From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8127E1387FD for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 07:50:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C5A9E0AE9; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 07:49:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9456CE0AE9 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 07:49:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localnet (unknown [114.91.182.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9120333FEE2 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 07:49:57 +0000 (UTC) From: Patrick Lauer To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-04-08 Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:49:55 +0800 Message-ID: <1782441.9eOmMZnMZL@localhost> User-Agent: KMail/4.12.4 (Linux/3.13.1-gentoo; KDE/4.12.4; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <53416E80.40605@gentoo.org> References: <53342A5F.70903@gentoo.org> <53414CD2.4030100@gentoo.org> <53416E80.40605@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Archives-Salt: b23cb860-eac9-4ffe-ae3e-e64af3d2fdb0 X-Archives-Hash: b3ff7756991c83a0201f34285c98914c On Sunday 06 April 2014 18:10:56 Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 06/04/14 15:47, hasufell wrote: > > Andreas K. Huettel: > > > 5) The council encourages teams maintaining central parts of Gentoo > > > to accept new developers as team members and teach them the > > > required knowledge and intricacies. We consider this important to > > > ensure long-term continuity and increase the bus factor in critical > > > areas. > > > > Or don't accept them as team members in the first place, which is > > perfectly fine if you can still contribute as a non-team member. > > I agree, new developers shouldn't be allowed in the QA team, there > should be some 5 year limit > at least as safe kludge to avoid disrespect like this: I wonder if you noticed that I've been a dev since 2004 ... and disrespect, well, you actively work towards breaking things. Even when told, multiple times, that you're breaking things, And that we will revert breakage when detected ... > 09:16 <@xiaomiao> if you don't ... well ... one dev more or less isn't > *that* much difference, we can deal with it > 09:17 <@xiaomiao> blah policy ... it took me months just to get PMS > fixed with a two-line patch > > Publicly stating he doesn't care about policies, I read that as only > caring about his personal opinion and then, > abusing the powers gained from the membership. Common sense ... If you need an explicit unambiguous policy spelled out for any action things get extremely unpleasant. So maybe try to reason about the effects on users, and consider strategies that are not explicitly written down ... And I don't do this "as QA member", I've done this for long enough before. So don't play victim now, just don't cause any breakage and I'll not have to touch your precious ebuildsssss. Being part of QA is just putting an official label on what I've been doing for quite a long time. ... and don't think it's personal, I mask, revert or fix anything that needs to be unbroken, without any emotional attachment to the package, the author or the day of the week. > > > Letting someone in and then starting to teach him seems like the wrong > > approach to me. > > > > We should encourage the opposite order. > > I agree. Specially when some of the new developers who gain a QA > membership think it elevates them into higher > platform than others who have been involved for years, making them > stubborn, in a way they don't listen to others. > > I didn't want to send this mail, but I felt I had to, because this has > gone too far. > > - Samuli Yes, it has gone too far. But only because you actively say that you don't care about breaking things, again, after getting massive pushback the last time ... I mean ... Can't be that hard to think about the response other people will have when you waste their time. Especially when you have anecdotal evidence that predicts a very boring simple response. Don't break stuff, and no one will have the desire to yell at you. And if you do, well, learn from it, fix the fallout, and don't get in the way of others fixing it if you don't feel like doing it. So thanks for making me state the obvious about eleventeen times in one email, I shall now put on my Captain Obvious T-Shirt and watch some Batman (the old TV series) to feel better. Have a ... day, I guess ... Patrick