From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org)
by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-22818-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>)
id 1HdwHC-0007yA-WB
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:35:55 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3HMYH1Q030095;
Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:34:17 GMT
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.170])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3HMV0XC024751
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:31:00 GMT
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z38so248288ugc
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=beta;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=ACw90TyBiIV8muevfWtUVHYp1kD6iUKf+QttVBo9PhuY8ur+yhbRANZSiSbOZ1vWmccKsOsXyNOe5ERF/zq2zP02R8ezqr/HWlq3ld/hviUQujWBEYDjN+l1/Pl5+HThpvIVEQ0+UwoW8/uYkYtIsIEiweoaBHFDU8kV7M4F/qw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=beta;
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=aY04BPhoODkKusvjxgocYSIebJiPZ7hGoT9kN8WA7+fgxNII1/8+1gi9kaSG0SP3GBiW6fyWS74DyWq/OIcYq9FoU+ZUa9rX52CzX2HwIGzPRRbaberGu7UaRTjVCh5Xcn+KnllMWHKsOa7ygy4mkIBKvAth81JzvuQnxqH5EzA=
Received: by 10.82.138.6 with SMTP id l6mr11344713bud.1176849060289;
Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.82.162.15 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <9fce88250704171531qcada5a0u45b57f16ba3be8c9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:31:00 +0200
From: "Jakub Moc" <jakub.moc@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] FYI: Jakub suspended two weeks for bad behaviour
In-Reply-To: <20070417221633.GO10368@woodpecker.gentoo.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20070416230204.GW10368@woodpecker.gentoo.org>
<4624E926.8060700@gentoo.org>
<20070417155443.GG10368@woodpecker.gentoo.org>
<Pine.LNX.4.64.0704171947150.1005@woodpecker.gentoo.org>
<20070417200946.GM10368@woodpecker.gentoo.org>
<462542C2.6010704@gentoo.org>
<20070417221633.GO10368@woodpecker.gentoo.org>
X-Archives-Salt: 83e99626-9235-47f1-93c8-1c1a444c3b9d
X-Archives-Hash: d9c71cf7dd3412c707327dd76063984e
On 4/18/07, Bryan =D8stergaard <kloeri@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Now, I didn't set out to threaten him in any way but after 30 minutes
> with no response to my question and even more angry devs demanding me to
> solve this situation I had to do something to stop it. I personally
> think trying to talk to the developer before contemplating disabling
> access is much better than disabling access and asking questions
> afterwards so I tried to get his attention in a rather drastic way. And
> somehow he just happened to respond in less than 30 seconds after that
> at which point we could finally settle the dispute.
Good to see that you are soooo much concerned about other developers.
At the same time you've repeatedly decided to ignore any of my
requests fo intervene when I've been attacked by users/other
developers on bugzilla for no particularly good reason and have been
receiving tens of bugspams per hour. Nice to see the double standards
that have been developed by our impartial devrel lead over time.
> I would have expected jakub to respect the maintainer wishes and at the
> very least try to contact maintainers before repeating this but
> unfortunately he doesn't see any reason to do so from what I can tell.
Why did you once again ignore the points I have made wrt this? Over
and over again, you've been very well aware what's been going on w/
peitolm. And wrt the keywording bugs re-assignment, it's something
that's been done routinely all the time. And I've said that if any
maintainer has issues w/ re-assigning the keywording stuff to arches,
they are welcome to contact me and we'll sort it out. (Oh, and not
exactly my fault that you got angry because alpha has gone ahead of
mips in the slacker stats on these re-assignments, which apparently
was something you couldn't bear.)
--
Jakub Moc
Email: jakub.moc@gmail.com
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list