From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 659811382C5 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 22:07:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 562F9E087F; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 22:07:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F346FE0872 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 22:07:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 00:07:01 +0200 From: Jimi Huotari To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: Shutting down the Off the Wall (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items ...) Message-ID: <20201202000701.49ef33ea@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20201130164650.j46wjcxzethfn6qp@hydra> <5284753.ZASKD2KPVS@farino> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/Ss4xkKKnFfra=h4utr11A9K"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Archives-Salt: 57d1a10d-6db5-4bf0-8c34-1b9b3f02351b X-Archives-Hash: aaa245bd203f0109503f18022e383a3d --Sig_/Ss4xkKKnFfra=h4utr11A9K Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 08:16:16 -0800 Alec Warner wrote: > > There has been a steady escalation here by the council and various > > other developers. So, this is satisfied (or is that subjective of me to > > assume?). Is there a metric for establishing whether good faith has > > occured? > > =20 >=20 > It's my (subjective) belief that a good faith discussion with forum-mods > never occurred. Feel free to disagree! As one of the forum admins/mods, this is more or less how I feel as well. Thank you, A, for your considerate e-mail. Also thanks to Klondike for their e-mails on this subject back in November. Speaking of my thoughts and about how I felt about the situation from around the time when this topic came up again this year: we have the bug(s) and complaints from the other year, yeah, but I for one seriously did not realise we were in such a hurry. There I was, waiting for the forums upgrade to move along, which would likely mean some changes with regards to the structure of the forums as users see it (including Off the Wall; I've mentioned this before already, and these were part of the plans well before anyone brought any of this up last year). Life and stuff happens, and people who were mainly working on the upgrade can't work on it any longer, and I decide to push it forward myself when I can. Then, rather suddenly, people demand that we change how things have been done for quite a long while now, immediately, with some suggestions towards getting rid of us (admins/mods and the forums) entirely. I know that several developers who maintain ebuilds do not consider those who do not maintain ebuilds (previously 'staffers') as real developers, so that part isn't a big surprise. I had actually hoped to finally finish things up with regards to officially becoming an ebuild maintainer as well, but I'm not so sure about that any longer... and I digress. To go back to the topic of urgency for a bit, bug 677824 [1] last said: "Closing for now, as discussed in today's council meeting. Please reopen when there is input from the mailing list." This is the state it was in before the "discussion" started again in the private mailing list this year. Before that, I don't know of any sort of communication towards our general direction on this matter. The bug now also mentions some IRC conversations as well, which are something we've not been a part of, though I do admit I am aware of a lot of them if only because I happen to idle in some of the particular channels (#gentoo-council and #gentoo-infra for example), and do occasionally read the back-log. In closing: it really should not be too surprising that people might be more willing to change things when they're asked nicely to do so, though it seems people had already decided what to do here regardless of what we say or do. As a kind of a sidey-note, to this day, I don't remember seeing anyone reporting any of the offending posts as they normally would be, via the forums [2], which is a big part of how moderation over there happens. :] 1. https://bugs.gentoo.org/677824 2. https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-28820.html --Sig_/Ss4xkKKnFfra=h4utr11A9K Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEE/JGxIPt4OPS9nsOVHxWsX7DSlYoFAl/GvoVfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEZD OTFCMTIwRkI3ODM4RjRCRDlFQzM5NTFGMTVBQzVGQjBEMjk1OEEACgkQHxWsX7DS lYq3Kg//c3GOmn5gzr4KKtd/PtSO+NZ+yPO+GDT5QYBypFILqOSmS1uPlnuc1Per d7x0b/88rSmWlQasyIjcIZ62JsiLlZxoudJe7RrpjWKevDQS9CcurX7kYYkwITjl qGWAmUFScKtKobWd6ANhauNzhVcKytLwY5y9EJ1yY8QmVfrCsdmcJZpGpJWH7yeQ m93onkFr5C8rEfyx14ga7HtaWMfuSJdEshNoJYONEZ0o1oFJZZ0lRgLs8jlttNrH 6A2liIiPkeAAiG/kCATgEr3LBjtciJYWcBHg04ONXYfIWrYt5CkvXiq8b3ajOR0S /u6OeWmfKdiyk4Q4TFaPPuNFNk9/2zTue8MLVg81ojQKeQO9CopVY6+M+ev0Y/mH Ee1j6aUAbc/dnbr/veQ9TTfWKOg3QpPDqredwZZVUO/eejpgrM2NdIh6TLbcXNwv bT/z31jAebMuQVpM3r+13zp/gxvDhkZLRdqZomlxP7slkXAuNt4fDlaCR0WH3m2V 238iQoUmg+ZWWJTpNZXas1jwPOVXsHGWWWDA3uXmqubD0O7TXNtPzq5sXTg6atxr yMVOZfDU30UWW6YEBPG50DiJIYO8EsWB89QhTjzKZTrGzx5e3llI4vmEoUvDHa5D TAJLTHZuS2VohnXEr8iaiMW43+3tRa4i69QYEi00/+fZmG7G4CQ= =yyew -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Ss4xkKKnFfra=h4utr11A9K--