[gentoo-dev] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[gentoo-dev] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Matthew Kennedy]

I personally feel that it may be a good time to reconsider making
gentoo-core a publicly read-only list.  Several users I know (some
personally) are irate that we appear to be a "behind-closed-doors"
project.  Yes, this stems from the recent fork announcement.

gentoo-core is where we do our planning, discuss management structure,
discuss technical questions (of which we already try to CC gentoo-dev
out of courtesy) and architecture issues.

I hope that we can open -core as a publicly read-only list to involve
our community more.  We owe this much to our user-base in my opinion.
For these reasons, I have CC'd this to -dev.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Jon Portnoy]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 02:21:35PM -0500, Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> I personally feel that it may be a good time to reconsider making
> gentoo-core a publicly read-only list.  Several users I know (some
> personally) are irate that we appear to be a "behind-closed-doors"
> project.  Yes, this stems from the recent fork announcement.
> 
> gentoo-core is where we do our planning, discuss management structure,
> discuss technical questions (of which we already try to CC gentoo-dev
> out of courtesy) and architecture issues.
> 
> I hope that we can open -core as a publicly read-only list to involve
> our community more.  We owe this much to our user-base in my opinion.
> For these reasons, I have CC'd this to -dev.
> 
> Matt
> 

We've already gone over the reasons -core should remain private 
(discussing security before it goes public and personal information). I 
think that a better approach would be to enforce a policy of all 
technical stuff and anything that isn't sensitive being discussed on 
-dev rather than -core.


-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Alec Berryman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4435 bytes --]

On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 14:47, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 02:21:35PM -0500, Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> > I personally feel that it may be a good time to reconsider making
> > gentoo-core a publicly read-only list.  Several users I know (some
> > personally) are irate that we appear to be a "behind-closed-doors"
> > project.  Yes, this stems from the recent fork announcement.
> > 
> > gentoo-core is where we do our planning, discuss management structure,
> > discuss technical questions (of which we already try to CC gentoo-dev
> > out of courtesy) and architecture issues.
> > 
> > I hope that we can open -core as a publicly read-only list to involve
> > our community more.  We owe this much to our user-base in my opinion.
> > For these reasons, I have CC'd this to -dev.
> > 
> > Matt
> > 
> 
> We've already gone over the reasons -core should remain private 
> (discussing security before it goes public and personal information). I 
> think that a better approach would be to enforce a policy of all 
> technical stuff and anything that isn't sensitive being discussed on 
> -dev rather than -core.

Moving all development talk to the, well, -dev list would be the best
solution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have heard four main reasons to keep
-core private:

1) Gentoo should speak with a unified voice, and by keeping the
community excluded from -core, announcements and policy changes can be
discussed without a public display of fragmentation.

2) Devs make mistakes, and would rather "fall on their face" in private
rather than in public.

3) -core would quickly become cluttered with mis-postings.

4) -core is boring anyway, why would you want to read it?

While these four reasons, as well as the security issues mentioned
above, look to be good ones on the surface, they become marginal when
examined and all serve the purpose of setting the developers apart and
away from their community.

Security is not a valid excuse to keep things secret - Bugtraq and its
kind already bring things out in the open quickly enough.  That dead
horse has been beaten enough.

Gentoo can speak with a unified voice while still allowing discussion. 
For example, it seems like once a month someone posts to -dev offering
to re-implement portage or something like it in another language - Java,
C, C++, Perl, whatever.  The standard answer from a dev is invariably
"We've discussed this on -core before and decided it wasn't a good
idea."  Now, the user who offered of himself to make what he saw as an
improvement feels shut out and unwanted.  Had there existed -core
archive, the user could have read through the reasons and understood why
- things are not always as obvious as they seem.  Even better, the user
might have looked through the archives and discovered the said
discussions before posting, saving everyone a headache.  Gentoo has
stayed with python despite many offers - what harm does a valid, public
evaluation do?

Devs do make mistakes - Daniel Robbins recently slipped on some
unmasking and there were a lot of questions in -user and on the boards. 
Obviously, no one wants to make this kind of mistake, but the end result
wasn't bad - it was corrected quickly, and no one thinks Daniel is
incompetent.  Everyone makes mistakes.

If -core is read-only, there won't be mis-postings to it by unwary
users.  -core might be very boring, but even most Gentoo users' eyes
would glaze over trying to parse the kernel code.  Does that mean the
kernel is distributed as a binary, because 'it would be boring' to try
and improve the source code for those few that would want to?  Perhaps
the devs might have an idea that a non-"official"-dev can implement
quickly; everyone benefits.

Currently, -dev isn't a developer list; most of the e-mail is users'
suggestions discussed by other users and the occasional dev, as well as
the occasional mis-post targeted for -user.  Perhaps in the future, if
-core would be accessible to the community that drive it, -dev could be
the buffer zone between the final work of the developers and the user
community.  Right now, there's a feeling that the developers are
shutting themselves in an ivory tower.  That's not good for community. 
Gentoo's social contract has always said it will not "hide its
problems", but has continued to keep its core development decisions
closed.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Todd Berman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1650 bytes --]

On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 16:49, Alec Berryman wrote:
> Currently, -dev isn't a developer list; most of the e-mail is users'
> suggestions discussed by other users and the occasional dev, as well as
> the occasional mis-post targeted for -user.  Perhaps in the future, if
> -core would be accessible to the community that drive it, -dev could be
> the buffer zone between the final work of the developers and the user
> community.  Right now, there's a feeling that the developers are
> shutting themselves in an ivory tower.  That's not good for community. 
> Gentoo's social contract has always said it will not "hide its
> problems", but has continued to keep its core development decisions
> closed.

Just as a quick point of reference, I have been a gentoo developer for
~3 months or so, maybe a bit less. You want to know how I became a
gentoo developer?

It had nothing to do with finding the keys to the fabled tower, or
making the right friends, and had everything to do with being willing to
give a bit of my time and energy to serve something that is needed in
gentoo. All I did was make a couple small proposals here about some
general stuff, and then offer to maintain the sendmail ebuild. Thats it,
no hocus-pocus, no magic words, no secret rites, not even a special
handshake. (Man, did I feel gypped!)

My point is just this, you want access to -core, become a developer, its
part of the territory.

And I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that many
other non-profit Linux distributions have non-open lists. In fact, I
would be very surprised if any Linux distributions don't.

--Todd

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Daniel Armyr]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1060 bytes --]

> My point is just this, you want access to -core, become a developer,
> its part of the territory.

Yeah, and if I want to know how my government makes descisions on how my life is run I can allways become a high-ranking politician. At this point in time, Gentoo simply does not have an open culture, but a closed one. I am fore an read-only core, but when reading this thread I have a nagging suspicion that this is pointless. The Gentoo devs want to have an ivory tower, and ivory towers can not be scaled. The only way to change is for the inhabitants to come out freely.
 
> And I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that many
> other non-profit Linux distributions have non-open lists. In fact, I
> would be very surprised if any Linux distributions don't.

And since then was that an excuse? I thought Gentoo wanted to be better than other distros.

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
daniel.armyr@home.se	f00-dar@f.kth.se
Tegnergatan 40 rum 505	+46 8 8 31 52 17	
113 59 Stockholm	
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1271 bytes --]

On Sat, 2003-06-28 at 18:26, Daniel Armyr wrote:
> > My point is just this, you want access to -core, become a developer,
> > its part of the territory.
> 
> Yeah, and if I want to know how my government makes descisions on how my life
> is run I can allways become a high-ranking politician. At this point in time,
> Gentoo simply does not have an open culture, but a closed one. I am fore an
> read-only core, but when reading this thread I have a nagging suspicion that
> this is pointless. The Gentoo devs want to have an ivory tower, and ivory towers
> can not be scaled. The only way to change is for the inhabitants to come out freely.
>  
> > And I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that many
> > other non-profit Linux distributions have non-open lists. In fact, I
> > would be very surprised if any Linux distributions don't.
> 
> And since then was that an excuse? I thought Gentoo wanted to be better than other distros.

I am guessing you consult your children in all decisions you make
regarding them (if you have any)?  Or if you are a manager, do you
consult with your workers in decisions you make ?


-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Cyrik]

Martin Schlemmer wrote:

> On Sat, 2003-06-28 at 18:26, Daniel Armyr wrote:
>> > My point is just this, you want access to -core, become a developer,
>> > its part of the territory.
>> 
>> Yeah, and if I want to know how my government makes descisions on how my
>> life is run I can allways become a high-ranking politician. At this point
>> in time, Gentoo simply does not have an open culture, but a closed one. I
>> am fore an read-only core, but when reading this thread I have a nagging
>> suspicion that this is pointless. The Gentoo devs want to have an ivory
>> tower, and ivory towers can not be scaled. The only way to change is for
>> the inhabitants to come out freely.
>>  
>> > And I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that many
>> > other non-profit Linux distributions have non-open lists. In fact, I
>> > would be very surprised if any Linux distributions don't.
>> 
>> And since then was that an excuse? I thought Gentoo wanted to be better
>> than other distros.
> 
> I am guessing you consult your children in all decisions you make
> regarding them (if you have any)?  Or if you are a manager, do you
> consult with your workers in decisions you make ?
> 
> 

nope but i tell them why i decided like i did and they know of every
decision...


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 627 bytes --]

On Sat, 2003-06-28 at 20:35, Cyrik wrote:

> > I am guessing you consult your children in all decisions you make
> > regarding them (if you have any)?  Or if you are a manager, do you
> > consult with your workers in decisions you make ?
> > 
> > 
> 
> nope but i tell them why i decided like i did and they know of every
> decision...
> 

Yes, but the point is, they are not present when you talk to
your partner about what to do, and you surely do not tape it
so that they can play it back later.


-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 780 bytes --]

On Sunday 29 June 2003 00:40, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-06-28 at 20:35, Cyrik wrote:
> > > I am guessing you consult your children in all decisions you make
> > > regarding them (if you have any)?  Or if you are a manager, do you
> > > consult with your workers in decisions you make ?
> >
> > nope but i tell them why i decided like i did and they know of every
> > decision...
>
> Yes, but the point is, they are not present when you talk to
> your partner about what to do, and you surely do not tape it
> so that they can play it back later.

And you certainly don't involve them into the actual decision on what to buy 
them for their Birthday.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Public Relations, was: Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Paul]

Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org>, on Sun Jun 29, 2003 [03:12:45 PM] said:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Sunday 29 June 2003 00:40, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > On Sat, 2003-06-28 at 20:35, Cyrik wrote:
> > > > I am guessing you consult your children in all decisions you make
> > > > regarding them (if you have any)?  Or if you are a manager, do you
> > > > consult with your workers in decisions you make ?
> > >
> > > nope but i tell them why i decided like i did and they know of every
> > > decision...
> >
> > Yes, but the point is, they are not present when you talk to
> > your partner about what to do, and you surely do not tape it
> > so that they can play it back later.
> 
> And you certainly don't involve them into the actual decision on what to buy 
> them for their Birthday.
> 
> Paul
> 

	Hi;

	Hmm. I find this paternalism vaguely insulting, and I
dont even feel strongly one way or another about the -core
list.
	Ever since Ive been reading this list, Ive seen this as a
perenial point of contention. I think that this is a touchy issue
because some people _do_ feel there is lack of transparancy, and
a wall between developers and users. I know this feeling because
I have been conditioned to not submit ebuilds anymore, after
having submitted them regularly for some time; (I touch upon this
in bug 6808) I still hope to continue contributing bugs,
preferably with patches. (although I often have better luck just
pushing them upstream.) This is ok for me, since writing ebuilds
is trivial, and I have my local stuff. But it might not be good
for others. (or perhaps it is;)
	Instead of tortured analogies, just say it the way it
is; "we want core closed, and if you dont like it, you are free
to choose another distribution, or fork..."
	Gentoo is a great thing, and this is reflected in its
phenomenal growth. I hope that it is able to regroup from its
difficulties. I see, however, a disconcerting tendancy to sweep
away discontent with rhetoric, and the promise of future
bounty...
	There is a certain amount of FUD associated with Gentoos
recent fork, and issues regarding its incorporation, and internal
organisation. (Ive seen it on my local LUG list-- people saying
'Ive heard this and that and this; maybe youd better think twice
before commiting to Gentoo...')  That is to say, these feelings
and doubts are very real, and I hope that even though core
members find them baseless, that they find a way to communicate
that without seeming so condescending.

Paul
set@pobox.com
	


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Public Relations

[Alastair Tse]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4551 bytes --]

On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 06:42, Paul wrote:
> I have been conditioned to not submit ebuilds anymore, after
> having submitted them regularly for some time; (I touch upon this
> in bug 6808) I still hope to continue contributing bugs,

Hi Paul,

I've always tried to stay out of this "-core being open" debate because
I too don't feel much either way. But that bug reference has pushed me
to answer some of your concerns in this email.

Comment on the your concerns about submitted ebuilds being ignored. At
least on all the bugs I'm assigned, I _try_ to give feedback whenever it
is possible, say what is holding up an ebuild going into portage, and be
frank about what I think about the ebuild or the fitness of the
application/library. Of course, you'll find exceptions to that comments
if you go thru all my bugs :P

In this case with gbonds, given that most, if not all, devs in
gnome@gentoo.org are not US citizens and have no US bond. It was very
difficult for us to support the ebuild to any degree. With committing
the ebuild, comes responsibility and expectation that it would work. For
example, similar situation I encounter now is I'm maintaining
gphoto2/gtkam suite even though I have no digital camera compatible with
that. Users come to me with bugs about it, and I can't do any real
bugfixing on it. Sure it compiles, installs, and launches, but I can't
verify any of the functionality.

Maybe we really need dedicated users who do commit to being responsible
for a particular package because they are very familiar with it, and
actively submit version updates, help to debug problems with the
package, etc. We don't have a system for this right now, although some
time previously, we had the idea of "watchers" who would be similar to
that type of user. But I don't know what happened to the idea or why it
was abandoned.

> preferably with patches. (although I often have better luck just
> pushing them upstream.) This is ok for me, since writing ebuilds

Pushing patches upstream is always easier, because they'll either be
rejected and accepted. The problem with us maintaining patches that are
not officially accepted is that the developers for the package will
blame us for modifying their app/library and refuse to support Gentoo
users, leaving a sour taste in both the developer's and user's mouth.

> 	Instead of tortured analogies, just say it the way it
> is; "we want core closed, and if you dont like it, you are free
> to choose another distribution, or fork..."

I'm very certain that has never been the view of the dev-team. I've
certainly not encountered anyone who has said anything similar to this.

> organisation. (Ive seen it on my local LUG list-- people saying
> 'Ive heard this and that and this; maybe youd better think twice
> before commiting to Gentoo...')  That is to say, these feelings
> and doubts are very real, and I hope that even though core
> members find them baseless, that they find a way to communicate
> that without seeming so condescending.

Well, distro wars are what LUGs are about, or that's what I've heard :)
Anyway, I'll have my small comment about -core opening up. I could write
a whole essay if I wanted to. So, if we do open up -core, what is to say
that devs would not push inter-dev communication on contentious issues
to private CC lists, or a gentoo-core-core?

Also, how open do these lists have to be? Would people comprimise on an
archive that just lists the subjects discussed on -core? This would
alleviate "security matters" being exposed because only the topic would
not provide enough details for anyone to pre-emptively exploit, or would
it?

On the concluding note, before I became a dev, I didn't even know a
-core list existed, and to be honest, I didn't even care. What I was
trying to do was just make the distro I was using better. Getting
involved with a distro is more than reading mail archives of -core,
getting involved is actually contributing to the distro or help other
users.

I understand this issue will never go away. Maybe someone with enough
time on their hands would actually write a summary on all the arguments
presented since the beginning of time about -core. That would be an
interesting read :)

Cheers,
-- 
Alastair 'liquidx' Tse
 >> Gentoo Developer
 >> http://www.liquidx.net/ | http://cvs.gentoo.org/~liquidx/
 >> GPG Key : http://cvs.gentoo.org/~liquidx/liquidx_gentoo_org.asc
 >> FingerPrint : 579A 9B0E 43E8 0E40 EE93  BB1C 38CE 1C7B 3907 14F6


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Public Relations

[Daniel Armyr]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 941 bytes --]

> Well, distro wars are what LUGs are about, or that's what I've heard
> :) Anyway, I'll have my small comment about -core opening up. I could
> write a whole essay if I wanted to. So, if we do open up -core, what
> is to say that devs would not push inter-dev communication on
> contentious issues to private CC lists, or a gentoo-core-core?

Having watched the thread quite closely, I have seen this argument come up many times. "The devs can always find a way to talk in secret." I know that I am bit limited in my mindset, but what I was hoping for was a community where devs would be open about things because they want to, not because they are forced to. Some people describe this vision as Utopian, but I have seen it done several times in reality. 

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
daniel.armyr@home.se	f00-dar@f.kth.se
Tegnergatan 40 rum 505	+46 8 8 31 52 17	
113 59 Stockholm	
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Public Relations

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 676 bytes --]

Daniel Armyr wrote:	[Wed Jul 02 2003, 12:02:17PM EDT]
> Having watched the thread quite closely, I have seen this argument
> come up many times. "The devs can always find a way to talk in
> secret." I know that I am bit limited in my mindset, but what I was
> hoping for was a community where devs would be open about things
> because they want to, not because they are forced to. Some people
> describe this vision as Utopian, but I have seen it done several times
> in reality. 

We're seriously working on this.  We've been pushing every development
issue from -core to -dev recently, so private traffic is diminishing and
public traffic is increasing.

Aron

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Public Relations, was: Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Stewart Honsberger]

Paul wrote:

> 	Ever since Ive been reading this list, Ive seen this as a
> perenial point of contention. I think that this is a touchy issue
> because some people _do_ feel there is lack of transparancy, and
> a wall between developers and users. I know this feeling because
> I have been conditioned to not submit ebuilds anymore, after
> having submitted them regularly for some time; (I touch upon this
> in bug 6808)

Reading over that bug, I find myself rather dissapointed. The system 
seems to have failed you, and that sucks. I also disagree with many of 
the sentiments expressed in the comments and feel that an application 
such as that could/would be used by a nontrivial number of people; 
certainly enough to warrant inclusion in the tree.

When I have time, I peruse the new bugs and try to work on as many bugs 
and ebuild updates/submissions as I possibly can, and I know there are 
other developers out there who do the same. I hope you'll have better 
experience in the future, especially if you're as experienced at writing 
ebuilds as you appear to be. We don't need to turn away quality 
contributions.

> 	Instead of tortured analogies, just say it the way it
> is; "we want core closed, and if you dont like it, you are free
> to choose another distribution, or fork..."

I greatly dislike arguing by analogy. Arguing by analogy is like ... ;)

But basically, yes, -core is a list that has many reasons to remain 
closed. As I said in a previous message; if -core is opened up and 
developers really want to talk in private they'll find another venue to 
do so. (I'm sure I could get Majordomo whipped into shape inside of an 
afternoon.)

I'm not saying this is a justified course of action, but merely that it 
is a fact of human nature. The Internet happens to be great for enabling 
people to discuss openly and/or privately.

Remember, too, that we've got people like Josh Brindle, head of Gentoo 
Hardened. Consulting on encrypting the contents of this uber-secret 
meeting place would be a snap. ;>

As for finding another distribution, well, I'm afraid you'll find 
yourself much in the same boat there. Gentoo operates almost entirely 
via electronic communication. The likes of SuSE, RedHat et al. have 
physical space in which to hold meetings of the board and the core 
developers. I'd be willing to bet a week's worth of socks that they 
don't transcribe those meetings and make them available to their 
userbase. Because of the nature of those distributions, I'm sure it's 
also never really occurred to the users to ask either.

As to whether or not you (in the general sense) really want to read 
-core, well, that's up in the air but I doubt it. Most people who do 
likely wouldn't do so for very long. Frankly, it's not THAT interesting, 
and certainly not earth shattering. Anything important or developmental 
in nature is forwarded/CC'ed to -dev anyways.

> 	There is a certain amount of FUD associated with Gentoos
> recent fork, and issues regarding its incorporation, and internal
> organisation. (Ive seen it on my local LUG list-- people saying
> 'Ive heard this and that and this; maybe youd better think twice
> before commiting to Gentoo...')  That is to say, these feelings
> and doubts are very real, and I hope that even though core
> members find them baseless, that they find a way to communicate
> that without seeming so condescending.

I've known a lot of developers in a lot of open source projects who've 
become very condescending of their userbase. One developer went so far 
as to say; "${PROJECT} developers shouldn't waste their time hunting 
down bugs, we're too busy developing new features."

Except that it's quite a major project, I'd have left over an unchecked 
comment like that.

Sometimes developers forget that they're users too, and at one point 
they were users who didn't have cvs commit access. I think a lot of them 
forget just how powerless you can feel at times. Hopefully if more 
people come forward and explain their feelings as eloquently as you 
have, more developers will stop and think about what they're saying 
before they hit 'send'. Of course, hopefully Gentoo developers will grow 
to be better than that in the first place. We can hope. :>

Stick with it. Gentoo is a great distribution, and so long as the future 
is planned for and the right changes are made, it'll become even better 
in times to come, but we can't do it if we alienate our userbase.

-- 
Stewart Honsberger
Gentoo Developer
http://www.snerk.org/


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Public Relations, was: Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Alastair Tse]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1847 bytes --]

On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 12:35, Stewart Honsberger wrote:
> Reading over that bug, I find myself rather dissapointed. The system 
> seems to have failed you, and that sucks. I also disagree with many of 
> the sentiments expressed in the comments and feel that an application 
> such as that could/would be used by a nontrivial number of people; 
> certainly enough to warrant inclusion in the tree.

Considering the scope and the amount of pacakges that gnome@g.o
currently oversees (200+), we (gnome@g.o) have to prioritise which
packages are added. Now, if a developer has interest in that particular
package and is willing to maintain it, then by all means it is up to
that developer :)

Thinking more about it, there probably should be some sort of bug fixing
day or new ebuild fixing day once a month or something where a list of
all the outstanding ebuilds are listed and then devs who are interested
in them should assign themselves to them and/or comment on what needs to
be improved. But without a real proposal or implementation, this would
just be something that I just mindlessly blurted out off the top of my
head.

> ebuilds as you appear to be. We don't need to turn away quality 
> contributions.

Definitely. 

> via electronic communication. The likes of SuSE, RedHat et al. have 
> physical space in which to hold meetings of the board and the core 

While I don't agree that we should use other distros as argument points
for not opening up -core, I'd just like to bring up that debian also has
private lists for developers only. 

Cheers,
-- 
Alastair 'liquidx' Tse
 >> Gentoo Developer
 >> http://www.liquidx.net/ | http://cvs.gentoo.org/~liquidx/
 >> GPG Key : http://cvs.gentoo.org/~liquidx/liquidx_gentoo_org.asc
 >> FingerPrint : 579A 9B0E 43E8 0E40 EE93  BB1C 38CE 1C7B 3907 14F6


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Public Relations, was: Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Brian Jackson]

On Wednesday 02 July 2003 07:18 am, Alastair Tse wrote:
<snip>
>
> Thinking more about it, there probably should be some sort of bug fixing
> day or new ebuild fixing day once a month or something where a list of
> all the outstanding ebuilds are listed and then devs who are interested
> in them should assign themselves to them and/or comment on what needs to
> be improved. But without a real proposal or implementation, this would
> just be something that I just mindlessly blurted out off the top of my
> head.

I like that idea. If I can ever figure out how to write a GLEP or whatever it 
is, I might just run with this (unless you were planning to, of course).

--Brian Jackson (iggy)

<snip>

-- 
OpenGFS -- http://opengfs.sourceforge.net
Home -- http://www.brianandsara.net


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Public Relations, was: Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[donnie berkholz]

On Wednesday 02 July 2003 07:18, Alastair Tse wrote:
> While I don't agree that we should use other distros as argument points
> for not opening up -core, I'd just like to bring up that debian also has
> private lists for developers only.

As an interesting aside to that, they also have unexpected lists open. For 
example, I was able to subscribe to what amounts to the XFree bugs list, so I 
hear about all Debian's problems with X-related things.

Take a look at Debian's mailing lists sometime; here's the developer's list 
page: http://lists.debian.org/devel.html. One important thing to notice is 
the *-private lists, clearly demarcated as closed to the public. There are 
only a couple, but they exist and they are documented as being closed. It 
might be interesting to search through their archives and see what 
discussions have come up and how (if?) they were solved.

Note the similarity of our -dev and -core lists with these:
debian-devel: Development of Debian
debian-private: Private discussions among developers

I'm not presenting Debian as a model in any way, merely an example. Just a 
couple of things to think about.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Matthew Kennedy]

Martin Schlemmer <azarah@gentoo.org> writes:

>>  
>> > And I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that many
>> > other non-profit Linux distributions have non-open lists. In fact, I
>> > would be very surprised if any Linux distributions don't.
>> 
>> And since then was that an excuse? I thought Gentoo wanted to be better than other distros.
>
> I am guessing you consult your children in all decisions you make
> regarding them (if you have any)?  Or if you are a manager, do you
> consult with your workers in decisions you make ?

Gentoo developers are the wise parents, and the user-base are our
children in need of our guidance?  Is that how the analog works?

Matt
-- 
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Stewart Honsberger]

Daniel Armyr wrote:

>Yeah, and if I want to know how my government makes descisions on how
>my life is un I can allways become a high-ranking politician. At this
>point in time, Gentoo simply does not have an open culture, but a closed
>one. I am fore an read-only core, but when reading this thread I have a
>nagging suspicion that this is pointless. The Gentoo devs want to have an
>ivory tower, and ivory towers can not be scaled. The only way to change
>is for the inhabitants to come out freely.

I think you're making way more out of this than neccesary. There is no
ivory tower here, there is no elitism amongst Gentoo developers. BTW -
your analogy is flawed. Speaking as someone who just completed the
process no more than 72 hours ago; becomming a Gentoo developer is
nothing like becomming a politician letalone a "high-ranking politician".

The fact of the matter is - developers need a place to hash out ideas
without every user, developer-in-training, or casual on-looker jumping
all over them and micromanaging.

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm pretty well on the fence about the
issue myself. On one hand, I enjoy the notion that the developers have
nothing to hide and go out of their way to show it. On the other hand, I
believe the developers need a forum where they can discuss ideas that
might never see the light of day. discuss asinine details, etc.

You also have to remember that if the developers really want to have
private discussions, they will. If they feel they can't talk openly on
-core they'll form a new list.

>>And I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that many
>>other non-profit Linux distributions have non-open lists. In fact, I
>>would be very surprised if any Linux distributions don't.
> 
> And since then was that an excuse? I thought Gentoo wanted to be better than 
> other distros.

That's pretty subjective. Is it really that much "better" to discuss
everything out in the open? Is there such a thing as too much openness?

-- 
Stewart Honsberger
Gentoo Developer
http://www.snerk.org/


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Matthew Kennedy]

Stewart Honsberger <blkdeath@gentoo.org> writes:

> The fact of the matter is - developers need a place to hash out ideas
> without every user, developer-in-training, or casual on-looker jumping
> all over them and micromanaging.

This is more of an assumption on your part.  Personally, I don't care
if my mistakes are made in public or private -- I just don't need that
comfort zone you seek.  As for micromanaging, we are talking about the
-core list being read-only, so I wouldn't worry about that.

Besides, I tend to think if a user does contact you (not on -core
since its read-only, but by mail) to provide input on something
you're working on or suggesting, then this would be a good thing.

Matt
-- 
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Stroller]

On 27/6/03 8:21 pm, "Matthew Kennedy" <mkennedy@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> I hope that we can open -core as a publicly read-only list to involve
> our community more.  We owe this much to our user-base in my opinion.
> For these reasons, I have CC'd this to -dev.

I can appreciate the reasons for which -core is a closed list, and I was in
strong support of it when I initially read them. I took the approach: the
Gentoo devs are the folks are the ones doing the work, so the Gentoo devs
can do as they wish in this regard.

However this recent spat does reflect very badly. Now not only do you have
to recognise the fact that users feel excluded from the -core list, you also
have to recognise the exclusivity of the -biz list, also.

I am sure both these lists are closed for very valid reasons, but how about
opening the archives of the -core list after 3 months or so, much in the way
that national classified documents are often published after 50 years..?

Obviously, it is harder to prove that the archives have not been censored
themselves, than in the case of a live read-only mailing list, but this
would provide the opportunity for devs to discuss security & fall on their
faces in private (because no one cares about such trivial stuff months down
the line), and still provide public openness.

Stroller.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 619 bytes --]

On Friday 27 June 2003 23:50, Stroller wrote:
> I am sure both these lists are closed for very valid reasons, but how about
> opening the archives of the -core list after 3 months or so, much in the
> way that national classified documents are often published after 50
> years..?

Were it not for the fact that there are currently no archives of any of the 
gentoo lists, let alone -core, I think this might be a good proposal. 

Paul

ps. Of course creating archives should allready have been done some time ago

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Svyatogor]

I feel that creating archives should be somewhere in number 1
priorities. A LOT of things are easily lost due to lack of online
archives (for -core as well).

В ?? 28.06.2003, в 07:35, Paul de Vrieze пишет:
> On Friday 27 June 2003 23:50, Stroller wrote:
> > I am sure both these lists are closed for very valid reasons, but how about
> > opening the archives of the -core list after 3 months or so, much in the
> > way that national classified documents are often published after 50
> > years..?
> 
> Were it not for the fact that there are currently no archives of any of the 
> gentoo lists, let alone -core, I think this might be a good proposal. 
> 
> Paul
> 
> ps. Of course creating archives should allready have been done some time ago
-- 
Let the Force be with us!
Sergey Kuleshov <svyatogor@gentoo.org>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Ned Ludd]

On Sat, 2003-06-28 at 03:35, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Friday 27 June 2003 23:50, Stroller wrote:
> > I am sure both these lists are closed for very valid reasons, but how about
> > opening the archives of the -core list after 3 months or so, much in the
> > way that national classified documents are often published after 50
> > years..?
> 
> Were it not for the fact that there are currently no archives of any of the 
> gentoo lists, let alone -core, I think this might be a good proposal. 
> 

An Archive of this list can be found using
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-dev
The marc system has quite a few bannerless searchable online mailing
list archives.


> Paul
> 
> ps. Of course creating archives should allready have been done some time ago
-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux Developer (Hardened)


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 379 bytes --]

On Saturday 28 June 2003 18:02, Ned Ludd wrote:
> An Archive of this list can be found using
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-dev
> The marc system has quite a few bannerless searchable online mailing
> list archives.
>

I know that, I meant official archives.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal: make gentoo-core publicly read-only

[Michael Kohl]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1939 bytes --]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:21:35 -0500
Matthew Kennedy <mkennedy@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I personally feel that it may be a good time to reconsider making
> gentoo-core a publicly read-only list.  Several users I know (some
> personally) are irate that we appear to be a "behind-closed-doors"
> project.  Yes, this stems from the recent fork announcement.

Actually I somehow doubt that most of the people who cry really loud at
the moment would even bother to read -core if it was made read-only.

> I hope that we can open -core as a publicly read-only list to involve
> our community more.  We owe this much to our user-base in my opinion.
> For these reasons, I have CC'd this to -dev.

Up until now I've always been in favor of making -core world readable.
But after the proposal of the new managment structure I think that
publicly available summaries of the last week (which the project leaders
have to do as far as my understanding goes) are enough (considered they
are not to briefly), as they give us users willing to help an indication
what is going on, what already has been discussed, why it has (not) been
dismissed etc., while still assuring devs have the privacy they
sometimes need.

Also I think that a read-only -core will increase the noise ratio on
-dev again, as some people may want to immediately react when a
proposal is made they don't like, and I'll bet that -dev will be the
place where this mails go. So I suspect we'll end up with a number of
postings to -dev which would have never been necessary because the dev
team votes against this proposal in the end. This kind of situation can
be avoided by a weekly status update.

So personally, I _really_ want to know _some of the things_ discussed
on -core, but I'm not really assured that a publicly available -core is
the best solution.

Michael

-- 
www.cargal.org 
GnuPG-key-ID: 0x90CA09E3
Jabber-ID: citizen428 [at] cargal [dot] org
Registered Linux User #278726

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]