefer that the victims of harassment
have no recourse if the harassment doesn't happen on the gentoo-dev
mailing list in public.

If you think some cabal is running the show just run for Council.  If
you win then you get the lucky job of trying to explain all this
without disclosing the horrible things that some people do in private.
Of course, lots of people won't believe you, since they profess to be
innocent and the evidence can't be disclosed without bringing harm to
a victim or creating the possibility of a defamation lawsuit.

Nobody should assume that my example fits any particular person, but
it is certainly one I've heard about in Gentoo's history.  These
things do happen when you have a large enough community.

There are certainly people around here that annoy lots of devs, and
have for years, and yet they're not the ones being banned.  Heck, I
know I annoy plenty of people with lengthy posts, but the stuff that
actually gets people driven out goes way beyond annoyance.

And honestly, in an ideal world we wouldn't be moderating posts based
on who posted them, but simply based on their content.  Posts about
Gentoo development on gentoo-dev can go through, posts that aren't
about such things don't.  It is usually for the sake of manpower that
you whitelist/greylist/blacklist individuals.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 833 bytes --]

On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
>> developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
>> incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
>> be dropped or rejected.
> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?

This doesn't seem relevant to the matter of splitting the lists, and
would certainly be a matter for comrel.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
>>> developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
>>> incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
>>> be dropped or rejected.
>> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
>> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
>> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?
>
> This doesn't seem relevant to the matter of splitting the lists, and
> would certainly be a matter for comrel.
>

What do you do when they keep posting manifestos or whatever on the
lists every few months, or generally stirring up the community about
how unjustly they're being treated?  When the appeal is to popular
opinion, instead of the defined process for handling these appeals?

Ultimately it isn't that hard to convince newcomers that Gentoo is
full of backstabbing when you let people allege that and have the last
word whenever it fancies them to do so.

The point of prior restraint is so that our mailing lists don't turn
into the most negative PR imaginable.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1811 bytes --]

On 12/05/2017 11:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
>>>> developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
>>>> incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
>>>> be dropped or rejected.
>>> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
>>> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
>>> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?
>>
>> This doesn't seem relevant to the matter of splitting the lists, and
>> would certainly be a matter for comrel.
>>
> 
> What do you do when they keep posting manifestos or whatever on the
> lists every few months, or generally stirring up the community about
> how unjustly they're being treated?  When the appeal is to popular
> opinion, instead of the defined process for handling these appeals?
> 
> Ultimately it isn't that hard to convince newcomers that Gentoo is
> full of backstabbing when you let people allege that and have the last
> word whenever it fancies them to do so.
> 
> The point of prior restraint is so that our mailing lists don't turn
> into the most negative PR imaginable.
> 

The difference would be that you, in your first example, can demonstrate
some actual abuse. In the latter case you're talking about differences
of opinions of how things are run, which quickly turns into censorship.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> The difference would be that you, in your first example, can demonstrate
> some actual abuse. In the latter case you're talking about differences
> of opinions of how things are run, which quickly turns into censorship.
>

I don't see how any of this can "turn into censorship" - it IS
censorship from the outset.  That is what moderation is.  If the topic
of the list isn't for ranting about how horrible Gentoo is and why
nobody should bother to join the community, then such a post is
off-topic.  We either allow it (in which case we'll continue to have
lots of infighting and a generally toxic environment), or we don't (in
which case we ARE censoring the lists).

Obviously things work more nicely when people censor themselves, but
not everybody does.

Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 732 bytes --]

On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
> which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
> tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?

We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated.
"spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't
automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the
information being presented, or they disagree with it.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1454 bytes --]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:25:21 -0500
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand
> <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:  
> >
> >> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses
> >> other members of the community in private after being told to
> >> stop, and then acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing
> >> lists?  
> >
> > This doesn't seem relevant to the matter of splitting the lists, and
> > would certainly be a matter for comrel.
> >  
> What do you do when they keep posting manifestos or whatever on the
> lists every few months, or generally stirring up the community about
> how unjustly they're being treated?  When the appeal is to popular
> opinion, instead of the defined process for handling these appeals?

For readers who may assume. Along the lines of me being kicked. I have
never ever in my life ever done anything along those lines, nor was
kicked. What ever Rich is referring to is another person, not me!!!!

I may stir pot, annoy, write backwards, etc. I do not use profanity. I
do not harass people. My actions are all in public. I am not a fan of
private PM. I hated it as a Trustee!

In fact private harassment is why I stepped down as Trustee....
Me receiving harassment from members of DevRel....
None sexual, still was harassment none the less

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1128 bytes --]

On 12/05/2017 11:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
>> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
>> which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
>> tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?
> 
> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated.
> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't
> automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the
> information being presented, or they disagree with it.
> 

This whole email thread is actually one of the examples of where split
lists is a bad thing, the original message was cross-posted between
gentoo-project and gentoo-dev with a reply-to for gentoo-dev. Resulting
in split discussions across the lists. The overall discussion should've
been in -project to begin with.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 17:25:21 -0500
> Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand
>> <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > On 12/05/2017 11:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> >
>> >> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses
>> >> other members of the community in private after being told to
>> >> stop, and then acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing
>> >> lists?
>> >
>> > This doesn't seem relevant to the matter of splitting the lists, and
>> > would certainly be a matter for comrel.
>> >
>> What do you do when they keep posting manifestos or whatever on the
>> lists every few months, or generally stirring up the community about
>> how unjustly they're being treated?  When the appeal is to popular
>> opinion, instead of the defined process for handling these appeals?
>
> For readers who may assume. Along the lines of me being kicked. I have
> never ever in my life ever done anything along those lines, nor was
> kicked. What ever Rich is referring to is another person, not me!!!!
>

The problem is that with current policies if somebody in Comrel/etc
had evidence to the contrary they would not be able to refute such a
denial.  My example wasn't of wltjr specifically (at least not to my
knowledge), but it just goes to the point of why having these sorts of
things hashed out on the mailing lists on the first place.  At best it
results in damage to reputations and attention drawn to victims (and
perpetrators) of such activities.  At worst it can lead to
escalation/lawsuits/etc.


-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
>> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
>> which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
>> tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?
>
> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated.
> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't
> automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the
> information being presented, or they disagree with it.
>

We have had cases where people who were the subject of comrel
complaints about harassment go on to just post endlessly on mailing
lists, sometimes professing that they have no reason why comrel booted
them (despite evidence to the contrary existing).  It just leads to a
one-sided discussion because we don't defend Gentoo's reputation in
these cases so instead our lists just get used to smear us.

I don't have any issue with discussion of facts, or even the offering
of opinion, but the problem is that in these sorts of situations one
side presents their side of the story and nobody is free to counter
with the other side because of policy (and a reasonable policy at
that).  And so the allegations just go unchallenged and are repeatedly
posted.  What value does this add?  At best it misleads people into
thinking that things like comrel actions are unfounded, and drives
away potential contributors.

If these were discussions about policy in the abstract and not in the
specific then there wouldn't be as much difficulty (indeed, this is
the form our disagreement is taking right now).  We can certainly have
a free conversation about whether somebody who sexually harasses
another developer ought to be booted or not.  The problem comes in
when somebody has been the subject of a decision made based on their
individual behavior - there is no way to have a reasonable public
conversation about this.

IMO discussions about individual comrel/etc decisions simply should
not be considered on-topic for our lists.


-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 12/05/2017 11:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> On 12/05/2017 11:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> Honestly, I'm not really a big fan of even on-topic posts from people
>>> who have caused a lot of harm to others in private.  I'm not sure
>>> which is the lesser evil but do we really want a community where we
>>> tolerate absolutely any kind of abuse of other members?
>>
>> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated.
>> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't
>> automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the
>> information being presented, or they disagree with it.
>>
>
> This whole email thread is actually one of the examples of where split
> lists is a bad thing, the original message was cross-posted between
> gentoo-project and gentoo-dev with a reply-to for gentoo-dev. Resulting
> in split discussions across the lists. The overall discussion should've
> been in -project to begin with.
>

Certainly, though if our lists actually were moderated it would be a
non-issue because all the replies to the off-topic list would have
been deleted.

Mailing lists aren't great for moderation in general though, because
it is impossible to delete a post after it has been distributed.  In a
forum something like this would be easily solved by just moving the
thread to the right place, deleting posts after the fact, and so on.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1365 bytes --]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:02:01 -0500
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> The problem is that with current policies if somebody in Comrel/etc
> had evidence to the contrary they would not be able to refute such a
> denial.  My example wasn't of wltjr specifically (at least not to my
> knowledge), but it just goes to the point of why having these sorts of
> things hashed out on the mailing lists on the first place. 

For the record and reading assumer's. All my actions were in public,
basically on mailing lists starting with -nfp long ago. All action taken
against me was in public visible on my developer bug. I have never
communicated with ComRel former DevRel in private. Or had any action
taken against me for anything I did in private. It was always public.

Any private information regarding me from 08 till today was generated
within Gentoo and does not involve me. If any exists. With the
exception of -core back in the day. Which again is a list, visible to
all devs then.

Sorry and no more from me. I just feel given how I am portrayed,
spoken of, action taken against, etc. I must clarify some things for the
public record. Which even despite all my actions being in public.
People still assume because research and thinking for yourself takes
time. Time I do not expect anyone to expend.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 837 bytes --]

On 12/06/2017 12:22 AM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Sorry and no more from me. I just feel given how I am portrayed,
> spoken of, action taken against, etc. I must clarify some things for the
> public record. Which even despite all my actions being in public.
> People still assume because research and thinking for yourself takes
> time. Time I do not expect anyone to expend.

One of the primary issues recently is that you keep bringing up old
matters in a way that is a criticism of Gentoo overall, in various
channels. We've heard it already, and to keep bringing it up doesn't add
additional value to the discussion. So again, please reduce the volume
of such posts.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1008 bytes --]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:22:34 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>
> For the record and reading assumer's. All my actions were in public,
> basically on mailing lists starting with -nfp long ago. All action
> taken against me was in public visible on my developer bug. I have
> never communicated with ComRel former DevRel in private. Or had any
> action taken against me for anything I did in private. It was always
> public.

Sorry correction I have exchange emails, I think IRC short of
confirming via logs with ComRel/DevRel as part of action being taken
against. Any conduct being "punished" was in public. I have no problems
with any punishment interaction I had being made public. It would not be
any different than what is on mailing list or my bug.

Nothing I did privately caused the ball to start rolling. That was
all in public. I think the initial report against me was private....

Again sorry I did not want to be lying.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 920 bytes --]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 00:25:46 +0100
Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> One of the primary issues recently is that you keep bringing up old
> matters in a way that is a criticism of Gentoo overall, in various
> channels. We've heard it already, and to keep bringing it up doesn't
> add additional value to the discussion. So again, please reduce the
> volume of such posts.

Most all still exist, plus new ones. Yet noting new is done to address.
Nothing changes for the good. Rather instead keep doubling done on the
old direction which keeps having a destructive impact. Maybe new
people, still learning the same lessons over and over. Old ones still
trying to force things to work the way they have never and will never.

And you get upset when someone is crying a fowl? If you saw something
being neglected and suffering. You would just stand by silently?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[R0b0t1]

I apologize for replying to only this message, but #1 stood out and I
am still catching up.

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 12:57 PM, kuzetsa <kuzetsa@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/04/2017 01:51 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:15:32 +0000
>> "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/12/17 00:37, Matt Turner wrote:
>>>> A user requested I forward this information to the mailing list:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-057_d45c0b4f-fa19-49de-8f1b-4b12fe054fea.pdf
>>>> https://goo.gl/42A8v7 (short URL of the same)
>>>>
>>>> ... and was itself cited a dozen or times:
>>>>
>>>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5443947091657980238
>>>> https://goo.gl/obvdzh (short URL of the same)
>> Anyone paying any attention to current events?  Quite many business and
>> governments have gone out of their way to protect and hide the actions
>> of abusers. In most causes because they were money makers. I think that
>> may contradict the article entirely.
>>
> 1) harvard business school research publication, not an "article"

I have read doctoral theses from Harvard, Yale, and others that were
complete trash (they were all copies of an original presentation of a
paper about finger trees; one included code which didn't compile).
Those involved with academia on Freenode have repeatedly warned me not
to trust people based on the institution they work for, nor even to
trust PhD holders about their field of study. This advice has served
me well.

Unfortunately, being politely asked to explain oneself seems to be
grating to a great many people.

> 2) if things don't change, I'll be one of the people to quit.
> 3) gentoo already has documented instances of people leaving.
>

Yes, and from the other end, I see lots of people who hate red tape
and a fear of confrontation that gets in the way of technical
discussion. As far as I can tell, most of the people who feel slighted
feel that way because they choose to interpret someone asking about
the validity of their actions as a personal insult.

Respectfully,
     R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[R0b0t1]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think the plan to split mailing lists serves as a way to insulate
>> developers from the effects of their decisions. Anyone with an
>> incongenial tone will have their voice bit revoked and their mail will
>> be dropped or rejected.
>
> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?
>

If you are going to allege misconduct you need to be prepared to prove it.

> Pretty much every organization I've ever been in would quietly show
> such a person the door unless the victim went public with the
> allegations.  Most normal people wouldn't want to be a part of an
> organization that didn't do such a thing.
>
> Apparently though in Gentoo some prefer that the victims of harassment
> have no recourse if the harassment doesn't happen on the gentoo-dev
> mailing list in public.
>
> If you think some cabal is running the show just run for Council.  If
> you win then you get the lucky job of trying to explain all this
> without disclosing the horrible things that some people do in private.
> Of course, lots of people won't believe you, since they profess to be
> innocent and the evidence can't be disclosed without bringing harm to
> a victim or creating the possibility of a defamation lawsuit.
>

Like in the thread about potential piracy issues with ebuilds, people
are being too cautious. For a defamation suit it would be necessary to
prove malicious intent, and then, only in the first circuit.

I'm still waiting for the notice that I can't use Gentoo to
manufacture weapons of mass destruction.

Respectfully,
     R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[R0b0t1]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> W dniu nie, 03.12.2017 o godzinie 23∶59 -0600, użytkownik R0b0t1
> napisał:
>> As noted, there is one: analyzing the actions of those who are being
>> "attacked" to see why people are bothering to do it in the first
>> place. I sincerely doubt the offensive parties are doing what they are
>> doing without cause.
>
> Most of the affected developers are perfectly aware of the purpose of
> those attacks. If there was anything to be done to resolve the situation
> peacefully, we'd have done it long time ago. However, we can't and are
> not going to yield to people's unfounded demands based purely
> on the pressure inflicted by their misbehavior.
>

You are presupposing they are attacks. If they are public, and on
gentoo-dev, then why would you consider them attacks? Are you the only
person who acts with reason or purpose? How do you determine someone
else is not acting with those things?

> I believe this is as far as I can answer you. Going beyond that goes
> into public judgment of private issues which is unacceptable on this
> mailing list.
>

You have now made the issue public by asking that the information be
acted on. If you can not present it publicly, then do not ask anyone
to act on it, and do not hold people to decisions or outcomes made
using the information.

>> But no, the Gentoo developers are always above reproach.
>
> This remark is highly inappropriate.
>

Multiple times I have had polite requests for some explanation of
actions be ignored. In a few of them I can cite behavior that
contradicts itself. What conclusion is left to me save that certain
developers revel in being petty tyrants?

>> > I'm sorry but the purpose of this thread is not to convince you that
>> > the problems exist. If you haven't experienced them already, then it
>> > would be polite of you to either accept them as a fact, or do some
>> > research yourself.
>> >
>>
>> Your job is not to convince me, personally, but the future reader of
>> this list. If you have given up on doing so then you have admitted
>> that you do not want to be held accountable for your actions because
>> you do not feel you need to explain why you are doing what you are
>> doing.
>
> It is quite ironic that you worry about a 'future reader' needing to be
> convinced in this past post (presuming you have some infinite knowledge
> of what kind of details would a 'future reader' consider satisfying)
> and at the same time you clearly reject to search for any past posts
> on the topic.
>

Most people consider evidence and fact-based reasoning satisfying. You
can dispute this if you wish, but I'm not sure how far you will be
able to take it.

> Also, I should point out that you don't get to tell me what my job is.
> If you believe this thread should contain such data, please collect it
> yourself in your own time and include it in a reply. However, I should
> point out that you should respect all the rules we're talking about.
> I'd rather spend the time doing something that is of much greater
> importance of Gentoo users than some potential decision that will
> probably no longer be remembered in 12 months, except in snarky
> comments.
>

If you do not want to convince people you are right, eventually you
will have to accept a complete lack of credibility.

I do not have such information and now I have learned you are actively
keeping it from me and from everyone else who may be trying to form an
opinion on this matter.

>> > I understand that you might want to know things. However, it is
>> > generally impolite if someone 'comes late to the party' and starts
>> > shouting questions that the existing participants know answers to
>> > already. This is distorting to the conversation at hand.
>> >
>>
>> I am not shouting. I am politely, but pointedly, asking questions that
>> you ostensibly should already have the answer to. If you do not have
>> the answer, then I feel it is clear to future readers of the list that
>> you are making decisions for nonsensical reasons.
>
> I should point out that your personal attacks are also unacceptable.
> If you disagree with the proposal, then please focus on discussing facts
> and not trying to prove your opponent's incompetence.
>

I regret that you see it as a personal attack, but I am simply trying
to tell you how I expect most people will view the situation. You are
asserting you are right with no evidence. No one has any reason to
believe you.

>> > People's private issues are not topic of this mailing list. It is
>> > generally impolite and unprofessional to discuss them publicly. Please
>> > don't do that.
>> >
>>
>> If the messages are being posted to gentoo-dev then I don't see why
>> you consider the issue private. At least one party intends it to be
>> public, probably because it's not a personal attack and is related to
>> Gentoo.
>
> One side being unprofessional does not excuse the other from being so.
> It only causes very unfair 'community judgment' where community judges
> based on abusive facts of one side where the other side is unable to
> provide counter-arguments without violating the privacy rules.
>

"Unfair community judgement" is using secret evidence to dictate your actions.

Respectfully,
     R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Am Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017, 00:40:11 CET schrieb William L. Thomson Jr.:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 00:25:46 +0100
> 
> Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > One of the primary issues recently is that you keep bringing up old
> > matters in a way that is a criticism of Gentoo overall, in various
> > channels. We've heard it already, and to keep bringing it up doesn't
> > add additional value to the discussion. So again, please reduce the
> > volume of such posts.
> 
> Most all still exist, plus new ones.

Well, it's like listening to a broken record, which keeps repeating the same 
snippet. At some point you stop listening, and at some point you realize you 
should maybe remove it from the player.

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer 
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[kuzetsa]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2584 bytes --]



On 12/05/2017 06:12 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> We do not, but that presumes actual abuse has been demonstrated.
>> "spamming the mailing list", where the posts are regarding Gentoo, isn't
>> automatically abuse because some people are uncomfortable about the
>> information being presented, or they disagree with it.
>>
> I don't have any issue with discussion of facts, or even the offering
> of opinion, but the problem is that in these sorts of situations one
> side presents their side of the story and nobody is free to counter
> with the other side because of policy (and a reasonable policy at
> that).  And so the allegations just go unchallenged and are repeatedly
> posted.  What value does this add?  At best it misleads people into
> thinking that things like comrel actions are unfounded, and drives
> away potential contributors.

When a situation drives a way potential contributors,
a closer look should happen. A split might be the wrong
choice, but discussing the need for a remedy is good.

> If these were discussions about policy in the abstract and not in the
> specific then there wouldn't be as much difficulty (indeed, this is
> the form our disagreement is taking right now).  We can certainly have
> a free conversation about whether somebody who sexually harasses
> another developer ought to be booted or not.  The problem comes in
> when somebody has been the subject of a decision made based on their
> individual behavior - there is no way to have a reasonable public
> conversation about this.
>
> IMO discussions about individual comrel/etc decisions simply should
> not be considered on-topic for our lists.

Yes, but blocking of expression / communication is tricky:

Within a particular organization (in this case, one focusing on
FOSS/Libre software) demands that censorship be prevented at all
costs VS expectation that disruption won't be tolerated, nor will
general off-topic rudeness/disrespect, or even cruelty - some
expression can only exist in good faith when it can be reasonably
understood to further the overall objectives for the particular
organization (in our case, gentoo)

For a list specifically meant for development, more restrictions
are a reasonable starting point than elsewhere. There has to
be a line drawn somewhere, even if it's just "keep discussions
limited to matters associated with the current thread" (germane)

THIS discussion wouldn't make sense on a dev-util/cmake thread.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:22 AM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
>> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
>> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?
>>
>
> If you are going to allege misconduct you need to be prepared to prove it.
>

And this is done - in private.  Nobody is alleging misconduct in
public, so I don't see why it needs to be proven in public.  Those
being kicked out are generally told why and are given an opportunity
to explain themselves, and often they're given an opportunity to
improve.  Some have later posted publicly saying they don't know why
they were booted.  With unmoderated lists we can't keep them from
making false statements like this.  With our current policies we can't
really contradict them specifically either.

I actually saw Debian take a slightly different tact in a recent
situation.  It looks like they gave the accused the opportunity to
decide whether the reasons for the action would be made public or not.
In that case they chose to make it public, so there was a public
statement by the project as to what was being done and why.  It
probably wouldn't hurt to talk to a lawyer but such an approach has
the advantage that it both preserves the privacy of the accused, while
also defeating false statements.  If somebody alleges that they're
innocent but did not give permission for the project to explain what
actually happened, they can hardly be considered a voice for
transparency and it would diminish their credibility.  On the other
hand, if somebody chooses to quietly leave the community there would
be no publicity around the event.  I'd think it would also help to
defeat liability for defamation/etc since the statement could be
presented to the accused for them to accept or reject, and if they
accepted it for publication that would probably make it hard to argue
in a court.

Aside from defamation as a potential issue, there is another reason to
keep this stuff private.  Somebody might not be a good fit for a big
community project, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other areas
of their life where they can be successful.  Publicity over a bad
event can harm their reputation in ways that go beyond the immediate
needs of our community.  And there always is the chance that an error
is being made in kicking them out.  Sure, that isn't a good thing, and
I believe our processes already minimize this risk, but ultimately the
harm in not being able to participate on a Gentoo mailing list is not
a great one.  Why make that harm greater by publicizing things when
this is not essential to accomplish our goals?  The goal isn't to ruin
somebody's life - it is to allow other contributors to participate in
the community in reasonable peace.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2706 bytes --]

On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 09:51:23 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Am Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017, 00:40:11 CET schrieb William L.
> Thomson Jr.: [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
> 
> Well, it's like listening to a broken record, which keeps repeating
> the same snippet. At some point you stop listening, and at some point
> you realize you should maybe remove it from the player.
> 

Maybe you should go take more of my Firebird changes and put them in
tree. Since you took over that package I mtainained and then merged in
my changes from Linux UnderGround overlay that came from mine...

Who do you think made the Firebird 3.x ebuild? I DID!!!!
https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo/commits/master/dev-db/firebird

See linux underground reporting issues with mine before adding it to
their repository
https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+firebird

See the date after they got it from mine :)
https://github.com/linuxunderground/gentoo.overlay/blob/master/dev-db/firebird/firebird-3.0.2.32703.0.ebuild

Then Andreas adding it to tree... HILARIOUS!!!!
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/e246873f43db77850c172263be72bc5153b23adb#diff-7dc5e9ed8a228dd8f564e17d66c5559e

Also seems it took a few tries why? Not familiar with package?
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commits/master/dev-db/firebird

Same package, mgorny 51 comment QA leading to more issues because he
does not use, have a clue about it, or bothered to actually test... Due
to his approach and stance I assumed his changes  were correct. HUGE
mistake on my behalf. Why in part mgorny does not like me

All for a 1 line change to fix syslog-ng log file... 
https://bugs.gentoo.org/547442

mgorny going crazy on QA for a 1 line change Ridiculous!
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/101

Introducing new bugs that did not exist. GO QA!!!!
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/e246873f43db77850c172263be72bc5153b23adb#diff-7dc5e9ed8a228dd8f564e17d66c5559e

And work since on things mgorny missed...
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commits/master/dev-db/firebird

This generation is NO replacement for the previous.... They seem
completely incapable of doing some things...

There is more QA issues but that is just Firebird.

Why is this PR still open? Or Java 9 PRs? Anyone working on that? Or
just people like you complaining about those actually doing the work
your not... or maybe cannot...
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/1358
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/1721
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/6033

Andreas you are a funny guy...

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[R0b0t1]

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:22 AM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> And what would you do when somebody repeatedly sexually harasses other
>>> members of the community in private after being told to stop, and then
>>> acts as if they're the victim on the public mailing lists?
>>>
>>
>> If you are going to allege misconduct you need to be prepared to prove it.
>>
>
> And this is done - in private.  Nobody is alleging misconduct in
> public, so I don't see why it needs to be proven in public.  Those
> being kicked out are generally told why and are given an opportunity
> to explain themselves, and often they're given an opportunity to
> improve.  Some have later posted publicly saying they don't know why
> they were booted.  With unmoderated lists we can't keep them from
> making false statements like this.  With our current policies we can't
> really contradict them specifically either.
>

You're mincing words: people are publicly alleging (we're talking
about it right now) private misconduct. Actions are now being proposed
(and have already begun to be acted out) based on this private
behavior. It is reasonable that if you expect anyone to believe you,
that you should prove the misconduct actually took place.

> I actually saw Debian take a slightly different tact in a recent
> situation.  It looks like they gave the accused the opportunity to
> decide whether the reasons for the action would be made public or not.
> In that case they chose to make it public, so there was a public
> statement by the project as to what was being done and why.  It
> probably wouldn't hurt to talk to a lawyer but such an approach has
> the advantage that it both preserves the privacy of the accused, while
> also defeating false statements.  If somebody alleges that they're
> innocent but did not give permission for the project to explain what
> actually happened, they can hardly be considered a voice for
> transparency and it would diminish their credibility.  On the other
> hand, if somebody chooses to quietly leave the community there would
> be no publicity around the event.  I'd think it would also help to
> defeat liability for defamation/etc since the statement could be
> presented to the accused for them to accept or reject, and if they
> accepted it for publication that would probably make it hard to argue
> in a court.
>

What really makes this hard to argue in court is the fact that in all
but one circuit libel, slander, and by extension defamation are all
impossible to claim if the statements were truthful. The first circuit
decision is very unpopular, and it seems like people do not expect it
to stand further testing as it was due to exceptional circumstances.

But really, the bigger issue is that lawyers are not magic sages that
can solve all of your problems. Most statements by lawyers are
opinions about how a justice might decide, and they do not know for
sure. In fact, much of practicing law is avoiding confrontation at all
cost, and many issues in the popular eye are almost entirely legal
speculation that has never seen a courtroom!

Consequently, the justification for the actions as has been given is
pathetic: if you actually had people's best interest in mind you would
be forthcoming with the evidence, because you truly believed the
problem is worth solving and believed you should convince other people
that it is worth solving. If you made someone's private actions public
(with consent of one party involved) it would be very hard to prove
that anything was done out of malice, which would be necessary, in the
US, to prove defamation.

Do not give up your freedom to act unless you are forced to.

The one legitimate complaint I could see being entertained is similar
to the ones that are now cropping up against universities and their
Title IX compliance courts: you have no legal training and are not
authorized to punish anyone, so the only thing you should do once you
are notified of misconduct is contact the police. In this sense the
policies you have now are "illegal" (in the vague, nebulous way that
your behavior makes it more likely for another party to have
standing).

> Aside from defamation as a potential issue, there is another reason to
> keep this stuff private.  Somebody might not be a good fit for a big
> community project, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other areas
> of their life where they can be successful.  Publicity over a bad
> event can harm their reputation in ways that go beyond the immediate
> needs of our community.  And there always is the chance that an error
> is being made in kicking them out.  Sure, that isn't a good thing, and
> I believe our processes already minimize this risk, but ultimately the
> harm in not being able to participate on a Gentoo mailing list is not
> a great one.  Why make that harm greater by publicizing things when
> this is not essential to accomplish our goals?  The goal isn't to ruin
> somebody's life - it is to allow other contributors to participate in
> the community in reasonable peace.
>

So you are saying I am not capable of deciding for myself, and you are
one of the only ones qualified to decide for me?

I believe in forgiveness, but actions are not without consequences.
The point where private evidence is being used as justification for
public action is when the line has been crossed.

Respectfully,
     R0b0t1

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[R0b0t1]

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:44 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
<wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2017 09:51:23 +0100
> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Am Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017, 00:40:11 CET schrieb William L.
>> Thomson Jr.: [...]
>>  [...]
>>  [...]
>>
>> Well, it's like listening to a broken record, which keeps repeating
>> the same snippet. At some point you stop listening, and at some point
>> you realize you should maybe remove it from the player.
>>
>

wltjr, I really do not think you are helping your case. If I were in
your position I think I would not back down either, but at some point
it is best to let history acknowledge that you are right. I started
reading your messages because I noticed Gentoo developers being
inconsistent, but not everyone will keep an open enough mind to do
that.

> Maybe you should go take more of my Firebird changes and put them in
> tree. Since you took over that package I mtainained and then merged in
> my changes from Linux UnderGround overlay that came from mine...
>
> Who do you think made the Firebird 3.x ebuild? I DID!!!!
> https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo/commits/master/dev-db/firebird
>
> See linux underground reporting issues with mine before adding it to
> their repository
> https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/os-xtoo/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+firebird
>
> See the date after they got it from mine :)
> https://github.com/linuxunderground/gentoo.overlay/blob/master/dev-db/firebird/firebird-3.0.2.32703.0.ebuild
>
> Then Andreas adding it to tree... HILARIOUS!!!!
> https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/e246873f43db77850c172263be72bc5153b23adb#diff-7dc5e9ed8a228dd8f564e17d66c5559e
>
> Also seems it took a few tries why? Not familiar with package?
> https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commits/master/dev-db/firebird
>
> Same package, mgorny 51 comment QA leading to more issues because he
> does not use, have a clue about it, or bothered to actually test... Due
> to his approach and stance I assumed his changes  were correct. HUGE
> mistake on my behalf. Why in part mgorny does not like me
>

Though this thread might not be the best place, the character of
Gentoo developers seems to be relevant to the topic at hand. I agree
that there appear to be developers who have editorial control of
packages they do not understand. It also seems like they have ample
opportunity to confer with people who do understand the packages but
choose not to do so.

Respectfully,
     R0b0t1

Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 742 bytes --]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:39:04 +0100
Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 12/04/2017 10:36 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > Sorry last one, directed to Alec, but all should read.  
> 
> I hope you really mean that, we've all heard you complaining about
> this too many times already.

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!

Thank you and have a nice day!

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[R0b0t1]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 12/04/2017 10:36 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> Sorry last one, directed to Alec, but all should read.
>
> I hope you really mean that, we've all heard you complaining about this
> too many times already.
>

Inasmuch as a random person is likely to care, glancing at the
messages shows wltjr is the more convincing of the parties involved.
Having actually wasted time trying to figure out what is going on
there is no mention of what ever happened from Gentoo that indicates
anything improper took place.

Not So Respectfully,
     R0b0t1

That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 751 bytes --]

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
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

[Peter Stuge]

Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> <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>

I don't understand two things about Gentoo:

1. style: How can anyone consider "enjoying a vacation" to be
appropriate wording in this context? That is at a minimum tasteless.

2. substance: Why would William be blocked from Gentoo for a year?

How and/or where will these two points be clarified?


Thanks

//Peter

Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

[Gordon Pettey]

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
> Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> <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>
>
> I don't understand two things about Gentoo:
>
> 1. style: How can anyone consider "enjoying a vacation" to be
> appropriate wording in this context? That is at a minimum tasteless.
>
> 2. substance: Why would William be blocked from Gentoo for a year?
>
> How and/or where will these two points be clarified?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> //Peter

Second that. Such a long thread about behavior on both sides, and then this from
somebody acting officially as comrel? No wonder you're getting abuse.

Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

[Alexander Berntsen]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 435 bytes --]

On 08/12/17 21:22, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> <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>
This seems like a meaningless thing to post at this point. And you might
want to consider your tone in the future.
-- 
Alexander
bernalex@gentoo.org
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[Georg Rudoy]

2017-12-08 2:43 GMT-05:00 R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com>:
>
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 12/04/2017 10:36 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> >> Sorry last one, directed to Alec, but all should read.
> >
> > I hope you really mean that, we've all heard you complaining about this
> > too many times already.
> >
>
> Inasmuch as a random person is likely to care, glancing at the
> messages shows wltjr is the more convincing of the parties involved.
> Having actually wasted time trying to figure out what is going on
> there is no mention of what ever happened from Gentoo that indicates
> anything improper took place.

Single-point samples are not really representative.

The messages wltjr sent and the bugs/PRs/etc he linked convinced me in
quite the contrary, at least, about the legitimacy of the current
actions.


-- 
  Georg Rudoy

Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[R0b0t1]

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Georg Rudoy <0xd34df00d@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-12-08 2:43 GMT-05:00 R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com>:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > On 12/04/2017 10:36 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> >> Sorry last one, directed to Alec, but all should read.
>> >
>> > I hope you really mean that, we've all heard you complaining about this
>> > too many times already.
>> >
>>
>> Inasmuch as a random person is likely to care, glancing at the
>> messages shows wltjr is the more convincing of the parties involved.
>> Having actually wasted time trying to figure out what is going on
>> there is no mention of what ever happened from Gentoo that indicates
>> anything improper took place.
>
> Single-point samples are not really representative.
>
> The messages wltjr sent and the bugs/PRs/etc he linked convinced me in
> quite the contrary, at least, about the legitimacy of the current
> actions.
>

I am having trouble understanding you, unfortunately. It seems like
you agree with his removal from the list. I suppose that is okay,
originally I just tuned the conversations out because they were noisy.

The summary I have tried to provide is: despite the fact wltjr does
not seem to have a filter, he has so far not actually been incorrect.
The developers involved, on the other hand, have been contradicting
themselves since I first saw this around 2013. At some point they
appear to have provided him an "out" and would have let him apologize,
but he wants an apology from them.

Cheers,
     R0b0t1

Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists

[R0b0t1]

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:57 PM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Georg Rudoy <0xd34df00d@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2017-12-08 2:43 GMT-05:00 R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> > On 12/04/2017 10:36 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>>> >> Sorry last one, directed to Alec, but all should read.
>>> >
>>> > I hope you really mean that, we've all heard you complaining about this
>>> > too many times already.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Inasmuch as a random person is likely to care, glancing at the
>>> messages shows wltjr is the more convincing of the parties involved.
>>> Having actually wasted time trying to figure out what is going on
>>> there is no mention of what ever happened from Gentoo that indicates
>>> anything improper took place.
>>
>> Single-point samples are not really representative.
>>
>> The messages wltjr sent and the bugs/PRs/etc he linked convinced me in
>> quite the contrary, at least, about the legitimacy of the current
>> actions.
>>
>
> I am having trouble understanding you, unfortunately. It seems like
> you agree with his removal from the list. I suppose that is okay,
> originally I just tuned the conversations out because they were noisy.
>
> The summary I have tried to provide is: despite the fact wltjr does
> not seem to have a filter, he has so far not actually been incorrect.
> The developers involved, on the other hand, have been contradicting
> themselves since I first saw this around 2013. At some point they
> appear to have provided him an "out" and would have let him apologize,
> but he wants an apology from them.
>

Buried in his messages there are apologies, but the sticking point
seems to be that he fails to recognize the original actions as
reasonable.

Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4243 bytes --]

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
> dilfridge@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.

~zlg
-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer, Trustee, Treasurer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@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

Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 13367 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 08:13:18PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@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.

Well, let's consider the order of events here:

1. wltjr and others appear on the ML
2. Drama
3. mgorny suggests some change in structure to avoid dealing with said
   people.
4. more drama
5. mgorny publicly insults comrel, accusing them of doing nothing
6. mgorny publishes formal plan to reform our mailing lists
7. more drama
8. comrel bans wltjr
9. mgorny's plan is put on Council agenda
10. comrel *mails to let everyone know wltjr was banned*, despite prior
    claims of valuing privacy and secrecy
11. you are here

This looks awfully clear to me. I'm pointing out behavior that looks a
lot like one person twisting the social structure to suit their desires.
This concerns me because our community will be damaged by his plan, and
it is only the first step. In the second step, he will turn against
developers as well. But not you and his other buddies. Just the ones
*he* thinks are a problem.

> 
> > 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.

I'm not focused on the ban, or whether it was deserved. That's a
separate subject. I'm pointing out behaviors that damage our image, our
credibility, and morale. I'm calling out unequal enforcement and
favoritism; these are things that you won't find in any records, because
the existence of such records would damn those culpable. The fact that
comrel has never acted against mgorny strongly indicates that they do
not care about the way he treats others. He is kept because of his
technical skill. Others do not get this convenience; we are accountable
for the code *and* the words that we write. You're blind if you don't
see this.

> 
> > 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.

I'm not criticizing any code he's written. I do not have the same
background, nor the same open schedule needed to reach that level of
skill yet. This isn't a thread about code review.

The fact you're trying to change the subject isn't helping you. Can we
suddenly ignore it when someone's an asshole as long as they commit and
push good code? That's wonderful for a pure meritocracy (which like all
"pure"isms, is impractical and non-existent), but it's not going to help
this distribution because it's not how humans work.

> 
> > 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.

More demoralizing. "Don't try, you won't be able to do anything about
it." You're proving what I wrote, man.

> 
> > 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.

I invite you to navigate the Foundation's records and pull together what
we do have the way robbat2, quantumsummers, et al have worked to
recover. If it was that easy, don't you think it would've been done? The
unfortunate truth is exactly as wltjr said; the records fell into
disarray and it's taken years to get anywhere close to "ready for the
IRS". It's been a work-in-progress for quite a while, well before I
became a Trustee. New Councils do not inherit the same "work debt" that
Trustees do, so the comparison isn't equal.

I did not say that someone could not have both technical and social
skills. I said the Council isn't fit to decide on social issues. The
Council's purpose was to create hierarchy within the distribution
through which developers could seek inter-project conflict resolution
and final *technical* decisions that affected the distribution, like
what gets into EAPIs, whether eclasses get deprecated and/or removed,
user and group management policy, etc. The theme here is that it ties
into the main tree, the wiki, or other practical endeavors of
development.  Splitting a mailing list and locking down another, while a
technical job in the end that Infra will do, is something with
far-reaching *social* consequences, that have a great chance of damaging
our community by creating a "chosen users" group that are worthy of
communicating directly with us. Other users WILL notice this, and act
accordingly.

I do not believe that this is brought on by anything but mgorny's
attempt to suit the entire ML to himself. That is selfish and
short-sighted. Social problems are rectified through communication, not
cutting out an entire subset of the community. The approach he is taking
to perceived slights shows that he does not care about the effects of
his plan, as long as he and other developers he likes can discuss
things.

Where are the users' opinions in all of this? Did anyone bother seeing
what our userbase thought? I didn't see any mail about it, nothing
recent on the forums (I found a single sticky from 2008, last post in
July of this year [1])... where exactly did we research our userbase?
...Right.  Nowhere. We're acting without considering our users. I'd
like to remind you that most council proposals get passed. Perhaps we
should count how many mgorny wrote to prove a point.

[1]: https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-702248.html

> 
> > Would you have done anything different if it were me or some
> > other developer who was proposing this change?
> 
> What change are you proposing?

I thought I made it clear, but I'll try again: If it was me or some
other developer who wrote up mgorny's proposal, would it have been
received the same way? I posit that it wouldn't, due to a bias within
the Council. Or more to the point, the relationships had between Council
members or other long-term developers has created a sort of "good old
boys" club where people within the circle are valued more than the
"outsiders". This is known as gatekeeping, especially with the proposal
to partition the club from everyone else. It's plain as day.

> 
> > 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.

Again, the Council approves most things that come down the line,
especially if it's from mgorny.

> 
> > 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.

A Trustee should not be a Council member at the same time. I do not have
the background or work experience to lead technical decisions of a
distribution. I already vote in elections.

You told me a few paragraphs ago that it wouldn't be worth it anyway,
and now you're telling me to run for the Council? Which is it? Given the
council's history, the mail outlining the agenda is little more than a
warning of things to come. It would be futile to show up to the meeting
and say something.

> 
> 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.

What special treatment am I seeking? You'll need to try harder than that
to deflect.

> 
> 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
> 

Ah, the populist argument. "If more people disagree with you, you are
wrong and should shut up."

This discussion has nowhere left to go if that's how it is.
-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer, Trustee, Treasurer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

[Michał Górny]

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
> > dilfridge@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.

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.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

[R0b0t1]

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:21 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@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
>> > dilfridge@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

Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Well, let's consider the order of events here:
> ...
> This looks awfully clear to me.
>...
> I'm not focused on the ban, or whether it was deserved.

That's exactly what you've done here.  You've connected a bunch of
dots that you can see, and don't consider that there may be dots that
you don't see.

>>
>> 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.
>
> Again, the Council approves most things that come down the line,
> especially if it's from mgorny.
>

You've read this situation fairly poorly, IMO.

Certainly many of mgorny's proposals have been approved by the council
over the last few years, but go back and review them.  They're mostly
technical proposals, and I think you would agree that his proposals
tend to be technically strong.  I realize that isn't what you're
arguing, but you can't extrapolate from a history of approving
technical proposals to an assumption that the Council would approve
literally any controversial social proposal he makes.

I have had no access to any internal/private deliberations any members
of the council have had over this issue, and the same access as you to
any public statements they have made over the last few weeks.  I would
estimate the likely possible outcomes and their probabilities as:

0% - Splitting of gentoo-dev into two lists as proposed.
20% - no resolutions accepted this meeting
10% - A statement encouraging the moderation of the gentoo-dev list
once infra can enable this.
50% - A general statement indicating that so far there hasn't actually
been much significant ban evasion going on, and that for the time
being asking community members to respect any bans should continue.
Community members should try to abide by the comrel process, and not
take matters into their own hands by participating in flame wars.
Gentoo-dev should be focused on technical matters, non-technical
matters ought to go to gentoo-project, and comrel is encouraged to
remind individuals of when they're off-topic even if well-intentioned.
20% - No formal proposal, but an intention communicated to revive
something like the proctors project to allow comrel to focus on bigger
issues (harassment, ongoing patterns, etc).  The proctors would be
much more proactive in reaching out to community members who are
abusing lists/irc/etc, and likely empowered to hand out temporary
bans/etc of fairly short duration, enforced either voluntarily or
using technical means (though presumably ban evasion would be viewed
as a more serious offense).

Knowing most of the council members reasonably well I think it is
pretty unlikely that anything drastic will be done, and a few have
already gone on the record publicly as not being in favor of splitting
the list.

>
> You told me a few paragraphs ago that it wouldn't be worth it anyway,
> and now you're telling me to run for the Council? Which is it?

Both, these statements are not contradictory.

If you feel that strongly that the Council is out of line you should
run.  Then you will be able to see firsthand how the rest of the
community feels about your approach.  I could be wrong but I think
you'd be soundly defeated assuming most of the incumbents haven't left
by then.

From the standpoint of getting your way it wouldn't be worth it.  From
the standpoint of giving everybody a chance to vote on your opinions
it would be.  IMO there really isn't anything you can do to get your
way, because it is opposed by most of the community, albeit silently.

That said, I do have to acknowledge that my email was indirect.  That
tends to be my style - I usually try to leave conclusions unsaid.  On
a list whose participants vary greatly in language skills, technical
proficiency, general intelligence, value/culture, etc perhaps it
really isn't the best way to communicate.  (There I go again being
indirect...)  I need to work on that...

-- 
Rich

Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

[kuzetsa]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 994 bytes --]

On 12/10/2017 03:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote:

> Your attack on me is fully unfounded and completely inappropriate. FYI,
> just let me correct a few facts here:
--- pruned ---
> 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.

Yes.

I'm a fan of transparency, but there are many people
with passionate views, so sometimes it's harder to
have a calm discussion about social matters.

If / when these discussions happen, remarks about
various actions by specific people tends to escalate
hostility. On the other hand, generalizations about
how gentoo-related communication should occur isn't
a "shots fired" or "touchy subject" situation.

TL;DR - Public fighting doesn't help gentoo.

-kuzetsa

P.S. I'm trying to stay out of these contentious topics.
Also, your composure / tone seems fine to me, mgorny.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

[Andrew Savchenko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 843 bytes --]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 21:22:32 +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>

Thank you very much. Mail list are becoming readable again (: 

Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: That's all folks. (Re: OT Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] Splitting developer-oriented and expert user mailing lists)

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4581 bytes --]

On 17-12-09 16:29:24, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> 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
> > dilfridge@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.
> 

zlg has made comments about mgorny that he as been asked to verify.  As
there has been no response to the request for more information, the
Trustees are retracting the comment and wish to apologize to mgorny for
the inconvenience.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
President, Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]