[gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2837 bytes --]

Dear Gentoo Council,

During the meeting you held on December (see the logs here:
https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20171210.txt ), you
voted for restricting the gentoo-dev mailing list. Although in said
meeting somebody raised that such a change affected the Gentoo Social
Contract as it referred users to provide comments on the gentoo-dev
mailing list (see
https://www.gentoo.org/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.html )
this was dismissed by one of your members (which has, in the past,
called the Gentoo Social Contract "dead law") by saying that the right
place to send such comments is gentoo-project (but willingly ignoring
that such a reference has been part of it since the first archived draft
version
https://web.archive.org/web/20021112053724/http://www.gentoo.org:80/main/en/contract.xml
and the first non draft version
https://web.archive.org/web/20031203222653/http://www.gentoo.org:80/main/en/contract.xml
which predate the gentoo-project mailing list) and apparently ignored by
the rest.

This was noted after the vote had happened and to the best of my
knowledge hadn't been raised before. Despite that, on the next meeting
where the topic was discussed a different council member stated that
said person did not "any pertinent new information since last vote".

Now, three months after, no action has been carried by the council on
this very specific regard despite being made aware of it. This clearly
shows that the current council members not only take hastened decissions
without even doing propper research, they don't try to clean up the mess
they cause after their own decissions.

Given the inaction by the council, I'm propossing to apply either of
these two changes to the Gentoo Social contract.

First propossal:
Replace "Comments are welcome. Please send them to our
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> mailing
list." by "Comments by selected people are welcome. Please send them to
our gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
mailing list.". Which clearly reflects the new ivory tower philosophy
the Council is making the Gentoo Project take.

Second propossal:
Replace "Comments are welcome. Please send them to our
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> mailing
list." by "Comments by selected people are welcome. Please send them to
our gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
<mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org> mailing list CCing the Gentoo
Foundation trustees on trustees@lists.gentoo.org
<mailto:trustees@lists.gentoo.org>.". Which ensures trustees get a
notification of such propossals and still keeps the social contract open
to comments for anybody.

Please note, in the spirit of the second propossal I'm CCing gentoo-project.

Klondike


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3909 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 829 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> "Comments by selected people are welcome. "

And this would be why I've maintained that having non-overlapping
Council/Trustees is a problem waiting to happen.  We have two
governing bodies that disagree and continue to escalate things, in
part because we don't allow an overlap in membership and there are
only so many people interested in either job to go around.

My prediction is that everybody will continue to get indignant leading
up to the next Council election, then the developers will vote to
maintain the status quo, and then at the next Trustee election there
will be at most 0-2 extra nominees above the number of open slots, who
will probably be motivated mostly out of disagreement with the
Council, and then we'll get to watch the infighting for another year.

The whole GLEP 39 thing only works if people actually abide by the
decisions that are made.  Face it, when it comes down to things like
whether we boot people out for sexual harassment or not, or whether we
let their defenders claim that they were innocent until the end of
time on the lists, or we attempt to moderate them so that we look more
like a Linux distro than our Off The Wall forum page, we're just never
going to have 100% agreement.  If there were 14 source-based distros
out there we could all pick the one that most aligns with our favorite
communications philosophy, PID 1, and text editor.  Unfortunately
there are barely enough of us to make one distro viable, so we're just
going to have to find something we can all live with before everybody
ends up rage quitting.

FWIW this will not be the first time Gentoo has made the -dev list
more controlled for posting.  Heck, I remember a time when most of the
serious talk happened on #gentoo-dev which I think is STILL dev-only
plus a whitelist.  There are plenty of projects that have completely
closed development lists.

For all the concern of a closed list driving off newcomers, I suspect
that the constant posts about how some kind of cabal runs the distro
behind closed doors is probably more damaging.  From the sound of
things we'll get to continue to listen to it until the end of time on
-project, as the "cabal" seems to get re-elected every year, with a
bit of turnover who oddly enough seem to end up becoming part of the
cabal.  I'd swear that they were being paid off but I'd presume that
from your seat on the board you'd know if that were the case.

Unless...  Could the Trustees be paying the Council to be the bad guys
while they secretly run the show?  Could they be the cabal behind the
cabal?

Well, in any case we're clearly sticking to the bit in the social
contract about not hiding our problems.  They're on full display for
anybody crazy enough to join us.  At least we know the newcomers are
serious about the distro, because I doubt they're just here for the
social life...  :)

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 632 bytes --]

On 26/03/18 02:36, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> (klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> "Comments by selected people are welcome. "
> And this would be why I've maintained that having non-overlapping
> Council/Trustees is a problem waiting to happen.  We have two
> governing bodies that disagree and continue to escalate things, in
> part because we don't allow an overlap in membership and there are
> only so many people interested in either job to go around.
>
<snip>

Pardon me for asking, but isn't this completely tangential to the topic
at hand?


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4489 bytes --]

Hey klondike,

I am looking at the social contract and the only place that
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org is in the introductory paragraph:

"This social contract is intended to clearly describe the overall
development policies and standards of the Gentoo project development team.
Parts of this document have been derived from the Debian Social Contract.
It is generally very similar to it except that certain parts have been
clarified and augmented while other parts deemed redundant have been
removed. Comments are welcome. Please send them to our
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list."

It's not actually in the social contract itself.

At one point, maybe these last three sentences of the intro paragraph were
appropriate, like when the social contract was a new thing and more of a
work in progress.

I would recommend the following changes. Replace the last three sentences
of the introductory paragraph with something similar to the following:

"Potential improvements to the social contract should be submitted to the
Gentoo Linux bug tracker at https://bugs.funtoo.org, and assigned to
gentoo-trustees. Specific questions about social contract, and discussion
about potential future improvements can be posted to the gentoo-project
mailing list."

This is fair. First, it removes an attribution to Debian. I think our
social contract has evolved to the point where it's now its own thing?
(Maybe I'm wrong on this point) And it tightens up the wording to make it
clear that our social contract is not in a "hey -- tell us what you think"
stage. And yet we do have a clear process for formal changes (bug tracker)
and general discussion and questions (gentoo-project).

-Daniel

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) <
klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Dear Gentoo Council,
>
> During the meeting you held on December (see the logs here:
> https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20171210.txt ), you
> voted for restricting the gentoo-dev mailing list. Although in said meeting
> somebody raised that such a change affected the Gentoo Social Contract as
> it referred users to provide comments on the gentoo-dev mailing list (see
> https://www.gentoo.org/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.html ) this
> was dismissed by one of your members (which has, in the past, called the
> Gentoo Social Contract "dead law") by saying that the right place to send
> such comments is gentoo-project (but willingly ignoring that such a
> reference has been part of it since the first archived draft version
> https://web.archive.org/web/20021112053724/http://www.
> gentoo.org:80/main/en/contract.xml and the first non draft version
> https://web.archive.org/web/20031203222653/http://www.
> gentoo.org:80/main/en/contract.xml which predate the gentoo-project
> mailing list) and apparently ignored by the rest.
>
> This was noted after the vote had happened and to the best of my knowledge
> hadn't been raised before. Despite that, on the next meeting where the
> topic was discussed a different council member stated that said person did
> not "any pertinent new information since last vote".
>
> Now, three months after, no action has been carried by the council on this
> very specific regard despite being made aware of it. This clearly shows
> that the current council members not only take hastened decissions without
> even doing propper research, they don't try to clean up the mess they cause
> after their own decissions.
>
> Given the inaction by the council, I'm propossing to apply either of these
> two changes to the Gentoo Social contract.
>
> First propossal:
> Replace "Comments are welcome. Please send them to our
> gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list." by "Comments by selected
> people are welcome. Please send them to our gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
> mailing list.". Which clearly reflects the new ivory tower philosophy the
> Council is making the Gentoo Project take.
>
> Second propossal:
> Replace "Comments are welcome. Please send them to our
> gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list." by "Comments by selected
> people are welcome. Please send them to our gentoo-project@lists.
> gentoo.org mailing list CCing the Gentoo Foundation trustees on
> trustees@lists.gentoo.org.". Which ensures trustees get a notification of
> such propossals and still keeps the social contract open to comments for
> anybody.
>
> Please note, in the spirit of the second propossal I'm CCing
> gentoo-project.
>
> Klondike
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6666 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 9:39 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
> On 26/03/18 02:36, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
>> (klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> "Comments by selected people are welcome. "
>> And this would be why I've maintained that having non-overlapping
>> Council/Trustees is a problem waiting to happen.  We have two
>> governing bodies that disagree and continue to escalate things, in
>> part because we don't allow an overlap in membership and there are
>> only so many people interested in either job to go around.
>>
>
> Pardon me for asking, but isn't this completely tangential to the topic
> at hand?
>

That's a pretty good description of this thread, which I imagine is
why the Council hasn't been in a mad rush to tweak the social
contract.  The arguing over closing the lists hasn't even died down
yet...

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4915 bytes --]

On 18-03-25 19:55:22, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> Hey klondike,
> 
> I am looking at the social contract and the only place that
> gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org is in the introductory paragraph:
> 
> "This social contract is intended to clearly describe the overall
> development policies and standards of the Gentoo project development team.
> Parts of this document have been derived from the Debian Social Contract.
> It is generally very similar to it except that certain parts have been
> clarified and augmented while other parts deemed redundant have been
> removed. Comments are welcome. Please send them to our
> gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list."
> 
> It's not actually in the social contract itself.
> 
> At one point, maybe these last three sentences of the intro paragraph were
> appropriate, like when the social contract was a new thing and more of a
> work in progress.
> 
> I would recommend the following changes. Replace the last three sentences
> of the introductory paragraph with something similar to the following:
> 
> "Potential improvements to the social contract should be submitted to the
> Gentoo Linux bug tracker at https://bugs.funtoo.org, and assigned to

s/funtoo/gentoo
:P  Other than that it looks good though

> gentoo-trustees. Specific questions about social contract, and discussion
> about potential future improvements can be posted to the gentoo-project
> mailing list."
> 
> This is fair. First, it removes an attribution to Debian. I think our
> social contract has evolved to the point where it's now its own thing?
> (Maybe I'm wrong on this point) And it tightens up the wording to make it
> clear that our social contract is not in a "hey -- tell us what you think"
> stage. And yet we do have a clear process for formal changes (bug tracker)
> and general discussion and questions (gentoo-project).
> 
> -Daniel
> 
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) <
> klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Dear Gentoo Council,
> >
> > During the meeting you held on December (see the logs here:
> > https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20171210.txt ), you
> > voted for restricting the gentoo-dev mailing list. Although in said meeting
> > somebody raised that such a change affected the Gentoo Social Contract as
> > it referred users to provide comments on the gentoo-dev mailing list (see
> > https://www.gentoo.org/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.html ) this
> > was dismissed by one of your members (which has, in the past, called the
> > Gentoo Social Contract "dead law") by saying that the right place to send
> > such comments is gentoo-project (but willingly ignoring that such a
> > reference has been part of it since the first archived draft version
> > https://web.archive.org/web/20021112053724/http://www.
> > gentoo.org:80/main/en/contract.xml and the first non draft version
> > https://web.archive.org/web/20031203222653/http://www.
> > gentoo.org:80/main/en/contract.xml which predate the gentoo-project
> > mailing list) and apparently ignored by the rest.
> >
> > This was noted after the vote had happened and to the best of my knowledge
> > hadn't been raised before. Despite that, on the next meeting where the
> > topic was discussed a different council member stated that said person did
> > not "any pertinent new information since last vote".
> >
> > Now, three months after, no action has been carried by the council on this
> > very specific regard despite being made aware of it. This clearly shows
> > that the current council members not only take hastened decissions without
> > even doing propper research, they don't try to clean up the mess they cause
> > after their own decissions.
> >
> > Given the inaction by the council, I'm propossing to apply either of these
> > two changes to the Gentoo Social contract.
> >
> > First propossal:
> > Replace "Comments are welcome. Please send them to our
> > gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list." by "Comments by selected
> > people are welcome. Please send them to our gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
> > mailing list.". Which clearly reflects the new ivory tower philosophy the
> > Council is making the Gentoo Project take.
> >
> > Second propossal:
> > Replace "Comments are welcome. Please send them to our
> > gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list." by "Comments by selected
> > people are welcome. Please send them to our gentoo-project@lists.
> > gentoo.org mailing list CCing the Gentoo Foundation trustees on
> > trustees@lists.gentoo.org.". Which ensures trustees get a notification of
> > such propossals and still keeps the social contract open to comments for
> > anybody.
> >
> > Please note, in the spirit of the second propossal I'm CCing
> > gentoo-project.
> >
> > Klondike
> >

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Michał Górny]

W dniu nie, 25.03.2018 o godzinie 21∶36 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
napisał:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> (klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > "Comments by selected people are welcome. "
> 
> And this would be why I've maintained that having non-overlapping
> Council/Trustees is a problem waiting to happen.  We have two
> governing bodies that disagree and continue to escalate things, in
> part because we don't allow an overlap in membership and there are
> only so many people interested in either job to go around.
> 
> My prediction is that everybody will continue to get indignant leading
> up to the next Council election, then the developers will vote to
> maintain the status quo, and then at the next Trustee election there
> will be at most 0-2 extra nominees above the number of open slots, who
> will probably be motivated mostly out of disagreement with the
> Council, and then we'll get to watch the infighting for another year.
> 

The infighting won't die unless one or more of the following happens:

1. Trustees understand that Council is not about wielding absolute power
but merely listening to developers. And developers are somewhat more
people than the ~5 devs who repeatedly abuse the mailing lists in their
protests, in order to force their will.

2. Trustees fix the past legal mess and find a reasonable way to protect
future Trustees from the screwups of previous boards, making it possible
for more people to be interested in Trustee positions, and effectively
reducing the problem of power-hungry, incompetent candidates.

3. We disband the Foundation and lose all the assets but gain
the ability to freely developer the distro without people who first
generously offer their services to Gentoo, and then start demanding
absolute power in the return.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2707 bytes --]

Hi Michał,

El 26/03/18 a las 23:51, Michał Górny escribió:
> W dniu nie, 25.03.2018 o godzinie 21∶36 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
> napisał:
>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
>> (klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> "Comments by selected people are welcome. "
>> And this would be why I've maintained that having non-overlapping
>> Council/Trustees is a problem waiting to happen.  We have two
>> governing bodies that disagree and continue to escalate things, in
>> part because we don't allow an overlap in membership and there are
>> only so many people interested in either job to go around.
>>
>> My prediction is that everybody will continue to get indignant leading
>> up to the next Council election, then the developers will vote to
>> maintain the status quo, and then at the next Trustee election there
>> will be at most 0-2 extra nominees above the number of open slots, who
>> will probably be motivated mostly out of disagreement with the
>> Council, and then we'll get to watch the infighting for another year.
>>
> The infighting won't die unless one or more of the following happens:
>
> 1. Trustees understand that Council is not about wielding absolute power
> but merely listening to developers. And developers are somewhat more
> people than the ~5 devs who repeatedly abuse the mailing lists in their
> protests, in order to force their will.
>
> 2. Trustees fix the past legal mess and find a reasonable way to protect
> future Trustees from the screwups of previous boards, making it possible
> for more people to be interested in Trustee positions, and effectively
> reducing the problem of power-hungry, incompetent candidates.
>
> 3. We disband the Foundation and lose all the assets but gain
> the ability to freely developer the distro without people who first
> generously offer their services to Gentoo, and then start demanding
> absolute power in the return.


Please don't derail the topic. If you want to discuss the Board of
Trustees and Foundation problems you are more than welcome to open a
different thread, either on gentoo-project or maybe on gentoo-nfp (which
may have less reach but be more appropriate).

I opened this thread to discuss proposals to fix the fact that with the
permission change of the gentoo-dev mailing list ordered by the council,
the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them) can't neither
propose nor discuss changes to said contract through the official
channels. If you have any input in that regard, I'll be more than happy
to read it.

Klondike



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 829 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2957 bytes --]

Hi Daniel!

El 26/03/18 a las 03:55, Daniel Robbins escribió:
> Hey klondike,
>
> I am looking at the social contract and the only place that
> gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> is in
> the introductory paragraph:
>
> "This social contract is intended to clearly describe the overall
> development policies and standards of the Gentoo project development
> team. Parts of this document have been derived from the Debian Social
> Contract. It is generally very similar to it except that certain parts
> have been clarified and augmented while other parts deemed redundant
> have been removed. Comments are welcome. Please send them to our
> gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
> mailing list."
>
> It's not actually in the social contract itself.

To be sincere it was never clear to me whether this was or not part of
the social contract. Specially since it was left even after the comment
regarding it's draft status was removed (since 2003).

In general it makes a lot of sense to keep a way in which the
stakeholders of the contract (in this case any other people) can address
their concerns or voice their suggestions. Which is/was my main reason
to consider that part was left as is even after removing the note saying
it was a draft. That said I wasn't around when the decission was made
nor had a way to find out much more than that. Knowing who you are you
probably were though.

> At one point, maybe these last three sentences of the intro paragraph
> were appropriate, like when the social contract was a new thing and
> more of a work in progress.
>
> I would recommend the following changes. Replace the last three
> sentences of the introductory paragraph with something similar to the
> following:
>
> "Potential improvements to the social contract should be submitted to
> the Gentoo Linux bug tracker at https://bugs.funtoo.org, and assigned
> to gentoo-trustees. Specific questions about social contract, and
> discussion about potential future improvements can be posted to the
> gentoo-project mailing list."
>
> This is fair. First, it removes an attribution to Debian. I think our
> social contract has evolved to the point where it's now its own thing?
> (Maybe I'm wrong on this point) And it tightens up the wording to make
> it clear that our social contract is not in a "hey -- tell us what you
> think" stage. And yet we do have a clear process for formal changes
> (bug tracker) and general discussion and questions (gentoo-project).
That (replacing funtoo for gentoo) actually makes a lot of sense and
provides a much clear path of action than my second proposal (please
note that the selected in the second propossal was a clerical error). It
also provides a way for any stakeholders to raise their concerns and
suggestions that, as of yet, is still open to them. Thanks a lot for
writting it.

Francisco

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4350 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 829 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
> other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them)

I just did some asking around and those non-developer stakeholders
(who are apparently a majority of our total set of stakeholders) say
that they disagree with your proposed changes.  Are you sure you
actually talked to all of them?

It is possible that there is some confusion - could you provide a list
of the names of these stakeholders who apparently constitute a
majority?  Gentoo devs apparently don't count for much (other than
doing all the work I suppose), but we can at least generate a list of
who they are...

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1139 bytes --]

On 18-03-26 19:01:51, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> (klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
> > other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them)
> 
> I just did some asking around and those non-developer stakeholders
> (who are apparently a majority of our total set of stakeholders) say
> that they disagree with your proposed changes.  Are you sure you
> actually talked to all of them?
> 
> It is possible that there is some confusion - could you provide a list
> of the names of these stakeholders who apparently constitute a
> majority?  Gentoo devs apparently don't count for much (other than
> doing all the work I suppose), but we can at least generate a list of
> who they are...
> 

This seems like it's settling into a pissing contest.

Daniel, if you are reading this, do you mind making your proposal (from
earlier in this thread) to the project mailing list so we can actually
start the process of making the change?

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1521 bytes --]

Hi Rich!
El 27/03/18 a las 01:01, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> (klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
>> other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them)
> I just did some asking around and those non-developer stakeholders
> (who are apparently a majority of our total set of stakeholders) say
> that they disagree with your proposed changes.  Are you sure you
> actually talked to all of them?
>
> It is possible that there is some confusion - could you provide a list
> of the names of these stakeholders who apparently constitute a
> majority?  Gentoo devs apparently don't count for much (other than
> doing all the work I suppose), but we can at least generate a list of
> who they are...

Please don't derail the topic. If you want to discuss who are the
specific stakeholders affected by the Gentoo Social Contract you are
more than welcome to open a different thread, on gentoo-project.

I opened this thread to discuss proposals to fix the fact that with the
permission change of the gentoo-dev mailing list ordered by the council,
the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them) can't neither
propose nor discuss changes to said contract through the official
channels. If you have any input in that regard, I'll be more than happy
to read it.

Klondike


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 829 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 197 bytes --]

On 27/03/18 00:51, Matthew Thode wrote:
> This seems like it's settling into a pissing contest.
>
A pissing contest in Gentoo? Can't possibly imagine what you're on about ...


</sarcasm>


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hi Rich!
> El 27/03/18 a las 01:01, Rich Freeman escribió:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
>> (klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
>>> other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them)
>> I just did some asking around and those non-developer stakeholders
>> (who are apparently a majority of our total set of stakeholders) say
>> that they disagree with your proposed changes.  Are you sure you
>> actually talked to all of them?
>>
>> It is possible that there is some confusion - could you provide a list
>> of the names of these stakeholders who apparently constitute a
>> majority?  Gentoo devs apparently don't count for much (other than
>> doing all the work I suppose), but we can at least generate a list of
>> who they are...
>
> If you want to discuss who are the
> specific stakeholders affected by the Gentoo Social Contract you are
> more than welcome to open a different thread, on gentoo-project.
>

Then why didn't you do just this when you brought up the topic of the
stakeholders of the social contract?

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org> wrote:
>
> "Potential improvements to the social contract should be submitted to the
> Gentoo Linux bug tracker at https://bugs.funtoo.org, and assigned to
> gentoo-trustees. Specific questions about social contract, and discussion
> about potential future improvements can be posted to the gentoo-project
> mailing list."
>

Wouldn't it make sense to have these assigned to the council?

GLEP 39 states that "Global issues will be decided by an elected
Gentoo Council."  Surely the social contract is a global issue, and I
don't see any exception in GLEP 39 pertaining to the social contract
specifically.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Michał Górny]

W dniu wto, 27.03.2018 o godzinie 01∶54 +0200, użytkownik Francisco Blas
Izquierdo Riera (klondike) napisał:
> Hi Rich!
> El 27/03/18 a las 01:01, Rich Freeman escribió:
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> > (klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
> > > other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them)
> > 
> > I just did some asking around and those non-developer stakeholders
> > (who are apparently a majority of our total set of stakeholders) say
> > that they disagree with your proposed changes.  Are you sure you
> > actually talked to all of them?
> > 
> > It is possible that there is some confusion - could you provide a list
> > of the names of these stakeholders who apparently constitute a
> > majority?  Gentoo devs apparently don't count for much (other than
> > doing all the work I suppose), but we can at least generate a list of
> > who they are...
> 
> Please don't derail the topic. If you want to discuss who are the
> specific stakeholders affected by the Gentoo Social Contract you are
> more than welcome to open a different thread, on gentoo-project.
> 
> I opened this thread to discuss proposals to fix the fact that with the
> permission change of the gentoo-dev mailing list ordered by the council,
> the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
> other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them) can't neither
> propose nor discuss changes to said contract through the official
> channels. If you have any input in that regard, I'll be more than happy
> to read it.
> 

Sounds to me that you've created an artificial problem to create
hostility within the community, and when somebody asks you to define
the problem more specifically, you refuse to answer.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 405 bytes --]

>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:

>>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
>>> (klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> "Comments by selected people are welcome. "

> [...]

> Please don't derail the topic.

Effectively you have asked for derailing it in your initial posting.
So don't be surprised if it actually happens.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2819 bytes --]

Hi Michał,
El 27/03/18 a las 09:45, Michał Górny escribió:
> W dniu wto, 27.03.2018 o godzinie 01∶54 +0200, użytkownik Francisco Blas
> Izquierdo Riera (klondike) napisał:
>> Hi Rich!
>> El 27/03/18 a las 01:01, Rich Freeman escribió:
>>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
>>> (klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
>>>> other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them)
>>> I just did some asking around and those non-developer stakeholders
>>> (who are apparently a majority of our total set of stakeholders) say
>>> that they disagree with your proposed changes.  Are you sure you
>>> actually talked to all of them?
>>>
>>> It is possible that there is some confusion - could you provide a list
>>> of the names of these stakeholders who apparently constitute a
>>> majority?  Gentoo devs apparently don't count for much (other than
>>> doing all the work I suppose), but we can at least generate a list of
>>> who they are...
>> Please don't derail the topic. If you want to discuss who are the
>> specific stakeholders affected by the Gentoo Social Contract you are
>> more than welcome to open a different thread, on gentoo-project.
>>
>> I opened this thread to discuss proposals to fix the fact that with the
>> permission change of the gentoo-dev mailing list ordered by the council,
>> the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
>> other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them) can't neither
>> propose nor discuss changes to said contract through the official
>> channels. If you have any input in that regard, I'll be more than happy
>> to read it.
>>
> Sounds to me that you've created an artificial problem to create
> hostility within the community, and when somebody asks you to define
> the problem more specifically, you refuse to answer.

Until now nobody has asked me to define the problem that I'm trying to
address any better than I already did, all I have gotten have been
attempts to hijack the thread.

I'll try to explain again the problem my propossals are trying to fix.
Until gentoo-dev became restricted, all of the stakeholders of the
Gentoo Social Contract had an official way to propose and discuss
changes to it. As it is now impossible for some (I suspect the majority)
of them to propose changes in the official way now. This is a problem
because it basically restricts their ability to propose modifications
(like you did using the, then, wrong list on 2017
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/e20bc1207eca0164fe942012cce9c543).

Therefore, either we change the social contract to reflect this new
reality or we end up being against it.

klondike


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 829 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1643 bytes --]

>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote:

> El 27/03/18 a las 09:45, Michał Górny escribió:
>> Sounds to me that you've created an artificial problem to create
>> hostility within the community, and when somebody asks you to define
>> the problem more specifically, you refuse to answer.

> I'll try to explain again the problem my propossals are trying to fix.
> Until gentoo-dev became restricted, all of the stakeholders of the
> Gentoo Social Contract had an official way to propose and discuss
> changes to it. As it is now impossible for some (I suspect the majority)
> of them to propose changes in the official way now. This is a problem
> because it basically restricts their ability to propose modifications

Please don't make a mountain out of a molehill. The only change needed
is an update of the address from gentoo-dev to gentoo-project.
The current address was added in 2002 which was long before the
gentoo-dev/gentoo-project split happened (and IMHO it should have been
updated immediately after the split).

I would even say that this qualifies as an editorial change that
doesn't need any formal decision. (See [1] for a precedent.)

> (like you did using the, then, wrong list on 2017
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/e20bc1207eca0164fe942012cce9c543).

No, gentoo-project is precisely the list that should have been used
for this (namely, it is one of the successors of the gentoo-dev from
before the split).

Ulrich

[1] https://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/main/en/contract.xml?revision=1.14&view=markup

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Michał Górny]

W dniu wto, 27.03.2018 o godzinie 11∶37 +0200, użytkownik Francisco Blas
Izquierdo Riera (klondike) napisał:
> Hi Michał,
> El 27/03/18 a las 09:45, Michał Górny escribió:
> > W dniu wto, 27.03.2018 o godzinie 01∶54 +0200, użytkownik Francisco Blas
> > Izquierdo Riera (klondike) napisał:
> > > Hi Rich!
> > > El 27/03/18 a las 01:01, Rich Freeman escribió:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
> > > > (klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
> > > > > other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them)
> > > > 
> > > > I just did some asking around and those non-developer stakeholders
> > > > (who are apparently a majority of our total set of stakeholders) say
> > > > that they disagree with your proposed changes.  Are you sure you
> > > > actually talked to all of them?
> > > > 
> > > > It is possible that there is some confusion - could you provide a list
> > > > of the names of these stakeholders who apparently constitute a
> > > > majority?  Gentoo devs apparently don't count for much (other than
> > > > doing all the work I suppose), but we can at least generate a list of
> > > > who they are...
> > > 
> > > Please don't derail the topic. If you want to discuss who are the
> > > specific stakeholders affected by the Gentoo Social Contract you are
> > > more than welcome to open a different thread, on gentoo-project.
> > > 
> > > I opened this thread to discuss proposals to fix the fact that with the
> > > permission change of the gentoo-dev mailing list ordered by the council,
> > > the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
> > > other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them) can't neither
> > > propose nor discuss changes to said contract through the official
> > > channels. If you have any input in that regard, I'll be more than happy
> > > to read it.
> > > 
> > 
> > Sounds to me that you've created an artificial problem to create
> > hostility within the community, and when somebody asks you to define
> > the problem more specifically, you refuse to answer.
> 
> Until now nobody has asked me to define the problem that I'm trying to
> address any better than I already did, all I have gotten have been
> attempts to hijack the thread.
> 
> I'll try to explain again the problem my propossals are trying to fix.
> Until gentoo-dev became restricted, all of the stakeholders of the

In order to define the problem properly, you have to use words whose
meaning is clear to everyone participating in the thread. In this case,
'stakeholder' is absolutely unclear to multiple people as they have
already pointed out.

dictionary.com says [1]:

| 1. the holder of the stakes of a wager.
| 2. a person or group that has an investment, share, or interest
| in something, as a business or industry.
| 3. Law. a person holding money or property to which two or more
| persons make rival claims.

I don't think any of these definitions can be applied to gentoo-dev
mailing list.

[1]:http://www.dictionary.com/browse/stakeholder?s=t


> Gentoo Social Contract had an official way to propose and discuss
> changes to it. As it is now impossible for some (I suspect the majority)
> of them to propose changes in the official way now. This is a problem
> because it basically restricts their ability to propose modifications
> (like you did using the, then, wrong list on 2017
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/e20bc1207eca0164fe942012cce9c543).
> 

As Ulrich has already expressed it, it was the correct list. Juding by
that, it seems that you have misdefined the problem. The only problem is
that apparently the SC listed the wrong ml for a few years now.

That said, the important question is why do you insist on such hostility
towards your fellow developers instead of attempting to peacefully look
into the problem together. If you did that, we would have helped you
define it correctly.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3510 bytes --]

Hi Michał,
El 27/03/18 a las 19:57, Michał Górny escribió:
> W dniu wto, 27.03.2018 o godzinie 11∶37 +0200, użytkownik Francisco Blas
> Izquierdo Riera (klondike) napisał:
>> Hi Michał,
>> El 27/03/18 a las 09:45, Michał Górny escribió:
>>> W dniu wto, 27.03.2018 o godzinie 01∶54 +0200, użytkownik Francisco Blas
>>> Izquierdo Riera (klondike) napisał:
>>>> Hi Rich!
>>>> El 27/03/18 a las 01:01, Rich Freeman escribió:
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
>>>>> (klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>> the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
>>>>>> other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them)
>>>>> I just did some asking around and those non-developer stakeholders
>>>>> (who are apparently a majority of our total set of stakeholders) say
>>>>> that they disagree with your proposed changes.  Are you sure you
>>>>> actually talked to all of them?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is possible that there is some confusion - could you provide a list
>>>>> of the names of these stakeholders who apparently constitute a
>>>>> majority?  Gentoo devs apparently don't count for much (other than
>>>>> doing all the work I suppose), but we can at least generate a list of
>>>>> who they are...
>>>> Please don't derail the topic. If you want to discuss who are the
>>>> specific stakeholders affected by the Gentoo Social Contract you are
>>>> more than welcome to open a different thread, on gentoo-project.
>>>>
>>>> I opened this thread to discuss proposals to fix the fact that with the
>>>> permission change of the gentoo-dev mailing list ordered by the council,
>>>> the majority of the stakeholders of the Gentoo Social Contract (anybody
>>>> other than Gentoo developers and those vouched by them) can't neither
>>>> propose nor discuss changes to said contract through the official
>>>> channels. If you have any input in that regard, I'll be more than happy
>>>> to read it.
>>>>
>>> Sounds to me that you've created an artificial problem to create
>>> hostility within the community, and when somebody asks you to define
>>> the problem more specifically, you refuse to answer.
>> Until now nobody has asked me to define the problem that I'm trying to
>> address any better than I already did, all I have gotten have been
>> attempts to hijack the thread.
>>
>> I'll try to explain again the problem my propossals are trying to fix.
>> Until gentoo-dev became restricted, all of the stakeholders of the
> In order to define the problem properly, you have to use words whose
> meaning is clear to everyone participating in the thread. In this case,
> 'stakeholder' is absolutely unclear to multiple people as they have
> already pointed out.
>
> dictionary.com says [1]:
>
> | 1. the holder of the stakes of a wager.
> | 2. a person or group that has an investment, share, or interest
> | in something, as a business or industry.
> | 3. Law. a person holding money or property to which two or more
> | persons make rival claims.
>
> I don't think any of these definitions can be applied to gentoo-dev
> mailing list.
>
> [1]:http://www.dictionary.com/browse/stakeholder?s=t

From the Merriam Webster dictionary
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stakeholder):
"one who is involved in or affected by a course of action"

In this particular case any of the members of the Gentoo Community who
are affected by the Gentoo Social Contract.

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4722 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 829 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Gregory Woodbury]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hi Michał,
> El 27/03/18 a las 19:57, Michał Górny escribió:
>
> From the Merriam Webster dictionary
> (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stakeholder):
> "one who is involved in or affected by a course of action"
>
> In this particular case any of the members of the Gentoo Community who are
> affected by the Gentoo Social Contract.
-------------------------------------------------------

 want to agree that the word "stakeholder" is an appropriate use in
this discussion.
Francisco points out the most common definition that is used in
general conversations
and email discussions.  Anyone using Gentoo has in interest in the
results of this discussion and
the potential results of any actions it prompts.  We/they are already
affected by the results
of the decision to limit the participation in the gentoo-dev list.

In terms of the extended discussions that are not being tossed around
in the general
flame wars as a result of this action, whoever is "in charge" of the
Social Contract
should, in my opinion, clean-up and correct the wording, and make it
more clearly
indicated as to where various sorts of discussions should be directed.

Personally, I am affected by the "closure" of the gentoo-dev list, in
that unless I make
a special effort to become "approved" to post or actively participate
there I can make
not contributions to the development processes for Gentoo. I certainly
understand WHY
the developers feel a need to cut down or out on the occurrence of
inappropriate whining
and flaming on the list -- it has been quite a distraction, and more
appropriately should
have been sent to gentoo-project.lis --.but I am just as disinclined
to go through the motions
required to get active access to gentoo-dev mailing list, as I am
disinclined to jump
through the hoops of becoming an "official" developer. It is, in my
opinion, just a
means for the core power structure to maintain its hold while facing a
decline in its
influence in the Linux ecosystem.

However, using technical constraining controls for something that is, in fact, a
social problem has historically been shown to not only be ineffective, but also
to be directly harmeful in most cases.  In this case I feel that
historical result from
many different projects are being forgotten, and Gentoo has doomed itself to
repeating history.

Despite the reinforcement of Gentoo's core power structure as being controlled
by a self-perpetuating and self-defined "developer" group, I will most
likely continue
to use Gentoo because it is still a distribution that offers the most
choice and personal
control, for the admin, of features and programs. Too many other
distributions have
traveled down the road of deciding that users are fools and have to be
forced into
doing thins "the right way" as defined by the architects of the
system.[Ultimate choice,
of course, can be obtained using a "Linux From Scratch" sort of approach, but
not everyone can do that AND keep up with updates, bug fixes, and
security fix-ups.]

Some may interpret what I write, and obviously think, as a 'hostile'
attitude, but that
is a projection. I feel no animosity to anyone involved. I just simply
don't care to deal
with the politics involved to become a 'certified' member. I have
better uses for my
time and efforts.

-- 
G.Wolfe Woodbury
redwolfe@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 559 bytes --]

On 03/28/2018 03:58 AM, Gregory Woodbury wrote:
> I can make not contributions to the development processes for
> Gentoo.

Sure you can; you can provide patches, bug reports, etc at
https://bugs.gentoo.org , work on the wiki pages, help answer questions
in forums and other support channels. Why would you think you can't
contribute by not posting (without being whitelisted) to a single
mailing list?

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Social Contract, Council: please fix the mess you cause

[Gregory Woodbury]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:46 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 03/28/2018 03:58 AM, Gregory Woodbury wrote:
>> I can make not contributions to the development processes for
>> Gentoo.
>
> Sure you can; you can provide patches, bug reports, etc at
> https://bugs.gentoo.org , work on the wiki pages, help answer questions
> in forums and other support channels. Why would you think you can't
> contribute by not posting (without being whitelisted) to a single
> mailing list?

Yes, I mispoke a bit. I already do all those things, so it is not a
matter of *can't*,
but more of a feeling that my contributions "aren't deemed good
enough" to be seen
in the gentoo-dev list, simply because I fail to perform some
arbitrary set of actions
that would grant me an imprimature.

I am old-fashioned in some ways, this is not what FOSS started out as in
the 1970s and 80s. That is NOT to say that all changes are bad, or that anything
else is no good; on the contrary, certain changes *had* to occur -- it
is just a matter
of opinion as to which are 'good', 'neutral', or 'bad.'  IMNSHO
applying such a drastic
measure as this tends towards the 'ill conceived' side of things.

Again, I emphasize, I will still use and contribute to Gentoo in the
ways I'm allowed
to, while still thinking that there are some systemic issues that
relate to the power
structures used by those running the project.

-- 
G.Wolfe Woodbury
redwolfe@gmail.com