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 4.54) id 1FQaVT-0006pS-5f for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 01:38:55 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with SMTP id k341cd0a027574; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 01:38:39 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k341agc6004625 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 01:36:42 GMT Received: from [209.249.182.18] (helo=ferris.dsl.patriot.net) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1FQZ0t-00002T-Dh; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 00:03:15 +0000 Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 00:03:08 +0000 (UTC) From: Ferris McCormick <fmccor@gentoo.org> X-X-Sender: fmccor@terciopelo.krait.us To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org cc: devrel@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a code of conduct In-Reply-To: <b38c6f4c0604031441n6c9eb368od674de6a0fd00b52@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604032342450.23149@terciopelo.krait.us> References: <200604031738.48509.vapier@gentoo.org> <b38c6f4c0604031441n6c9eb368od674de6a0fd00b52@mail.gmail.com> 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=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Archives-Salt: 7fe19bd5-0bdc-4075-97c6-474c13d83894 X-Archives-Hash: 0607740e887473cd8a9208c07878984b -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote: > On 4/3/06, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote: >> i dont see how anyone can be against this (unless you're a terrorist!), so >> this is on track to be integrated as-is into the dev handbook Etiquette >> section > > Let's go one step further, and also link to it from the Social > Contract. Our social contract shouldn't just be between Gentoo and > our users. It should be amongst ourselves too. > > Best regards, > Stu > > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list > > I have replied elsewhere that I generally like this and agree with Stuart. Now, there are some details to fill in. Devrel and infra have agreed that when responsibilities overlap, neither group would act unilaterally. Please see http://dev.gentoo.org/~fmccor/devrel/devrel-infra.txt (esp. section II.) So, unless Mike's intent is to repudiate what I believe we agreed to, you would have to read solar's document and the one I just referenced together, so the fifth paragraph needs clarification. As for the proxy comment, as has been noted elsewhere, whenever I or anyone else commit something to the tree, it is very hard for anyone to tell if I am doing it for someone else or not. So, say, it might look unusual when I make a substantative change rather than an arch change for something in dev-ruby, it has happened (at a ruby developer's request). (I'm a sparc/devrel developer, not a package developer for those puzzled by this.) So I am not sure of the proxy comment's practical effect. I still think the intent is good and support it. Regards, - -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEMbe/Qa6M3+I///cRArEWAJ9Yu6xRuDTpvG8oKDAu3zEv0lUeQQCgrf9Y qBPlpULGDpMEguWB85XO+EU= =Mhtu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list