| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Havin_it
Veteran
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 1247
Location: Edinburgh, UK
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I spent a good chunk of last night following links on this subject and trying to get a handle on what it was really about. I wouldn't say I succeeded completely, but I certainly came away with a very dim view of ciaranm. His defenders seem satisfied that he is a godlike genius with the most authoritative and non-blinkered worldview of Gentoo development. Maybe that's true, I don't know enough about his actual work record to comment on that; certainly some of the criticisms he's made of various projects/GWN reporting appear legitimate.
However: he invariably expresses this criticism in a manner that's needlessly rude and personal, and very often inappropriate to the public context (IRC, mailing lists) in which it's made. And he knows it. He's exceedingly skilled at sparking massive, snowballing rows that drag in lots of devs/devrel peeps and turning up the heat enough for them to bite, and make themselves look just as nasty and petty as him. (Incidentally, I don't dispute that some of them probably *are* that nasty and petty, but mostly they know how to keep it to themselves or at least keep the discussion clean -- until he shows up.)
Again, I can't say with authority whether he does this out of an Ahab-like ambition to see Gentoo succeed through forcing change, or whether he's really just an asshat who likes picking fights with weak targets to feed his ego. All I can say is that someone who commits so much effort to destroying people's morale, and who manifestly isn't interested in learning the good manners necessary to avoid these flare-ups, is a massive liability should be binned permanently.
Were he here, I imagine he would ask me to substantiate all of the above, point-by-point, until I too lost my cool. I can't be bothered: yes this is an opinion piece, but I think that anyone who read as much as I have on the subject would probably feel the same way. Cheers |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1118
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Paapaa wrote: | | AidanJT wrote: | | Paapaa wrote: | | I know C is sometimes an ass. But he starts arguments on technical reasons when he thinks someone is breaking things or doing stupid decisions. And he expresses himself quite harshly. DR started the argument just to get rid of another dev. And yet people here defend DR. That is just very, very odd. |
Fixed.. Ciaran isn't a Gentoo dev, which was his entire point. To establish his status. And furthermore, try to establish why a kicked out dev is still heavily influencing core Gentoo development. |
(Please don't quote my messages and edit the contents to suit your agenda.)
Just read dev list and you can find tons of polite posts from ciaranm where is discussing just like any other dev. Maybe he is inpolite more frequently than some other devs but definitely not always. If you make that claim I know 100% sure you haven't read the mailing lists enough and you are making quite biased comments on this matter.
And your "lap dog" name calling doesn't really help your case. Other devs defended ciaranm because in this case he did nothing wrong but was attacked by certain other devs/users.
I'm glad ciaranm is involved in PMS stuff as he is IMO one of the most capable person making it sane. |
I have no agenda, I highlighted the edit and added "Fixed" to my reply so people don't mistake the quote for what you said, I also don't leap on every semi-negative comment you (and others) make, I don't sit on any camp, I read enough of the ml to see one camp attacking a damn good dev, I also see Ciaran's name all around the last handful of devs that left, my "lapdogs" comment is regarding the furry-like amalgamation of individuals in prior mentioned camp around any non pro-Ciaran threads/blogs/whatever. Ciaran is pure poison to Gentoo, you just don't want to admit it. I'm not disputing his technical abilities, but his interpersonal skills are non-existent and flames anyone who doesn't agree with him (with the help of his cums) which is why he was kicked out of his position as a Gentoo dev in the first place.
Anyway, I'm done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psyqil
Advocate
Joined: 26 May 2003
Posts: 2767
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AidanJT wrote: | | Anyway, I'm done. |
That would be nice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1118
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| psyqil wrote: | | AidanJT wrote: | | Anyway, I'm done. |
That would be nice. |
Oh I'm sorry, because I don't bow down to Ciaran's feet I'm not entitled to express my views?
Anyway, nice to see you're so eager to follow in his footsteps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psyqil
Advocate
Joined: 26 May 2003
Posts: 2767
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AidanJT wrote: | | Oh I'm sorry, because I don't bow down to Ciaran's feet I'm not entitled to express my views? |
Of course you are. I just think it would be nice if you were finally done expressing your views, for you've been doing it for quite some time now, don't you think? After all, your views are just that: your views, and your urge to have the last word makes you as annoying as those who you call "lap dogs", which I think is a pathetic way of arguing and hopefully in violation of the newly to be established CoC, making your "footstep" remark a little ironic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bugg_tb
Apprentice
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 282
Location: Leeds, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can't we all just answer some peoples posts who actually have a valid question/point/problem that needs addressing instead of handbags at 10 paces in here??
_________________
Remember, even at a Mensa convention someone is the dumbest person in the room! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
madisonicus
Veteran
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 1130
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tabanus wrote: | | Can't we start a fund to take the developers out paintballing or something? |
See the Adopt-a-Dev project.
_________________
Please add [SOLVED] to your message title if you feel that your question has been answered.
------
Intel Q9300 Core2 Quad * Gigabyte GA-EP35C-DS3R
Samsung x360
AMD64 x2 4200+ * TF7050-M2 * HTPC
ZOTAC ION A-U Mini-ITX * HTPC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| madisonicus wrote: | | tabanus wrote: | | Can't we start a fund to take the developers out paintballing or something? |
See the Adopt-a-Dev project. |
problem with that is for a very long time noone looked after it. I contacted that with a load of PC parts and heard nothing, had to go direct to a dev
but Paintball > PC parts
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bad Penguin
Guru
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 507
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mudrii wrote: | | Bad Penguin wrote: | | mark_alec wrote: | | Bad Penguin wrote: | | Along that line of thought, can you tell me what official gentoo "alternative package managers" are being developed that need this spec? |
* http://paludis.pioto.org
* http://pkgcore.org
Are both alternative package managers that could benefit will benefit from a PMS, as will portage. |
Those are gentoo projects? |
Noup.
Do not become religious Competition is good and I will go for better package Management as long as stable and useful.
|
PMS exists for one and only one reason, to make paladius/pkgcore possible, neither of which are gentoo blessed projects. Obviously no current or past gentoo developer has been motivated to do PMS for Gentoo itself. In my opinion DR saw things clearly, PMS is little more than an end run around something a majority of gentoo developers don't want to do - re-implement the package manager. From what I can gather PMS is holding up work being done by other developers.
Which goes back to my original point. Portage has terrible flaws, one camp wants to nickle and dime the problems to death by committee, another camp just wants to do something about it. There is no cohesion overall, no common purpose, just petty bickering and end runs.
Someone needs to contact ESR and let him know his Bazaar theory isn't working out so great. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Genone
Retired Dev
Joined: 14 Mar 2003
Posts: 9545
Location: beyond the rim
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Think4UrS11 wrote: | | Genone wrote: | | And the current draft has some major flaws that need to be adressed. |
Those majors are? |
Definition of "we" and definition of scope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conan
Guru
Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bad Penguin wrote: | | mudrii wrote: | | Bad Penguin wrote: | | mark_alec wrote: | | Bad Penguin wrote: | | Along that line of thought, can you tell me what official gentoo "alternative package managers" are being developed that need this spec? |
* http://paludis.pioto.org
* http://pkgcore.org
Are both alternative package managers that could benefit will benefit from a PMS, as will portage. |
Those are gentoo projects? |
Noup.
Do not become religious Competition is good and I will go for better package Management as long as stable and useful.
|
PMS exists for one and only one reason, to make paladius/pkgcore possible, neither of which are gentoo blessed projects. Obviously no current or past gentoo developer has been motivated to do PMS for Gentoo itself. In my opinion DR saw things clearly, PMS is little more than an end run around something a majority of gentoo developers don't want to do - re-implement the package manager. From what I can gather PMS is holding up work being done by other developers.
Which goes back to my original point. Portage has terrible flaws, one camp wants to nickle and dime the problems to death by committee, another camp just wants to do something about it. There is no cohesion overall, no common purpose, just petty bickering and end runs.
Someone needs to contact ESR and let him know his Bazaar theory isn't working out so great. |
Man, its a good thing no one listens to what you are saying.
One of the primary reasons for PMS is to document EAPI--That is, what can be used in the tree. There are a number of features of portage that have been in portage for a few releases now that cannot be used in the main tree due to EAPI--older versions of portage cannot handle them. Before bumping eapi to 1, it makes sense to document what EAPI=0 is. This is what PMS does. As a side effect, any other program that implements EAPI=current can be considdered a viable alternative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Genone
Retired Dev
Joined: 14 Mar 2003
Posts: 9545
Location: beyond the rim
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bad Penguin wrote: | | PMS exists for one and only one reason, to make paladius/pkgcore possible, neither of which are gentoo blessed projects. |
Wrong. It's important to define what features and behavior portage has to provide so we (portage devs) know what can be changed and what must stay as is. It's also important for ebuild devs to know what features of portage they can rely on and what might only work by accident. Some breakages in the past were caused because people had to guess if certain behavior was a feature or a bug.
| Quote: | | Obviously no current or past gentoo developer has been motivated to do PMS for Gentoo itself. |
Well, I had plans to work on this subject, I just didn't have sufficient time. And that was long before spb started with it (parts of what I wrote as a start ended up as portage(5)).
| Quote: | | From what I can gather PMS is holding up work being done by other developers. |
Such as? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hypnos
Advocate
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 2889
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bad Penguin wrote: | | Someone needs to contact ESR and let him know his Bazaar theory isn't working out so great. |
It works fine if there are well-understood, attractive design concepts so that the infrastructure can be kept modular. Two things complicate this in the Gentoo world. First, Gentoo's main component is the tree of ebuilds which heretofore have not adhered to an explicit specification, so it's painful to start from scratch, yet even more painful to "nickel-and-dime" over the long haul. Second, you need leaders who can look at the product globally and can endorse good design decisions and implementations, in an easygoing style supported by technical competence; ESR discusses this.
The current Gentoo situation appears to be a mass of developers either working on their pet projects, or trying to shove drastic change down the throats of everyone else, and no one is happy.
_________________
Personal overlay | Simple backup scheme |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
think4urs11
Bodhisattva
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 6659
Location: above the cloud
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Genone wrote: | | Think4UrS11 wrote: | | Genone wrote: | | And the current draft has some major flaws that need to be adressed. |
Those majors are? |
Definition of "we" and definition of scope. |
'we' seems to be written from a dev/userrel point of view so it should be ok as it 'covers them all', don't you think so?
Anyhow what is stated in the COC is basically nothing which can't be demanded from anyone, both users and developers, more or less a basic level of social behaviour in interaction between each other, thats all.
Yes, both (some) users and (some) developers show a lack of this at (some) times - one more reason for every one of us to act more 'COC-aware'; it'll be benefical for each individual as for the whole project.
_________________
Nothing is secure / Security is always a trade-off with usability / Do not assume anything / Trust no-one, nothing / Paranoia is your friend / Think for yourself |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Genone
Retired Dev
Joined: 14 Mar 2003
Posts: 9545
Location: beyond the rim
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Think4UrS11 wrote: | | Genone wrote: | | Think4UrS11 wrote: | | Genone wrote: | | And the current draft has some major flaws that need to be adressed. |
Those majors are? |
Definition of "we" and definition of scope. |
'we' seems to be written from a dev/userrel point of view so it should be ok as it 'covers them all', don't you think so? |
Well, it has been explicitly said on gentoo-dev that the CoC would not fall under devrel and/or userrel but a new group. And with just the standalone draft "we" could also be read as "Gentoo", "the community", infra or any other random group.
| Quote: | Anyhow what is stated in the COC is basically nothing which can't be demanded from anyone, both users and developers, more or less a basic level of social behaviour in interaction between each other, thats all.
Yes, both (some) users and (some) developers show a lack of this at (some) times - one more reason for every one of us to act more 'COC-aware'; it'll be benefical for each individual as for the whole project. |
As said, I don't have a problem with the idea of the draft, just the current wording lacks several (IMO important) aspects and I don't like the plan to make this official policy within hours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudrii
l33t
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 789
Location: Singapore
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do not want to become sarcastic but all this CoC initiative is addresses > reminds me very much of USA PATRIOT Act after 911.
Is good to have a CoC but it should be thought with an strategy in mind not just as reaction to all that was happened recently and CoC in time could result in much worse consequence.
_________________
www.gentoo.ro |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
think4urs11
Bodhisattva
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 6659
Location: above the cloud
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Genone wrote: | | Well, it has been explicitly said on gentoo-dev that the CoC would not fall under devrel and/or userrel but a new group. |
Correct but from christels point of view 'we' is to be understood as 'all contributors ranging from users which answer questions in the forums up to the council members'. After all 'we' is meant to be understood similar to "Gentoo is ... from an outsiders point of view", we are as good/sane/polite as our weakest publically visible part. So intention is to have all parts of the cake obeying to a basic level of social behaviour or take the consequences from their behaviour. The tricky part will be the acceptance from all insiders so to say. CoC will to some extend restrict each of us in terms of free speach or alike but unfortunatley it seems to be neccessary to have something written on paper instead of solely hoping on everyones common sense and social skills will do.
| Quote: | | As said, I don't have a problem with the idea of the draft, just the current wording lacks several (IMO important) aspects and I don't like the plan to make this official policy within hours. |
Agreed - otoh would a lengthy discussion change anything essential on the meaning of CoC? It'll be very tricky to find the right mix of people who'll take this task, thats for sure; those will have a hard time during the first weeks...
_________________
Nothing is secure / Security is always a trade-off with usability / Do not assume anything / Trust no-one, nothing / Paranoia is your friend / Think for yourself |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bad Penguin
Guru
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 507
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Genone wrote: | | Bad Penguin wrote: | | PMS exists for one and only one reason, to make paladius/pkgcore possible, neither of which are gentoo blessed projects. |
Wrong. It's important to define what features and behavior portage has to provide so we (portage devs) know what can be changed and what must stay as is. It's also important for ebuild devs to know what features of portage they can rely on and what might only work by accident. Some breakages in the past were caused because people had to guess if certain behavior was a feature or a bug. |
Well, considering the fact that nobody can even look at a draft, it is a bit difficult for me to say anything about what PMS really exists for. How a need for an internal EAPI spec evolved into a need for a distribution to come up with a package manager spec to allow third party package managers to be drop in replacements for the existing distribution package manager is a bit of a leap to me. I guess I will have to assume you are one of the selected few who has actually seen the draft work and take your word for it.
| Genone wrote: |
| Quote: | | From what I can gather PMS is holding up work being done by other developers. |
Such as? |
Well, how about this quote:
| Quote: |
I gain zero by wrecking the process. Time for another history
lesson...
Friendly reminder, the only reason EAPI=0 is even being possible is
because *I* added EAPI, against a fair bit of arguing at the time
also. Intention was for the format to evolve (add in bits stated in
the other email that couldn't be done without breaking things). None
of the real features folks have asked for can be added without EAPI=0
defined, thus *I* have an interest in it getting finished.
Yes, you may dislike the form EAPI took. Point is, kindly don't
claim I have anything to gain by blocking the process *I* started.
Prior to me pushing that through, folks were willy nilly making
changes (look at the .5x history if in doubt). I *do* want the damn
thing finished- would be nice to actually get out the mythical EAPI=1
sometime before I turn 30.
Really is that simple, long standing stuff I've worked on can't
progress without EAPI=N being possible.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bad Penguin
Guru
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 507
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hypnos wrote: | First, Gentoo's main component is the tree of ebuilds which heretofore have not adhered to an explicit specification, so it's painful to start from scratch, yet even more painful to "nickel-and-dime" over the long haul. Second, you need leaders who can look at the product globally and can endorse good design decisions and implementations, in an easygoing style supported by technical competence; ESR discusses this.
The current Gentoo situation appears to be a mass of developers either working on their pet projects, or trying to shove drastic change down the throats of everyone else, and no one is happy. |
Very nicely put  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
minskpower
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 94
Location: /dev/null
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bad Penguin wrote: | I guess I will have to assume you are one of the selected few who has actually seen the draft work and take your word for it.
|
If the selected few include the Council, would that be more ok or less ok for you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luqas
Guru
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 588
Location: /US/Texas/Beaumont
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bad Penguin wrote: | | Well, considering the fact that nobody can even look at a draft |
Who said no one can look at the draft? There are a developers that have been given access to the current draft. And from a user standpoint, why do we need to see it?
About the holding up other things, I think what they are talking about is the EAPI=1 version which I think deals with slots (don't quote me on that). If I remember correctly someone stated that EAPI=N would be easily inputed in the PMS (or EAPI=0). I think this is why someone requested a timeline (is that the correct phrase?) on the progress of it. Other than that, I have not seen anything the PMS is holding up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
depontius
Advocate
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 3509
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Think4UrS11 wrote: | | Genone wrote: | | And the current draft has some major flaws that need to be adressed. |
Those majors are? |
I just browsed the CoC draft, after seeing the pointer to it in Linux Today. I would suggest that an "Appeals Process" is missing, and to go along with that, a better definition of the "Banning Process." As printed in the draft, the former is missing and the latter undefined. For instance, is it possible to get banned by simply ruffling the wrong developer's/moderator's feathers?
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paapaa
l33t
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 955
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bad Penguin wrote: | | Well, considering the fact that nobody can even look at a draft, it is a bit difficult for me to say anything about what PMS really exists for. |
You could ask Stephen Bennet to see the PMS draft. But I'm sure you'll see it eventually and you'll be able to comment on it. This is what he wrote:
| Quote: | Gentoo, and any other parties, will have ample opportunity for input
long before it gets finalised. Right now, though, soliciting comments
from all and sundry will be more distracting than productive. We know
it's currently incomplete and full of holes; we don't need to be told
it. |
You know the drill: it'll be ready when it's ready... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
think4urs11
Bodhisattva
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 6659
Location: above the cloud
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| depontius wrote: | | is it possible to get banned by simply ruffling the wrong developer's/moderator's feathers? |
| Code of conduct - consequences wrote: | | Any action of this sort will require consensus from at least three proctors |
_________________
Nothing is secure / Security is always a trade-off with usability / Do not assume anything / Trust no-one, nothing / Paranoia is your friend / Think for yourself |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bad Penguin
Guru
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 507
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| minskpower wrote: | | Bad Penguin wrote: | I guess I will have to assume you are one of the selected few who has actually seen the draft work and take your word for it.
|
If the selected few include the Council, would that be more ok or less ok for you? |
Frankly, in my opinion, the council should be the last body to deal with it. They are the ones who are supposed to remain out of the fray, look at things in a more global context, and be an "appeal court". Kind of hard to do when they are actually in the middle of the fray. If the council was doing their job, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
If it is a gentoo project, hosted on gentoo infrastructure, it should be public, transparent, and open. That is not to say every Tom, Dick, and Harriet should have actual input, but they should at least be able to view and discuss the project without having to ask anyone. If anyone should have unhindered access it should be the developers who actually write ebuilds day in and day out and have commit access to the tree, the gentoo "developers".
Of course, as a previous user of gentoo, and someone who would like to go back to using gentoo, I would rather see the council do something like address the need for users to be able to have a stable installation of gentoo and make that happen. The incessant bickering is even more of slap to the face of users when people would rather waste time arguing pointless semantics when much more important issues have gone unaddressed for years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
