[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-project
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-project] Fw: Your temporary 2 week suspension on interacting on the Gentoo Github page
From:       Paweł_Hajdan,_Jr. <phajdan.jr () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2017-05-17 15:26:55
Message-ID: 64c3b496-05bd-e65e-fc34-2a83b49f34c6 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/mixed)]


On 14/05/2017 16:29, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 14:56:03 +0200
> From: David Seifert <soap@gentoo.org>
> To: wlt-ml@o-sinc.com
> Cc: comrel@gentoo.org, infra@gentoo.org, github@gentoo.org
> Subject: Your temporary 2 week suspension on interacting on the Gentoo
> Github page
> 
> Dear William,
> 
> Gentoo's Github team has unanimously decided to prevent you from
> posting and/or interacting with most projects hosted on Gentoo's Github
> page for 2 weeks. This was done in response to your comment
> 
> https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/1721#issuecomment-300178677
> 
> which is not the place to post comments and recount how Gentoo Java is
> struggling with its staffing needs at the moment or historically. The
> Github page and review functionality are for code-centric feedback and
> technical discussions, not about Gentoo-meta issues or the like. We
> want to keep the Github page a friendly environment for all non-Gentoo
> contributors.

I'd like to share some thoughts on this (hopefully not making things
even worse):

1. William, posts like above
(<https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/1721#issuecomment-300178677>)
don't seem to help your case. GitHub could be one of the last few places
where Gentoo would be able to accept contributions from you as a
non-developer.

2. The ban is not permanent (yet?) - my understanding is it expires in
two weeks. This still gives you chance to positively contribute to
Gentoo. Based on the experience so far, I'd urge you to limit it to
uncontroversial technical matters, at least for some time.

3. I can understand the frustration of people involved. The PR did not
land in ~year, even though the ebuilds added were hard-masked. The risk
of landing it was minimal, and it could provide good basis for further
contributions. Let me know if I missed an important reason not to let it
land. Finding some way to un-block developments like these could be one
of more productive directions for this conversation.

Paweł


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]