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 306EA1387FD for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 05:53:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9628BE0995; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 05:53:18 +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 8FD56E079E for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 05:53:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.187.211.156] (85-76-183-23-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.183.23]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58F3E33FCF5 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 05:53:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53423BE8.6000006@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:47:20 +0300 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 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 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-04-08 References: <53342A5F.70903@gentoo.org> <201404061435.00789.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <53414CD2.4030100@gentoo.org> <53416E80.40605@gentoo.org> <53418FE8.4030200@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <53418FE8.4030200@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: f78b4f77-c37e-40ff-8f4b-28ae763b07fe X-Archives-Hash: eb0f065d366bd5ae9ce99f08eea6cfb5 On 06/04/14 20:33, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > On 04/06/2014 11:10 AM, 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: > > > #gentoo-qa, yesterday: > > > 21:37 <@Zero_Chaos> floppym: honestly there are a few "senior" gentoo > > developers which could be shot in the head for all I care. > > I fully stand by my statements. Makes me sad. I can't see how you could ever manage to communicate with some people you have to communicate as in your role in the in QA team. It requires some so called "customer service" skills, neutrality, following estabilished policies instead of making up your own and trying to enforce those made up ones with harsh language. You should reconsider if you are the best fit for the team, if you want best for Gentoo, and do the right thing, and resign from the team, and work on other areas where you don't need to communicate so much with others. > There are a few senior developers who > feel they can do whatever they like. I haven't seen any, could be you be more specific? Yes, I've seen some older developers, including myself, keeping their old workflow, but that's hardly "do whatever they like" > They ignore policy, I haven't seen any, could you be more specific what policies have been violated, and by whom? > revert things others have done to improve gentoo, Again, I haven't seen anything like this, yes, there has been some reverts (including by myself), but nothing that has "improved gentoo" has been reverted. > or otherwise make major changes without consulting anyone. If you are referring to our last issue, re: the new virtuals, I've already proofed the issue has been discussed in the past and even documented down in the wiki. It's what the council voted for when they allowed use of subslots in gentoo-x86. If this is not what you meant, again, could you be more specific what and whom you mean? - Samuli