[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Samuli Suominen]

Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the team.

- Samuli

On 06/09/2011 04:10 PM, Diego Petteno (flameeyes) wrote:
> flameeyes    11/06/09 13:10:22
> 
>   Modified:             index.xml
>   Log:
>   Update roster. Sven hasn't been around for a long time; Mike and Samuli are not accepting working as part of the team.
> 
> Revision  Changes    Path
> 1.50                 xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa/index.xml
> 
> file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa/index.xml?rev=1.50&view=markup
> plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa/index.xml?rev=1.50&content-type=text/plain
> diff : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa/index.xml?r1=1.49&r2=1.50
> 
> Index: index.xml
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa/index.xml,v
> retrieving revision 1.49
> retrieving revision 1.50
> diff -u -r1.49 -r1.50
> --- index.xml	30 May 2011 18:59:02 -0000	1.49
> +++ index.xml	9 Jun 2011 13:10:22 -0000	1.50
> @@ -42,16 +42,13 @@
>  
>  
>  <dev role="Lead">flameeyes</dev>
> -<dev role="Member" description="autorepoman">swegener</dev>
>  <dev role="Member">c1pher</dev>
>  <dev role="Member">solar</dev>
>  <dev role="Member">tove</dev>
>  <dev role="Member">lu_zero</dev>
> -<dev role="Member" description="Support Personnel">vapier</dev>
>  <dev role="Member">peper</dev>
>  <dev role="Member">idl0r</dev>
>  <dev role="Member">hwoarang</dev>
> -<dev role="Member">ssuominen</dev>
>  <dev role="Member">darkside</dev>
>  <dev role="Member">ulm</dev>
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Rich Freeman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 974 bytes --]

On Jun 9, 2011 9:27 AM, "Samuli Suominen" <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the team.

So, without trying to comment on the particulars of this situation (of which
I'm blissfully unaware beyond being able to guess from recent list traffic),
do we need some kind of policy around membership on "special" project teams.
QA and Devrel are the most obvious examples, Infra might be another.

Options might include council appointment or council appoints lead who
appoints others. Direct election is another route, but I don't like the idea
of having 5 annual elections and recalls and all that. Better to elect the
top and let them reign in those beneath...

I'm not saying that anybody is doing a bad job now, but if people have
gripes better to have a proper route of escalation than just bickering
on-list. If they get to the top and aren't happy then they can just stew or
run for election next term...

Rich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1117 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

Il giorno gio, 09/06/2011 alle 16.20 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
> Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the
> team.

Given the lead is held responsible for the behaviour of the team's
member in respect to the QA work, I don't think it is unexpected of the
lead to remove those people who have shown no intention to collaborate.

Beside, I warned both of you that you had to follow policy or get out,
neither of you even _bothered_ replying to my request.

If you don't like it, see Rich's comment (with whom I vastly agree).

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

Il giorno gio, 09/06/2011 alle 16.20 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
> Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the
> team.

Given the lead is held responsible for the behaviour of the team's
member in respect to the QA work, I don't think it is unexpected of the
lead to remove those people who have shown no intention to collaborate.

Beside, I warned both of you that you had to follow policy or get out,
neither of you even _bothered_ replying to my request.

If you don't like it, see Rich's comment (with whom I vastly agree).

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Samuli Suominen]

On 06/09/2011 06:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday, June 09, 2011 09:44:34 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> Il giorno gio, 09/06/2011 alle 16.20 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
>>> Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the
>>> team.
>>
>> Given the lead is held responsible for the behaviour of the team's
>> member in respect to the QA work, I don't think it is unexpected of the
>> lead to remove those people who have shown no intention to collaborate.
> 
> and as lead, you really should notify the group/people of team changes instead 
> of just making silent cvs commits

+1

>> Beside, I warned both of you that you had to follow policy or get out,
>> neither of you even _bothered_ replying to my request.
> 
> if you're referring to your "internal" e-mail, i didnt "bother" because it 
> wasnt relevant and wasnt worth replying to

that was my impression of the mail as well, the tone used in the mail
was not a request but something worse.  was not to be taken seriously.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 830 bytes --]

On Thursday, June 09, 2011 09:44:34 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 09/06/2011 alle 16.20 +0300, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
> > Autocrazy in effect; disagree with the lead and get removed from the
> > team.
> 
> Given the lead is held responsible for the behaviour of the team's
> member in respect to the QA work, I don't think it is unexpected of the
> lead to remove those people who have shown no intention to collaborate.

and as lead, you really should notify the group/people of team changes instead 
of just making silent cvs commits

> Beside, I warned both of you that you had to follow policy or get out,
> neither of you even _bothered_ replying to my request.

if you're referring to your "internal" e-mail, i didnt "bother" because it 
wasnt relevant and wasnt worth replying to
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 06/09/2011 03:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> do we need some kind of policy around membership on "special"
> project teams. QA and Devrel are the most obvious examples, Infra might
> be another.

in my eyes we do.  too much power to be unregulated.

what does it take to get this rolling?



sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Dane Smith]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/10/11 07:44, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 06/09/2011 03:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> do we need some kind of policy around membership on "special"
>> project teams. QA and Devrel are the most obvious examples, Infra might
>> be another.
> 
> in my eyes we do.  too much power to be unregulated.
> 
> what does it take to get this rolling?

Part of me thinks this is a good idea for the simple reason that some
people seem to have issues with QA/DevRel. Perhaps if the lead were
"appointed by council" there would be less raging every time the team
tried to do anything. But then again, we can't all play nice over a
freaking ChangeLog, even with Council making the call, so I somehow
doubt this will fix *anything at all*

I do not want to see "elections" for 3 team leads. As far as I'm
concerned, it's way too much of a hassle. Having said that, council
appointments for the team lead may not be a bad idea. Maybe it will
work. I doubt it, but I'm open to try it. My fear there is I don't want
to see team leads changing every year just because there is a new
council. If the team is working well together, there is no sense in
fubaring that merely because we "can".

Perhaps do council appointments if the lead steps down / if the team
calls for a re-appointment (there would need to be rules for this part.
I don't want to see a new "appointee" merely because the lead upset one
person. Perhaps if more than 50% of the team or like 10 other developers
are asking for a new lead or some such foo.)

Also, while I like the idea of "cleaning" out those teams once in a
while for inactive members, I'm not a huge fan of a new lead coming in
and removing people from the team just because.

Lastly, given that it will be the lead for a given team, I think that
team should have the ability to pick their "candidates" to go to
council, and maybe just give Council the vote on who gets it. Or, have
council appoint people they think are fit, and the team can vote from
there. Either way I think would work alright.

Just my 2 cents.
Regards,
- -- 
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJN8haaAAoJEEsurZwMLhUxBssQAINmFDp4jYccbNlVmb6iu4QI
4n4Dlg5BXFhIGJu0gCc+Vx7YxvyL+5stNJthKqpeE1ics/2yhBHK/Jc+DTDLyM2G
CrYDIC2oS+4spa/DgG0/LDW6RlpLObl3cTnYDtyXq6Fu3+uKTXFm2KIghhHA18cX
WHUZRyuocIhkMFvQzIwrddzx8UYvtlFJCB0CUu6ke4/5YE/Q7yBEXEt7GlMNHA5o
gwxATVoyyN4M+Q2rxQXuv2IeW9X5DCjOP5LyT6sbOanYPSAgr+95MTxoGZ8LtJu9
iODYN85C/4DaNtyhFvzYA2KtlywRKH1fJwChCPVlIq3SuEdJvpQ6zvvS2UdSm6no
qc8oyZEEI076dOiSnT69cyLrsXm9gRY3tIyh1pHmfYzKVVi89yrMzCpKOEd8GL2v
V9Xss4JJBZbi60HfYp3gJqozhK6btSsbJ7sH3Kl66nTkownwSEZVigzurAOm+ct5
r7/zKQR8s/fUtFP6bVprDgJpQKMi4TMPYgti6IM7g2iAYfK4v2JCFxUdf0QB/+Is
F/XriVGcotvt85Mgj96uzn1I/U1OzrkRdUh30SHectJ91fEHOIVEu1QYbCIWZXKD
0UTJ2BUMZqvPW+8BuHb3G/sYu6iRsHbTKPLYa5vgw2V5nfgjU7fFP0XPEIgbCF/M
4+/PcKQUwBOiIpcl+NDc
=8ajo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1321 bytes --]

I was thinking of writting this in private, but I bet it will do more
good if I do it public.

I'm 22 (most of you could call me a kid) and a reasonably recent new
developer and I'm sad having to ask you, am I the only one seeing
childishness on your actions, and this yours implies at least Samuli,
Mike and Diego and probably many others.

You are discussing and reveling for a stupid file, even worse, its not
even code and solutions to automate the process have been proposed so
you are discussing over nothing.

If you guys want to rebel I can give you many good reasons which are
meaningful that a few lines of something that's not even code:
* Mike your country considers freedom of speech a restrictable right,
maybe you should fight and rebel against that instead of a stupid file.
* Samuli, extremist right wing parties are gaining power in your
country, I think this is a way better reason to rebel than a stupid file.
* Diego, Berlusconi a way better reason to be outraged I think.

I know this will serve for nothing you are going to keep discussing over
pride? 10 minutes of your live? instead of fighting what really should
matter you. It is up to you, meanwhile I'll keep fighting for the camped
people in Spain instead of some random piece of documentation.

Have a nice day.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 388 bytes --]

El 10/06/11 17:33, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) escribió:
> * Diego, Berlusconi a way better reason to be outraged I think.
Small clarification here: I'm not comparing Diego with Berlusconi AFAIK
he isn't a corrupt underage fucking politician, I'm pointing him
Berlusconi ruling Italy is a quite good reason to fight against compared
to adding some lines in a file.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2280 bytes --]

On 09:05 Fri 10 Jun , Dane Smith wrote:
> Part of me thinks this is a good idea for the simple reason that some 
> people seem to have issues with QA/DevRel. Perhaps if the lead were 
> "appointed by council" there would be less raging every time the team 
> tried to do anything. But then again, we can't all play nice over a 
> freaking ChangeLog, even with Council making the call, so I somehow 
> doubt this will fix *anything at all*
> 
> Having said that, council appointments for the team lead may not be a 
> bad idea.

We're starting to get into -project material here, but given the thread 
started here I'll keep it here...

I like the idea of appointed leads instead of holding elections, it fits 
into my big picture of less bureaucracy and more meritocracy (see my 
email re running for council on -project). Appointments would be made by 
the "next level up" from the lead. So project leads would come from the 
council, subproject leads from the project, etc.

> Perhaps do council appointments if the lead steps down / if the team 
> calls for a re-appointment (there would need to be rules for this 
> part. I don't want to see a new "appointee" merely because the lead 
> upset one person. Perhaps if more than 50% of the team or like 10 
> other developers are asking for a new lead or some such foo.)

I'd suggest that there shouldn't be any "term limit" on a lead, and no 
need to have re-elections or re-confirmations yearly or otherwise. A 
majority of the team can petition the council for a re-appointment at 
any time, but the council is not required to act on it. Unpopular 
actions doesn't equal wrong actions.

> Lastly, given that it will be the lead for a given team, I think that 
> team should have the ability to pick their "candidates" to go to 
> council, and maybe just give Council the vote on who gets it. Or, have 
> council appoint people they think are fit, and the team can vote from 
> there. Either way I think would work alright.

Perhaps interested people on the team could just say they want to be 
lead, and the council would pick one of them. I think leadership should 
come from the top.

--
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Dane Smith <c1pher@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Perhaps do council appointments if the lead steps down / if the team
> calls for a re-appointment (there would need to be rules for this part.
> I don't want to see a new "appointee" merely because the lead upset one
> person. Perhaps if more than 50% of the team or like 10 other developers
> are asking for a new lead or some such foo.)
>
> ...
>
> Lastly, given that it will be the lead for a given team, I think that
> team should have the ability to pick their "candidates" to go to
> council, and maybe just give Council the vote on who gets it. Or, have
> council appoint people they think are fit, and the team can vote from
> there. Either way I think would work alright.

I also dislike the general election idea, for the reasons you state.

I think the ideal process is something like:

1.  Teams put forth recommendations for who THEY would like to see as
the lead, perhaps with more than one choice.
2.  The Council is free to pick any lead they like, and change that
lead any time they like.
3.  However, the Council is encouraged that unless there is a big
reason not to do so, they just accept or choose from the team's
nominations, and only do so annually.

I don't like the concept of the council only getting to ratify a
decision already made by the team.  This will just lead to more
bickering on the lists about the wrong people being on the team or
whatever and the fox being in charge of the henhouse or whatever.

The Council has a mandate, because they are elected.  You can disagree
with the Council, but you can't argue that their decisions don't have
SOME kind of backing simply because they have been selected by the dev
community as a whole.  By giving the Council ultimate authority (and
accountability) that mandate then is conferred upon the team leads for
QA, Devrel, etc.

This is not unlike how any business or similar concern is run.  Teams
usually know best how they should be run, but they still fall under
the board or whatever and as long as they're doing a good job boards
generally just rubber-stamp their recommendations.  When things go
wrong, then the board takes a more active role, even to the point of
completely overriding the team if that is what it takes to fix things
- but usually they just put somebody in charge that they feel will
handle things.

Government isn't a good example as it tends to be dominated by
cronyism, and I think there is general agreement that this is NOT how
we want things to work.  The council should not generally fiddle with
every little thing QA does, or whatever, but they can step in when the
issue is serious.

Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 06/09/2011 08:54 PM, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
> On 9 June 2011 15:44, Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Given the lead is held responsible for the behaviour of the team's
>> member in respect to the QA work, I don't think it is unexpected of the
>> lead to remove those people who have shown no intention to collaborate.
>>
>> Beside, I warned both of you that you had to follow policy or get out,
>> neither of you even _bothered_ replying to my request.
> 
> On 04/18/2010 03:31 PM, Diego Elio “Flameeyes” Pettenò wrote:
>>> Diego, you were nominated as well.  Do you accept?
>>
>> Muahhahaha — no I don't think it would be a good idea. It would almost
>> certainly end up with a pissing-off contest between me and council or me
>> and devrel depending on their position
> 
> Guess you were right after all.
> 

I am sorry but this is not a way for a leader to treat the members of
his team. I am retiring myself from QA as well. Do note that 4 members
have already gone from QA. This cannot be a coincidence.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=xzyy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

Il giorno sab, 11/06/2011 alle 01.48 +0100, Markos Chandras ha scritto:
> 
> I am sorry but this is not a way for a leader to treat the members of
> his team. I am retiring myself from QA as well. Do note that 4 members
> have already gone from QA. This cannot be a coincidence.
> 

For those who wouldn't get qa@g.o mail, Tomáš has also requested
retirement from qa, in
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368097#c66 :

> Markos for one you and vapier are the reason why i left the team because
> otherwise i would have to kick both of you out.

So I'd like to know how you can even pretend to count four members when:

 - one retired because other members of the team decided to do as they
like;
 - two has been kicked out for playing along just if they can also make
the rules (as soon as a rule was enacted that they didn't like they
decided to ignore it, even under request to either not do so or be
removed from QA);
 - you decided to retire because I applied a warning I had sent in
advance (on April 30th).

Or maybe are you counting Sven who I haven't heard from in a year or
two, and whose autorepoman mail has stopped coming ... probably before
you ever became a developer?

Maybe I scream in private, but what you three (keeping Tomáš out of
this) are doing is crying in public because you're no longer allowed to
poop in the sandbox you should keep clean.

Do note that it was even your words:

> I am sorry but having elections every few months is not a solution.
> First we need to clean up the team, then become "team", then have
> elections.

Which is exactly what I'm going to do: I'm going to make sure that the
team is on the same page: policies has to be followed, or they need to
be changed. Which doesn't look like either of them (nor you I guess)
want to do. I'm pretty sure I didn't ask much to the team beside
actually following what the council decided.

Finally, I'd like to point out that neither my character nor my actions
have changed the slightest since the mail that Peper quoted — yet I was
elected as team leader; it looks like though people wanted me to scream
at anyone else beside them — too easy that way.

And the only two people in the team who bothered to cast a vote (Luca
and Christian), seems not to have an issue with me keeping this way.

So, this might hurt your feelings, but I'm not really sorry to see you
leave. As I said before I had been disappointed when people I had a high
esteem of decided that rules shouldn't apply to them.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Donnie Berkholz wrote:

> I like the idea of appointed leads instead of holding elections, it
> fits into my big picture of less bureaucracy and more meritocracy
> (see my email re running for council on -project). Appointments
> would be made by the "next level up" from the lead. So project leads
> would come from the council, subproject leads from the project, etc.

What problem are you trying to solve?

There maybe some point doing this for projects that have elevated
powers (like QA or devrel), but I think for normal projects our
current system works well enough.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 642 bytes --]

On 10.06.2011 14:44, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 06/09/2011 03:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> do we need some kind of policy around membership on "special"
>> project teams. QA and Devrel are the most obvious examples, Infra might
>> be another.
> 
> in my eyes we do.  too much power to be unregulated.
> 
> what does it take to get this rolling?
> 

Getting someone to write a draft GLEP and submitting it for discussion.
If you want to only cover QA then modifying GLEP 48 is enough but if we
want end up covering multiple teams I would make a new GLEP.

Regards,
Petteri

PS. this thread should be on gentoo-project


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1508 bytes --]

On 10.06.2011 18:33, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:

> * Samuli, extremist right wing parties are gaining power in your
> country, I think this is a way better reason to rebel than a stupid file.

True Finns are not right wing. The foreign media seems to always get it
wrong. They are a populistic conservative party. On the traditional
left-right axis they are quite center. The parties with seats in the
parliament are characterized for example here:

http://www.loitto.com/tilastot/hsvaalikone11/rotaatiotulos-ellipsit.png

The article is here (don't know how well Google translate will do):
http://www.loitto.com/tilastot/hsvaalikone11/

True Finns are marked with purple (at the bottom).

>
> It is up to you, meanwhile I'll keep fighting for the camped
> people in Spain instead of some random piece of documentation.
> 

It was a fair election and should be respected even if one doesn't like
the results. True Finns got a little below 20% of the vote so not
knowing anything about Samuli's political views (not even any of my
business any way) it's certainly possible that he voted for the cause
you are trying to rally against. They do have problematic individuals in
their ranks who can reflect badly on the party but if they break the law
they are handled according to the law is it should be.

In conclusion I don't think there's anything to rebel against with True
Finns but I agree that we could focus our energy better.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Am Freitag, 10. Juni 2011, 20:14:24 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
>
> Perhaps interested people on the team could just say they want to be
> lead, and the council would pick one of them. I think leadership should
> come from the top.

Luckily the council is elected... otherwise this would kind of remind me of 
one of my favourite Prince Philip quotes... :o)

"It's a pleasure to be in a country that isn't ruled by its people." -- Said 
to Paraguayan dictator Alfredo Stroessner on a state visit

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel (dilfridge)
Gentoo Linux developer
kde, sci, arm, tex

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 06/11/2011 03:36 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno sab, 11/06/2011 alle 01.48 +0100, Markos Chandras ha scritto:
>>
>> I am sorry but this is not a way for a leader to treat the members of
>> his team. I am retiring myself from QA as well. Do note that 4 members
>> have already gone from QA. This cannot be a coincidence.
>>
> 
> For those who wouldn't get qa@g.o mail, Tomáš has also requested
> retirement from qa, in
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368097#c66 :
> 
>> Markos for one you and vapier are the reason why i left the team because
>> otherwise i would have to kick both of you out.
> 
> So I'd like to know how you can even pretend to count four members when:
> 
>  - one retired because other members of the team decided to do as they
> like;
>  - two has been kicked out for playing along just if they can also make
> the rules (as soon as a rule was enacted that they didn't like they
> decided to ignore it, even under request to either not do so or be
> removed from QA);
>  - you decided to retire because I applied a warning I had sent in
> advance (on April 30th).
> 
> Or maybe are you counting Sven who I haven't heard from in a year or
> two, and whose autorepoman mail has stopped coming ... probably before
> you ever became a developer?
> 
> Maybe I scream in private, but what you three (keeping Tomáš out of
> this) are doing is crying in public because you're no longer allowed to
> poop in the sandbox you should keep clean.
> 
> Do note that it was even your words:
> 
>> I am sorry but having elections every few months is not a solution.
>> First we need to clean up the team, then become "team", then have
>> elections.
> 
> Which is exactly what I'm going to do: I'm going to make sure that the
> team is on the same page: policies has to be followed, or they need to
> be changed. Which doesn't look like either of them (nor you I guess)
> want to do. I'm pretty sure I didn't ask much to the team beside
> actually following what the council decided.
> 
> Finally, I'd like to point out that neither my character nor my actions
> have changed the slightest since the mail that Peper quoted — yet I was
> elected as team leader; it looks like though people wanted me to scream
> at anyone else beside them — too easy that way.
> 
> And the only two people in the team who bothered to cast a vote (Luca
> and Christian), seems not to have an issue with me keeping this way.
> 
> So, this might hurt your feelings, but I'm not really sorry to see you
> leave. As I said before I had been disappointed when people I had a high
> esteem of decided that rules shouldn't apply to them.
> 
Calm down please. I don't scream in public. I tried to start quiet a lot
of discussions in private before I make my decision. You are right.
"Retire" is not a good work for the 4 people that left. Maybe "gone" is
more appropriate.
But, seeing your tone, it is very hard for me to even start a discussion
cause everything leads to personal attacks, irony and Mediterranean
temper that we both have. I lost all of my motivation and energy with
Samuli's case. IMHO, kicking them out wont improve anything. They both
agreed to follow the establish policy after all. QA team requires
*active* (do note the word) people, not just people with high respect to
rules. You have to admit, that now, you and Dane are the only ones who
are really *active*. Can you two really handle the QA load by yourself?
Diego, leadership means that you have to motivate and inspire people.
People need to follow you not because they afraid of you but because
they admire and respect you. You never really tried to talk to us and
get some insights. Everytime we received a mail from you it was because
someone has screwed up something and you were mad at him. Please, just
stop and think for a second that you *may* be wrong at some points.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=sCAr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11-06-2011 09:23, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 06/11/2011 03:36 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
<snip>
>> Il giorno sab, 11/06/2011 alle 01.48 +0100, Markos Chandras ha scritto:
>> Maybe I scream in private, but what you three (keeping Tomáa out of
>> this) are doing is crying in public because you're no longer allowed to
>> poop in the sandbox you should keep clean.
> 
>> Do note that it was even your words:
> 
>>> I am sorry but having elections every few months is not a solution.
>>> First we need to clean up the team, then become "team", then have
>>> elections.
> 
>> Which is exactly what I'm going to do: I'm going to make sure that the
>> team is on the same page: policies has to be followed, or they need to
>> be changed. Which doesn't look like either of them (nor you I guess)
>> want to do. I'm pretty sure I didn't ask much to the team beside
>> actually following what the council decided.
> 
>> Finally, I'd like to point out that neither my character nor my actions
>> have changed the slightest since the mail that Peper quoted \x14 yet I was
>> elected as team leader; it looks like though people wanted me to scream
>> at anyone else beside them \x14 too easy that way.
> 
>> And the only two people in the team who bothered to cast a vote (Luca
>> and Christian), seems not to have an issue with me keeping this way.
> 
>> So, this might hurt your feelings, but I'm not really sorry to see you
>> leave. As I said before I had been disappointed when people I had a high
>> esteem of decided that rules shouldn't apply to them.
> 
> Calm down please. I don't scream in public. I tried to start quiet a lot
> of discussions in private before I make my decision. You are right.
> "Retire" is not a good work for the 4 people that left. Maybe "gone" is
> more appropriate.
> But, seeing your tone, it is very hard for me to even start a discussion
> cause everything leads to personal attacks, irony and Mediterranean
> temper that we both have. I lost all of my motivation and energy with
> Samuli's case. IMHO, kicking them out wont improve anything. They both
> agreed to follow the establish policy after all. QA team requires
> *active* (do note the word) people, not just people with high respect to
> rules. You have to admit, that now, you and Dane are the only ones who
> are really *active*. Can you two really handle the QA load by yourself?
> Diego, leadership means that you have to motivate and inspire people.
> People need to follow you not because they afraid of you but because
> they admire and respect you. You never really tried to talk to us and
> get some insights. Everytime we received a mail from you it was because
> someone has screwed up something and you were mad at him. Please, just
> stop and think for a second that you *may* be wrong at some points.

I see Diego's actions as "cleaning up" the QA team.
Some members of the QA team have left it because they got tired of how
some people in the QA team would not respect some rules and do
everything to prevent QA team from being able to enforce them.
Unfortunately, Tomas is not the first member to leave because of this.
If the actions of Diego make Tomas and the others want to get back to
QA, I'll consider this whole issue a success.

Markos,

the worst thing that I, looking from the outside, noticed about QA was
how some members were too quick at using the "QA hammer" to impose their
ideas to others, but always found ways not to follow some established
policies and not to get them applied to themselves.

As a council member, I am very happy to see Diego trying to "fix" QA,
doing his best to enforce policies and caring about the tree not being
broken.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=Pgv4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 04:36:20 +0200
Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@gmail.com> wrote:

> Which is exactly what I'm going to do: I'm going to make sure that the
> team is on the same page: policies has to be followed, or they need to
> be changed. Which doesn't look like either of them (nor you I guess)
> want to do. I'm pretty sure I didn't ask much to the team beside
> actually following what the council decided.
> 
> Finally, I'd like to point out that neither my character nor my
> actions have changed the slightest since the mail that Peper quoted —
> yet I was elected as team leader; it looks like though people wanted
> me to scream at anyone else beside them — too easy that way.
> 
> And the only two people in the team who bothered to cast a vote (Luca
> and Christian), seems not to have an issue with me keeping this way.
> 
> So, this might hurt your feelings, but I'm not really sorry to see you
> leave. As I said before I had been disappointed when people I had a
> high esteem of decided that rules shouldn't apply to them.

Reading all this, I kept wondering how you think your self-appointed
position as "team lead" (look how I'm stretching the definition there)
is still tenable. Good luck there.


     jer

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

Il giorno sab, 11/06/2011 alle 17.33 +0200, Jeroen Roovers ha scritto:
> 
> Reading all this, I kept wondering how you think your self-appointed
> position as "team lead" (look how I'm stretching the definition there)
> is still tenable. Good luck there. 

I'd suggest you to know facts before slandering your fellow developers.
I'm *not* a self-appointed lead, I've been voted in.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 18:13:14 +0200
Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@gmail.com> wrote:

> Il giorno sab, 11/06/2011 alle 17.33 +0200, Jeroen Roovers ha scritto:
> > 
> > Reading all this, I kept wondering how you think your self-appointed
> > position as "team lead" (look how I'm stretching the definition
> > there) is still tenable. Good luck there. 
> 
> I'd suggest you to know facts before slandering your fellow
> developers.

You mean slandering is morally unobjectionable? Never mind.

> I'm *not* a self-appointed lead, I've been voted in.

Why doesn't GLEP 48 mention this process? Seeing how QA is becoming
this monster that regularly upsets the majority of the volunteers on
this project, and is at the same time grabbing power left and right, it
is important to have this set in stone.


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1189 bytes --]

On Friday, June 10, 2011 22:36:20 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>  - two has been kicked out for playing along just if they can also make
> the rules (as soon as a rule was enacted that they didn't like they
> decided to ignore it, even under request to either not do so or be
> removed from QA);

if i've been ignoring the rules so egregiously that you had to silently remove 
me from the QA team, then it should be trivial for you to justify your 
actions.

> Finally, I'd like to point out that neither my character nor my actions
> have changed the slightest since the mail that Peper quoted — yet I was
> elected as team leader; it looks like though people wanted me to scream
> at anyone else beside them — too easy that way.
> 
> And the only two people in the team who bothered to cast a vote (Luca
> and Christian), seems not to have an issue with me keeping this way.

yes, lack of choice and actual votes makes you the default winner, but you 
really shouldnt play it up like everyone thinks you should be in the role.  
ive stated many times that your approach is not how a leader should behave, 
but you usually counter it with more of the same.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11-06-2011 16:58, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 18:13:14 +0200
> Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Il giorno sab, 11/06/2011 alle 17.33 +0200, Jeroen Roovers ha scritto:
>>>
>>> Reading all this, I kept wondering how you think your self-appointed
>>> position as "team lead" (look how I'm stretching the definition
>>> there) is still tenable. Good luck there. 
>>
>> I'd suggest you to know facts before slandering your fellow
>> developers.
> 
> You mean slandering is morally unobjectionable? Never mind.
> 
>> I'm *not* a self-appointed lead, I've been voted in.
> 
> Why doesn't GLEP 48 mention this process? Seeing how QA is becoming
> this monster that regularly upsets the majority of the volunteers on
> this project, and is at the same time grabbing power left and right, it
> is important to have this set in stone.

Jeroen,

please re-read GLEP48 as I updated it at the end of the council meeting
to reflect the changes already approved on March (txt version, I still
need to update the html).
The GLEP states that the team lead shall be elected annually by the team
members.

>      jer
> 

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=VJXX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote:

> please re-read GLEP48 as I updated it at the end of the council
> meeting to reflect the changes already approved on March (txt
> version, I still need to update the html).

> The GLEP states that the team lead shall be elected annually by the
> team members.

The same GLEP also says that developers who would like to join the
project must be approved by the QA team lead. And seemingly the QA
lead also has the power to expel devs from the team (I cannot find
where this is documented though).

So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect him.
I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, but still
I think that this is not a sane situation.

(A similar system functions for the pope and his cardinals though. ;-)

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1073 bytes --]

On Saturday, June 11, 2011 15:18:09 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote:
> > please re-read GLEP48 as I updated it at the end of the council
> > meeting to reflect the changes already approved on March (txt
> > version, I still need to update the html).
> > 
> > The GLEP states that the team lead shall be elected annually by the
> > team members.
> 
> The same GLEP also says that developers who would like to join the
> project must be approved by the QA team lead. And seemingly the QA
> lead also has the power to expel devs from the team (I cannot find
> where this is documented though).

i dont recall this ever coming up, so there would need to be a GLEP update i 
imagine in order to make this happen

> So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect him.
> I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, but still
> I think that this is not a sane situation.

it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus cement an 
echo chamber
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 638 bytes --]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
> > him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position,
> > but still I think that this is not a sane situation.
> 
> it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus
> cement an echo chamber

Are you talking in a hypothetical future situation, or has this already
happened? If so, can you point to an example of where Diego's been
removing people for disagreeing with him, rather than for disagreeing
with the Council?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Fabian Groffen]

On 11-06-2011 21:18:09 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect him.
> I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position, but still
> I think that this is not a sane situation.

This issue was already raised on the "Glep 48 update (as nominated for
next meeting)" thread, but disregarded as unnecessary bureaucratic
stuff.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 828 bytes --]

On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
> > > him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position,
> > > but still I think that this is not a sane situation.
> > 
> > it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus
> > cement an echo chamber
> 
> Are you talking in a hypothetical future situation, or has this already
> happened? If so, can you point to an example of where Diego's been
> removing people for disagreeing with him, rather than for disagreeing
> with the Council?

how is disagreeing with a Council decision valid grounds either ?  punting 
people because they disagree with any group isn't really valid.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Francesco R]

2011/6/11 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>:
> On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > > So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
>> > > him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position,
>> > > but still I think that this is not a sane situation.
>> >
>> > it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus
>> > cement an echo chamber
>>
>> Are you talking in a hypothetical future situation, or has this already
>> happened? If so, can you point to an example of where Diego's been
>> removing people for disagreeing with him, rather than for disagreeing
>> with the Council?
>
> how is disagreeing with a Council decision valid grounds either ?  punting
> people because they disagree with any group isn't really valid.
> -mike

a user POV:

If you are in the role of enforcing decision of the council and with
"disagreeing" you mean acting versus their decision yes it's a very
much valid ground.

In real life if you are a policeman and disagree with politicians you
must anyway enforce their laws or you're jailed.

Anyway maybe the whole QA should resign (you too Diego) and election
done again, seem the more correct thing at this point

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11-06-2011 20:48, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>> So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
>>>> him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position,
>>>> but still I think that this is not a sane situation.
>>>
>>> it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus
>>> cement an echo chamber
>>
>> Are you talking in a hypothetical future situation, or has this already
>> happened? If so, can you point to an example of where Diego's been
>> removing people for disagreeing with him, rather than for disagreeing
>> with the Council?
> 
> how is disagreeing with a Council decision valid grounds either ?  punting 
> people because they disagree with any group isn't really valid.
> -mike

It was not about disagreeing with Council but actively going against an
approved policy when the team is responsible for enforcing policies in
the tree.

This is why in my proposal for the review of GLEP 48 I added a point
stating that acting against established policies would constitute ground
to be removed from the team.

The point about the QA lead having to approve anyone wanting to join the
team should be evaluated with the background that the council will
surely pay attention to who the QA lead accepts or refuses in the team
and that if he acts in an inappropriate manner he may be subject to a
devrel bug.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=QNSu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1258 bytes --]

On Sunday, June 12, 2011 17:16:08 Francesco R wrote:
> 2011/6/11 Mike Frysinger:
> > On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > > So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
> >> > > him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position,
> >> > > but still I think that this is not a sane situation.
> >> > 
> >> > it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus
> >> > cement an echo chamber
> >> 
> >> Are you talking in a hypothetical future situation, or has this already
> >> happened? If so, can you point to an example of where Diego's been
> >> removing people for disagreeing with him, rather than for disagreeing
> >> with the Council?
> > 
> > how is disagreeing with a Council decision valid grounds either ?
> >  punting people because they disagree with any group isn't really valid.
> 
> If you are in the role of enforcing decision of the council and with
> "disagreeing" you mean acting versus their decision yes it's a very
> much valid ground.

i never said acting against council decisions, and neither did Ciaran, and so 
far, no one has shown me doing such a thing
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1597 bytes --]

On Monday, June 13, 2011 19:09:06 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On 11-06-2011 20:48, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>>> So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
> >>>> him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position,
> >>>> but still I think that this is not a sane situation.
> >>> 
> >>> it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus
> >>> cement an echo chamber
> >> 
> >> Are you talking in a hypothetical future situation, or has this already
> >> happened? If so, can you point to an example of where Diego's been
> >> removing people for disagreeing with him, rather than for disagreeing
> >> with the Council?
> > 
> > how is disagreeing with a Council decision valid grounds either ? 
> > punting people because they disagree with any group isn't really valid.
> 
> It was not about disagreeing with Council but actively going against an
> approved policy when the team is responsible for enforcing policies in
> the tree.
> 
> This is why in my proposal for the review of GLEP 48 I added a point
> stating that acting against established policies would constitute ground
> to be removed from the team.

that isnt what Ciaran said, and what you describe no one has shown me doing.  
thus the only logical conclusions that one can draw from this:
 - Diego mistakenly removed me without knowing all the facts
or
 - i was removed for purely voicing disagreement
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 17/06/2011 03:30 πμ, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, June 13, 2011 19:09:06 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>> On 11-06-2011 20:48, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 11, 2011 16:24:00 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>>> So, effectively the QA team lead can appoint the people who elect
>>>>>> him. I'm not at all implying that Diego would abuse his position,
>>>>>> but still I think that this is not a sane situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> it does seem trivial to remove people who disagree with you and thus
>>>>> cement an echo chamber
>>>>
>>>> Are you talking in a hypothetical future situation, or has this already
>>>> happened? If so, can you point to an example of where Diego's been
>>>> removing people for disagreeing with him, rather than for disagreeing
>>>> with the Council?
>>>
>>> how is disagreeing with a Council decision valid grounds either ? 
>>> punting people because they disagree with any group isn't really valid.
>>
>> It was not about disagreeing with Council but actively going against an
>> approved policy when the team is responsible for enforcing policies in
>> the tree.
>>
>> This is why in my proposal for the review of GLEP 48 I added a point
>> stating that acting against established policies would constitute ground
>> to be removed from the team.
> 
> that isnt what Ciaran said, and what you describe no one has shown me doing.  
> thus the only logical conclusions that one can draw from this:
>  - Diego mistakenly removed me without knowing all the facts
> or
>  - i was removed for purely voicing disagreement
> -mike

This is exactly what I've trying to explain in many many e-mails. You
and Samuli agreed to follow the policy. Not removing old packages does
*NOT* violate the policy. I am not sure why this is so hard for someone
to understand the difference. This is reason why I left as well. Because
you were removed with no proof of policy violation.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=0nlz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy.

And this is why nobody likes lawyers.  :)

Leaving around old packages because of a desire to avoid a policy
doesn't really strike me as an example of exemplary QA either.  There
are lots of good reasons to keep a few versions of a package in-tree.
None of them should be used merely as excuses to avoid running the
"echangelog" command.  I could see foot-dragging over a policy that
requires refactoring many ebuilds or something, but the Council tends
to avoid things like this precisely because they are onerous.
Personally I tend to just run echangelog for everything anyway - it is
easier to changelog a trivial change than to spend half a week on -dev
debating anybody who questions whether it is trivial.  Besides, I
spend much of my career working on systems that won't commit anything
without a documented "reason for change" - the changelogs on these
systems typically grow to fill 75% of the entire databases.  Gentoo is
like a breath of fresh air...

The one thing I hope doesn't come out of this is a Council that is
even more reluctant to act out of fear of being slapped around by the
community anytime a developer threatens to quit.  Sure, we can't
really afford to lose people, but we can even less afford a system
where any one person can just hold the entire endeavor hostage.  If we
think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see
how the git migration goes.  Sometimes individual devs just need to
see which way the wind is blowing and do their part to make sure we at
least end up anywhere other than going in circles...

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 17/06/2011 05:25 ??, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy.
> 
> And this is why nobody likes lawyers.  :)
> 
Rich,

That's a bit controversial. Do not expect developers to use common sense
when you frame them with policies that you (not you in particular)
established just because you think that they don't have common sense.
See the irony? :)

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=6aj1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Duncan]

Rich Freeman posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:25:42 -0700 as excerpted:

> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> Not removing old packages does *NOT* violate the policy.
> 
> And this is why nobody likes lawyers.  :)
> 
> Leaving around old packages because of a desire to avoid a policy
> doesn't really strike me as an example of exemplary QA either.  There
> are lots of good reasons to keep a few versions of a package in-tree.
> None of them should be used merely as excuses to avoid running the
> "echangelog" command.

Reading a changelog (yes, READING A CHANGELOG!! people actually DO use 
them, and occasionally depend on entries when versions are removed, but 
that's covered territory) at my last update yesterday, something occurred 
to me...

The particular entry in question listed some trivial change in maintained 
ebuilds, then said "Remove old".  There was accordingly a list of a bunch 
of removed versions, along with the versions modified by the update.

What occurred to me in the context of this whole controversy, was that 
not only can devs simply leave old versions for someone else to remove, 
but they can, and routinely do, remove old versions as part of a commit 
changing something in (some of) the remaining ones, as well.

It's worth pointing out that if Mike and others' workflow already 
involves a lot of this, they'd be modifying it very little if they simply 
avoided separate removals.  In fact, in borderline cases where a trivial 
change may not have made it on its own, as it waited for a bigger change 
to come along to be worth doing, the removals combined with the trivial 
change may now trigger the trivial change commit earlier than it would 
have occurred otherwise.

So depending on the individual package and how often minor changes as 
opposed to version removals are necessary, it's entirely possible that 
deliberately abstaining from removal-only commits won't visibly change 
the workflow AT ALL, or that if it does, it's in favor of getting those 
minor changes in faster than they'd otherwise appear.

[Deleted a bunch I 100% agree with.]

> The one thing I hope doesn't come out of this is a Council that is even
> more reluctant to act out of fear of being slapped around by the
> community anytime a developer threatens to quit.

That was worth repeating.  ++

> If we think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain,
> just wait to see how the git migration goes.

True but scary.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 489 bytes --]

El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió:
> If we
> think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see
> how the git migration goes.
Just a few words regarding this, in my company we moved to git (from
darcs) recently. I have ended up taking some non working days because
the pressure made by the devs was very high. So Council guys expect the
same from Gentoo devs when you move (and I'm in no way not supporting
the move, in fact I'd like to see it done).


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1288 bytes --]

On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote:
> What occurred to me in the context of this whole controversy, was that
> not only can devs simply leave old versions for someone else to remove,
> but they can, and routinely do, remove old versions as part of a commit
> changing something in (some of) the remaining ones, as well.

yes, which is why i find it a bit ironic when people claim that this 
information is useful while at the same basically generating garbage 
themselves.

> It's worth pointing out that if Mike and others' workflow already
> involves a lot of this, they'd be modifying it very little if they simply
> avoided separate removals.  In fact, in borderline cases where a trivial
> change may not have made it on its own, as it waited for a bigger change
> to come along to be worth doing, the removals combined with the trivial
> change may now trigger the trivial change commit earlier than it would
> have occurred otherwise.

if you look at my commit behavior, this is exactly the sort of thing i avoid.  
my cvs commits are pretty logically clean to the point where importing into 
git would result in nice behavior.  which means i make one commit to remove, 
one commit to fix a specific bug, one commit to version bump, etc...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 826 bytes --]

On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:08:43 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote:
> El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió:
> > If we
> > think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see
> > how the git migration goes.
> 
> Just a few words regarding this, in my company we moved to git (from
> darcs) recently. I have ended up taking some non working days because
> the pressure made by the devs was very high. So Council guys expect the
> same from Gentoo devs when you move (and I'm in no way not supporting
> the move, in fact I'd like to see it done).

when i made the conversion at my job, i made myself available for 
random/trivial questions and explaining of concepts.  it seemed to make things 
much smoother for them.

certainly dont have a problem doing the same for Gentoo.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Duncan]

Mike Frysinger posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:44:52 -0400 as excerpted:

> On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote:
>> It's worth pointing out that if Mike and others' workflow already
>> involves a lot of this, they'd be modifying it very little if they
>> simply avoided separate removals.  In fact, in borderline cases where a
>> trivial change may not have made it on its own, as it waited for a
>> bigger change to come along to be worth doing, the removals combined
>> with the trivial change may now trigger the trivial change commit
>> earlier than it would have occurred otherwise.
> 
> if you look at my commit behavior, this is exactly the sort of thing i
> avoid.
> my cvs commits are pretty logically clean to the point where importing
> into git would result in nice behavior.  which means i make one commit
> to remove, one commit to fix a specific bug, one commit to version bump,
> etc...

Good point and exactly the behavior best on git as it makes for far 
easier and more effective git bisects when necessary.  Unfortunately (for 
oh so many reasons!!), Gentoo's main tree and workflow isn't "git-ified" 
yet.  But I can certainly commend someone whose personal standards demand 
that same one-thing-and-one-thing-only commit separation, modern dVCS or 
not.

Meanwhile, case-in-point of why changelogging removals matters.  My last 
post was to a kde list, helping someone trying to build kdelibs on RHEL.  
He was missing the libdbusmenu-qt dependency, which I was able to point 
out, and I went on to describe the version info.  Gentoo's kdelibs-4.6.4 
dependency for that library is >= libdbusmenu-qt-0.3.2, but I have 0.8.2 
installed.

Because the information was in the changelog, I was able to tell him that 
my current 0.8.2 was introduced in April, the other available version on 
gentoo, 0.6.2, was introduced in Sept. 2010, there was a version jump (at 
least on gentoo) between 0.3.5 (from June, 2010) and 0.6.2, and the 0.3.2 
that's gentoo's minimum requirement was introduced on Gentoo in April 
2010 and removed in Sept, 2010.  So even 0.3.2 isn't much more than a 
year old (on RHEL 5 it's likely an upgrade!), but was already considered 
old enough to remove ~6 months later.

That information on 0.3.2 removal wouldn't have been available to me (at 
least not without making a huge project of it, checking Gentoo's viewCVS 
logs on the web) had someone not put it in the changelog.  Users DO find 
that information useful and there have been quite a number of times I 
personally have found it useful in helping people not necessarily on 
gentoo (tho I believe I've spotted hugely outdated based on changelogs 
versions of packages on gentoo-users systems, too), but in other parts of 
the FLOSS community.

Having that information not available locally on my system, either by 
changelog as now, or by git whatchanged, if users finally get access to 
direct git-pull once the main tree is git-upgraded, would be a serious 
regression.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Samuli Suominen]

On 06/17/2011 09:18 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Mike Frysinger posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:44:52 -0400 as excerpted:
> 
>> On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote:
>>> It's worth pointing out that if Mike and others' workflow already
>>> involves a lot of this, they'd be modifying it very little if they
>>> simply avoided separate removals.  In fact, in borderline cases where a
>>> trivial change may not have made it on its own, as it waited for a
>>> bigger change to come along to be worth doing, the removals combined
>>> with the trivial change may now trigger the trivial change commit
>>> earlier than it would have occurred otherwise.
>>
>> if you look at my commit behavior, this is exactly the sort of thing i
>> avoid.
>> my cvs commits are pretty logically clean to the point where importing
>> into git would result in nice behavior.  which means i make one commit
>> to remove, one commit to fix a specific bug, one commit to version bump,
>> etc...
> 
> Good point and exactly the behavior best on git as it makes for far 
> easier and more effective git bisects when necessary.  Unfortunately (for 
> oh so many reasons!!), Gentoo's main tree and workflow isn't "git-ified" 
> yet.  But I can certainly commend someone whose personal standards demand 
> that same one-thing-and-one-thing-only commit separation, modern dVCS or 
> not.
> 
> Meanwhile, case-in-point of why changelogging removals matters.  My last 
> post was to a kde list, helping someone trying to build kdelibs on RHEL.  
> He was missing the libdbusmenu-qt dependency, which I was able to point 
> out, and I went on to describe the version info.  Gentoo's kdelibs-4.6.4 
> dependency for that library is >= libdbusmenu-qt-0.3.2, but I have 0.8.2 
> installed.
> 
> Because the information was in the changelog, I was able to tell him that 
> my current 0.8.2 was introduced in April, the other available version on 
> gentoo, 0.6.2, was introduced in Sept. 2010, there was a version jump (at 
> least on gentoo) between 0.3.5 (from June, 2010) and 0.6.2, and the 0.3.2 
> that's gentoo's minimum requirement was introduced on Gentoo in April 
> 2010 and removed in Sept, 2010.  So even 0.3.2 isn't much more than a 
> year old (on RHEL 5 it's likely an upgrade!), but was already considered 
> old enough to remove ~6 months later.
> 
> That information on 0.3.2 removal wouldn't have been available to me (at 
> least not without making a huge project of it, checking Gentoo's viewCVS 
> logs on the web) had someone not put it in the changelog.  Users DO find 
> that information useful and there have been quite a number of times I 
> personally have found it useful in helping people not necessarily on 
> gentoo (tho I believe I've spotted hugely outdated based on changelogs 
> versions of packages on gentoo-users systems, too), but in other parts of 
> the FLOSS community.
> 
> Having that information not available locally on my system, either by 
> changelog as now, or by git whatchanged, if users finally get access to 
> direct git-pull once the main tree is git-upgraded, would be a serious 
> regression.
> 

I'm sorry, but honestly, did you have a point in there somewhere?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 278 bytes --]

On Friday, June 17, 2011 14:34:35 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> I'm sorry, but honestly, did you have a point in there somewhere?

i gathered that he had a specific case where he found a removal entry in the 
ChangeLog kept people from chasing their own tail for a while
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Duncan]

Samuli Suominen posted on Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:34:35 +0300 as excerpted:

> On 06/17/2011 09:18 PM, Duncan wrote:
>> 
>> Meanwhile, case-in-point of why changelogging removals matters.  My
>> last post was to a kde list, helping someone trying to build kdelibs on
>> RHEL. He was missing the libdbusmenu-qt dependency

>> Because the information was in the changelog

>> 0.3.2 isn't much more than a year old (on RHEL 5 it's likely an
>> upgrade!), but was already considered old enough to remove
>> ~6 months later.
>> 
>> That information on 0.3.2 removal wouldn't have been available to me
>> had someone not put it in the changelog.

>> Having that information not available locally on my system, either by
>> changelog as now, or by git whatchanged, if users finally get access to
>> direct git-pull once the main tree is git-upgraded, would be a serious
>> regression.
>> 
>> 
> I'm sorry, but honestly, did you have a point in there somewhere?

Mike's correct.

Not having package removal information in the changelog would be a 
serious regression, as the last paragraph states in summary of the 
previous, which is excerpted above.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 976 bytes --]

El 17/06/11 18:46, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:08:43 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote:
>> El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió:
>>> If we
>>> think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see
>>> how the git migration goes.
>> Just a few words regarding this, in my company we moved to git (from
>> darcs) recently. I have ended up taking some non working days because
>> the pressure made by the devs was very high. So Council guys expect the
>> same from Gentoo devs when you move (and I'm in no way not supporting
>> the move, in fact I'd like to see it done).
> when i made the conversion at my job, i made myself available for 
> random/trivial questions and explaining of concepts.  it seemed to make things 
> much smoother for them.
Neither am I in fact I'm working in this ATM:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~klondike/git.xml Yet when people doesn't want to
change your availability serves little.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1206 bytes --]

On Friday, June 17, 2011 16:37:02 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote:
> El 17/06/11 18:46, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> > On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:08:43 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera wrote:
> >> El 17/06/11 16:25, Rich Freeman escribió:
> >>> If we
> >>> think that tweaking the changelog policy causes pain, just wait to see
> >>> how the git migration goes.
> >> 
> >> Just a few words regarding this, in my company we moved to git (from
> >> darcs) recently. I have ended up taking some non working days because
> >> the pressure made by the devs was very high. So Council guys expect the
> >> same from Gentoo devs when you move (and I'm in no way not supporting
> >> the move, in fact I'd like to see it done).
> > 
> > when i made the conversion at my job, i made myself available for
> > random/trivial questions and explaining of concepts.  it seemed to make
> > things much smoother for them.
> 
> Neither am I in fact I'm working in this ATM:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~klondike/git.xml

thanks.  this is what i wrote:
http://docs.blackfin.uclinux.org/doku.php?id=version_control_systems#quick_references

people found the cvs<->svn<->git rosetta stone useful
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/qa: index.xml

[Samuli Suominen]

On 06/17/2011 09:53 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday, June 17, 2011 14:34:35 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> I'm sorry, but honestly, did you have a point in there somewhere?
> 
> i gathered that he had a specific case where he found a removal entry in the 
> ChangeLog kept people from chasing their own tail for a while
> -mike

well i read the post twice now and trying to put some logic behind it,
but it doesnt have any

damn my binary logic :)