I tried to ask jeeves for !herd amd64, and !herd x86 and the only thing I was told by solar is that the bot is set to ignore me. jeeves is a Gentoo network service. solar refuses to answer me or discuss why I'm banned. As such my only recourse is to let devrel do what it does to mediate why this situation came about. I've included context that shows that jeeves is functioning, just ignoring me. Cardoe> !herd amd64 <Cardoe> !herd x86 <Cardoe> I'm content with .22 <solar> the bot ignores you now. <dsd_> ok <Cardoe> solar: any particular reason? <solar> yep <Cardoe> care to enlighten me? <Cardoe> while I fire off my retirement e-mail to -dev * amir1641 (n=Miranda@80.238.134.134) has joined #gentoo-dev <Cardoe> This is absolutely ridiculous <drizztbsd> another one? :/ * amir1641 (n=Miranda@80.238.134.134) has left #gentoo-dev <Cardoe> solar: care to enlighten me? <kingtaco|work> drizztbsd, I don't think -foo-.bar.com is valid <drizztbsd> <label> ::= <letter> [ [ <ldh-str> ] <let-dig> ] <drizztbsd> rfc can do it <steev> spock: is there a version of fbdecon and uvesafb that works with 2.6.22? i could have sworn there used to be, but i can't seem to find anything in your archives anymore :( <kingtaco|work> drizztbsd, confirmed it works in windows <drizztbsd> it also works if i put the domain / ip in /etc/hosts <drizztbsd> drizzt@kirk ~ % tail -1 /etc/hosts <drizztbsd> 198.172.81.21 -digital-angel-.deviantart.com <drizztbsd> strange * zzam (n=zzam@gentoo/developer/zzam) has joined #gentoo-dev * ChanServ gives channel operator status to zzam <kingtaco|work> mdoty@piglet /usr/local/bin $ host -- -digital-angel-.deviantart.com <kingtaco|work> -digital-angel-.deviantart.com has address 198.172.81.21 <kingtaco|work> it's choking on the leading - <drizztbsd> - is for the options <drizztbsd> (getopt) <steev> !herd amd64 <jeeves> steev: (amd64) angelos, beandog, cardoe, chutzpah, cryos, dang, drac, hparker, kingtaco, metalgod, philantrop, rbu, tester, tomk, trapni, welp, wltjr, wolf31o2 ...snip 4 minutes... <Cardoe> !herd amd64 <kingtaco|work> same here <kingtaco|work> (amd64) <drizztbsd> yes
Unrestricting. Solar, comment?
<solar> Cardoe: thats quite funny. I needed a good afternoon laugh. thanks ...snip... <Cardoe> solar: I simply want an answer as to why you set jeeves to ignore me.
(In reply to comment #1) > Unrestricting. Solar, comment? I can confirm that the bot does indeed ignore him.
I was a bit more interested in hearing or seeing some kind of context for this, umm? Cardoe, tomorrow (the 7th) at your convenience (within reason) please.
Ferris, I don't understand what you're asking of me? Either way, I'm simply looking for some reason as to why solar deemed he should ban me from using jeeves. Like I said, I thought jeeves was a shared Gentoo resource and any one developer can't be the master and commander. The only idea I have as to why he decided to ban me is because I joined ulm in being critical of solar's decision to ban users based on what they said in any channels that jeeves was op'd in. Rather then deferring to the channel operators to make that decision. While I wasn't around for the banning, as ulm described it, it was a user quoting Pulp Fiction. While it was using offensive language, it was tolerated by the channel operators and the community in that channel. Yet jeeves banned the user and required solar to come along to actually unban. I was critical of that method and steps. There were others critical of this setup in #gentoo-dev at the time however I can not recall who they were, it'd be interesting to see if jeeves has them all banned. Since this is the only occasion that I can ever recall solar and I being in disagreement. In fact most of the time I'm supportive of solar and like a lot of the work and changes he proposes and even applaud him on my blog. So its truly a shocker to me that he set jeeves to ignore me and refuses to speak to me about it.
Thanks cardoe for CCing me. I was present at the time of the original "incident" in #gentoo-lisp, so here are some more facts. Jeeves' reaction was triggered by someone citing the following line from Pulp Fiction (and I can confirm that it was in no way meant no be offensive): "You ain't got no problem, Jules. I'm on the motherfucker. Go back in there, chill them niggers out and wait for the Wolf, who should be coming directly." For some reason unknown to me, jeeves had channel operator status at the time, and banned (but did not kick) the person citing above-mentioned sentences. The issue in #-lisp could then be settled by the developers present there at the time, AFAIK without intervention from solar. Jeeves is now deoped in #-lisp, and as far as this channel is concerned the problem should be solved (at least in my opinion).
(In reply to comment #5) > Ferris, I don't understand what you're asking of me? Sorry for confusion. All I meant was that I want to talk with you briefly (today, now) to fill in some background on this. There has to be more to this than just solar's modifying jeeves to ignore you. I'm not asking anything of you except to help me fit into your schedule.
(In reply to comment #6) > For some reason unknown to me, jeeves had channel operator status at the time, > and banned (but did not kick) the person citing above-mentioned sentences. After reading this comment I thought this was an oversight and that jeeves should indeed kick as well. So I was going to go fix jeeves so that it would actually kick in addition to setting of the ban of the racial offender. Then I noticed that the way the code was written that it does not ban at all.. It would +q a user. As stated to ulm already. It's unfortunate that $nick got silenced. But thats just how the bot behaves when it's an +o in a channel. It's unable to understand the context of the word. If it was a quote or otherwise. And that it would be best for the offender to chalk it up to a lesson learned. --- proc pub:badword { nick uhost hand chan arg } { putserv "PRIVMSG $chan :${nick}: show some respect" putserv "MODE $chan +q $nick" } --- I'm not exactly sure why Cardoe felt the need to CC: you here however. His speculation of trying to tie these separate events together are incorrect however. Perhaps he is trying to build a case in which he thinks he can force me to explain myself to him on his terms and not mine.
Why would the bot ignore me? I've never used any language. The user ulm talked about was not me it was someone completely unknown to me. Please provide some logs showing what I did to trigger jeeves to ignore me.
(In reply to comment #9) > Why would the bot ignore me? I've never used any language. The user ulm talked > about was not me it was someone completely unknown to me. > > Please provide some logs showing what I did to trigger jeeves to ignore me. > Solar, yes, please. Please help me out here, either on the bug or in private. I'd like to get this resolved, or at least know what is going on.
(In reply to comment #8) > > For some reason unknown to me, jeeves had channel operator status at the > > time, and banned (but did not kick) the person citing above-mentioned > > sentences. > Then I noticed that the way the code was written that it does not ban at all.. > It would +q a user. You are right, the ban was on %user not on user. Sorry for the confusion.
So, umm... where's the abusive behavior? I haven't seen one insult, bash, flame, or anything else abusive from either direction and am now curious what people are considering "abusive" these days. Here I thought you had to start using a bunch of 4 letter words or talking about someone's mother. ;P
Solar, just explain why you set jeeves to ignore Cardoe, please. There is no reason to be shy about it, unless you're childishly abusing your power in administrating jeeves, which I'm sure is not the case. So, out with it, quit wasting devrel's time. Chris, the abusive behavior would be withholding developer resources without explanation. Pretty simple really. As jeeves self-indentifies as the Official Gentoo Butler and also acts in that capacity I say that jeeves is a developer resource and not merely a personal bot that happens to do some handy stuff. I hope I didn't preempt your counterargument here. If solar cannot be trusted to separate his administrative powers from any personal issues than he should not be having those powers. Abuse of power ranks much higher on my abusement scale than petty namecalling does every day of the week and I hate namecalling.
I just checked http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/ and do not see you listed as a member of developer relations with whom Cardoe filed this ticket. So if you don't mind. I'd just assume let them declare what information they want that I've not already given them. If any member of devrel feels I've violated any policy or feels I'm being abusive in any such way at all please contact me directly and I will work with you to clear up any misunderstandings you may have.
To clear up some confusion, I am a member of devrel, I am working this bug, and at the moment I do not need any further information from anyone. To cut off questions or speculation, I'll note that any conversations I may have had with anyone are necessarily not mine to share, so there's not much point asking about them. If this causes problems, feel free to beat up on me.
solar: I apologize for insulting jeeves. I will make every effort to not insult jeeves again. By insulting jeeves, it did not imply that I didn't want to use jeeves. You reference my comment being made on "Fri Nov 02 15:34:54 UTC 2007", however in my logs, Ferris' logs and steev's logs, I can't find that I said anything against jeeves on that day. I used jeeves for a query or two but that was it. I would sincerely like to know what I said against jeeves to prompt the use of an ignore so I can steer clear of such statements in the future.
(In reply to comment #16) > solar: I apologize for insulting jeeves. there we go young jedi.. ignore removed.
Solar thanks. Cardoe and solar, thank you both for your cooperation. This is over, and I'm closing.
Still no reason as to why it was set in the first place. I see tons of jeeves bashing in channels such as #gentoo-amd64-dev and this is the first case that anyone's been set to ignore by the bot. Especially since 3 people's logs didn't find a single statement made anywhere near the date/time you claim it was made. I consider this still opened until I can be shown what I did wrong.
(In reply to comment #19) > Still no reason as to why it was set in the first place. I see tons of jeeves > bashing in channels such as #gentoo-amd64-dev and this is the first case that > anyone's been set to ignore by the bot. Especially since 3 people's logs didn't > find a single statement made anywhere near the date/time you claim it was made. > > I consider this still opened until I can be shown what I did wrong. > Please do not. As solar suggests, there's no real violation here, and you are "whole" in that there are no restrictions. Anything further, please discuss with solar privately. I'm going to leave it closed, and do not want to get into a close/open cycle. Solar will talk with you, I am sure.
Sorry folks, I'm reopening this bug, because this personal bullshit becomes a favorite sport now... I got banned from using jeeves apparently as a result of the Bug 199498 solar, if you can't do any better than this childish behaviour, consider taking a break.
DevRel, is Jeeves "the official Gentoo butler" as it states itself, i. e. is it an official Gentoo asset or not? If it is, this is abuse and should be stopped. If it is not, it should be replaced with something official. Anyway, this childish powerplay is annoying.
(In reply to comment #22) > DevRel, is Jeeves "the official Gentoo butler" as it states itself, i. e. is it > an official Gentoo asset or not? If it is, this is abuse and should be stopped. > If it is not, it should be replaced with something official. Anyway, this > childish powerplay is annoying. > I do not believe that jeeves is official Gentoo, but that is better addressed to infrastructure I think. If official Gentoo things (well, like Bugzilla since this is where you are asking) depend on jeeves, then it seems to me that either (1) jeeves should conform to general Gentoo etiquette and policy (e.g., ban neither allow nor deny more individual access than Gentoo currently grants); or (2) jeeves should be replaced in official media as you suggest; or (3) Such reliance on jeeves should be removed. If jeeves is official Gentoo, then it seems to me that it should work like anything else (such as mailing lists, IRC, ...) in respect to individuals. I'll CC infra and jeeves on this for their comments. Devrel generally does not address the status of products.
You CC'd a bot? Has jeeves evolved to have it's own consciousness? solar is already on this bug...
I additionally opened another bug that jeeves should not have @gentoo/developer/jeeves mask on IRC since he's not an official Gentoo developer. He should have something more appropriate like @gentoo/bot/jeeves. However, solar has closed that bug as well and was told: FreeNode-#gentoo-dev.log:Nov 15 13:44:25 <solar> Cardoe: hrmm. are you attempting to pick a fight w/ me? If so thats not the best idea in the world.. I hope you realize if I retired on bad terms, gentoo would be without about half it's critical servers/services. If you would prefer however we can just start ignoring ya again.
(In reply to comment #25) > I additionally opened another bug that jeeves should not have > @gentoo/developer/jeeves mask on IRC since he's not an official Gentoo > developer. He should have something more appropriate like @gentoo/bot/jeeves. > However, solar has closed that bug as well and was told: > > FreeNode-#gentoo-dev.log:Nov 15 13:44:25 <solar> Cardoe: hrmm. are you > attempting to pick a fight w/ me? If so thats not the best idea in the world.. > I hope you realize if I retired on bad terms, gentoo would be without about > half it's critical servers/services. If you would prefer however we can just > start ignoring ya again. > OK, a couple things. On the mask, I'll defer to the people who give out masks, who, I believe, are so designated by Freenode staff. I CC'd jeves@ because that is a mail alias. Now, my comment #23 could probably have been harder to figure out, but I am not quite sure how. Let me try again: If jeeves is officially part of Gentoo, then incorrect or abusive behavior is a bug for infra. It would be their product and on them to fix it. (There is no ebuild for jeeves, for example, so it is not a product in that sense.) If bugs are critical, escalation path would (I think) be to council (I don't believe devrel can direct infra to fix something). If the behavior is abusive (like, at every use of jeeves, it adds on "And as for developer competence, fmccor comes in about last"), I believe devrel could ask infra to fix it or ask Council to direct infra to fix it. I do not think "abusive jeeves behavior" is an issue here, however (it's more a metter of neglect). If jeeves is *not* part of official Gentoo, then it is a tool which people find convenient. So, (1) To the extent parts of Gentoo rely on jeeves (devrel for who knows why, infra, releng, sparc because we can't function without weather information, ...), it is up to those individual projects to work with jeeves's owner(s) to keep jeeves working to their requirements. If this fails, it's almost certainly up to the projects to find alternatives. (2) For individuals, it seems to me that individuals have to work out how jeeves works with jeeves's owner(s), and if they don't get satisfaction, use some other tool. (If I provide a neat tool that you like except for ...., I might or might not respond to comments or criticism. But usually I am under no oblication.) (3) For individuals, if jeeves is generally abusive (as in my example above), then I suppose such abuse is the same as abuse would be from jeeves's owners. Again, as far as I can tell, this possibility is just hypothetical.
(In reply to comment #26) > infra, releng, sparc because we can't function without weather information, Jeeves doesn't do weather.
My original complaint stemmed from me being banned from using jeeves because of something that solar said I had said at an exact date and time. 4 people (including myself) have looked at logs and couldn't find me saying anything around that specific timeframe. I asked solar why I was banned since the incident in question was completely false and he just said I was trying to stir old stuff up and wouldn't answer my question. My issue is that solar feels like he can do what he wants when he wants because his organization provides Gentoo's infra with a bunch of services and that he's an "older" developer. It's this attitude that's abusive and not conducive with Gentoo's policies and a productive development environment.
this has got to be the most retarded devrel bug I've yet to see. The problem has been resolved, yet you continue to make noise. keep infra off this, it just spam.
(In reply to comment #25) > I additionally opened another bug that jeeves should not have > @gentoo/developer/jeeves mask on IRC since he's not an official Gentoo > developer. He should have something more appropriate like @gentoo/bot/jeeves. > However, solar has closed that bug as well and was told: As explained in that bug.. It seems logical but only freenode staff can change that. (In reply to comment #28) > My original complaint stemmed from me being banned from using jeeves > because of something that solar said I had said at an exact date and time. That timestamp was when the ban was placed and is not an exact timestamp of the misbehavior. ---- And for the rest of the world. I wrote all the functionality of the bot. I provide the hardware that the bot runs from. I admin the bot. So if you find yourself ignore by the bot then chances are it was for acting like a dick. Being that I can't outright ban you from freenode this is the only thing I can do to help make sure you spend more time off IRC. Don't like it? Easy to solve. Just don't be an unnecessary dick and wait till the ignore expires.. Still don't like it? fine. Use another tool and put me and jeeves on /ignore.
(In reply to comment #21) > Sorry folks, I'm reopening this bug, because this personal bullshit becomes a > favorite sport now... I got banned from using jeeves apparently as a result of > the Bug 199498 > > solar, if you can't do any better than this childish behaviour, > consider taking a break. Re: Bug 199498 Lets put it in context.. I file a bug directly for a developer which is not you in any shape or form. You marked it as a dupe. It's not a dupe of anything and I ask you to not worry yourself about it. You disregard my request and do it again. At that point I feel you are abusing the bugzilla system and debate null routing your IP addresses. infra advises me to not do so.. Full thing in context is here.. http://linbsd.net/~solar/jakub-being-a-dick.txt
The jeeves mail alias is strictly for bugzilla. Thats an active effort by infra to replace jakub with a shell script so we no longer require his services at gentoo.
(In reply to comment #32) > replace jakub with a shell script so we no longer require his services at > gentoo. Oh, great idea... good luck. Since your bot now has feelings and gets offended, and gets CCed on bugs, you are on a good way. Just a couple of years more and it's ready. > Lets put it in context.. I file a bug directly for a developer which is not you > in any shape or form. You marked it as a dupe. It's not a dupe of anything and > I ask you to not worry yourself about it. You disregard my request and do it > again. At that point I feel you are abusing the bugzilla system and debate > null > routing your IP addresses. infra advises me to not do so.. > > Full thing in context is here.. > http://linbsd.net/~solar/jakub-being-a-dick.txt > Yeah, I'm being a dick because you love to waste other people's time with utterly pointless requests to reinstate stuff that - depends on a toolkit dead and unmaintained upstream for over 6 years - you assign said bug to a developer that actually removed the package due to the tons of bugs and lack of maintenance both upstream and in Gentoo - most people would call this trolling and flamebait at least... - you insist on pushing your sick taste jokes through despite being repeatedly asked to stop filing similar stupid bugs without addressing any of the issues at hand - and finally you go and ban me from your bot and tell me that I behave as a dick... Well, the above obviously rocks. Also, blackmailing Gentoo that you'll break our toys if you retire on 'bad terms', that if noone loves you're gonna break our toys, and running to moan to devrel because someone dares to disagree with you, oh that oh so much rocks and is so mature that everyone has to understand that. Really, go have a break and stop wasting our time with your childish personal agenda, it's beyond ridiculous. :-((
devrel add me back to the CC: when I've done something for real.
*sigh* Adding Trustees since this insistence on trying to force someone to do something with his own personal resources very likely might lose us a sponsor. Look, I really don't give a damn what any of you think. As soon as you start threatening the continued viability of Gentoo to host itself with our sponsors, you start getting well out of the realm of inter-developer communications and into the realm of the Gentoo Foundation and its partners. I'm sorry, but I am siding with our partners, any day. After all, they donate literally thousands of dollars a month in power and bandwidth to Gentoo for nothing. Now we have some people out there not only looking this gift horse in the mouth, but also potentially causing conflict and trouble with this sponsor. So, until you pony up the bill... Let me say this really simply. As I see it, solar can do whatever the hell he wants with his bot so long as he is not causing it to violate Gentoo policy. The bot ignoring you isn't offensive or abusive, nor do I see anything in policy anywhere which would apply. It is solar's bot. Once you start coding and hosting a bot for Gentoo, you can make it do what you like, too. Since someone mentioned weather, you'll notice that Andrew Gaffney did exactly this for his channel (gibot on #gentoo-installer) and was *asked* by several people/groups/teams to bring his bot into certain channels due to its functionality. The sparc team enjoys his weather reports and forecasts. You enjoy jeeves' functions. Developer Relations has already determined in comment #20 that there was no violation in the ignore behavior. Sure, it might be underhanded. Sure, it might not be in the spirit of teamwork and cooperation. It is, however, solar's bot/resource and something you'll need to work out with him. (Adding Trustees to CC as this could potentially get out of control...)
To make it very clear: If you use gentoo infrastructure to harass other people, you will lose the privilege of using gentoo infrastructure. I have to add infra back to this bug to make sure this gets resolved. confres- I'm very disappointed this has gone on as long as it has. Please take the appropriate measures to prevent this from degrading relations any further.
(In reply to comment #36) > confres- I'm very disappointed this has gone on as long as it has. Please > take the appropriate measures to prevent this from degrading relations any > further. Uhm... I'm kinda confused by the last two comments. So, wrt my yesterday's conversation w/ fmccor (which you are well aware of) I'm seriously afraid that the ball is in infra's court, and not conflict resolution/devrel one. I'd prefer to keep the details out of this bug for now, but am afraid it won't be really possible for much longer if things are heading the way Comment #35 suggests. :/
Well, devrel isn't trying to force anyone to use personal resources for anything, as previously stated and explained in Comment 26; the question was to what extent jeeves is "official" and that has been answered. I haven't closed the bug until now because of a possibility that being ignored by jeeves might have side effects in use of Bugzilla (reported by both of the people being banned). That was one reason I added infra-bugs in the first place, but I did not make it clear. As long as that is not the case, there is no valid complaint here, as noted previously. I do not consider using jeeves to "punish" developers to be in particularly good taste (or as Chris puts it in Comment 35), but as long as it is solar's, he doesn't make jeeves actually abusive, and there are no side effects like "caus[ing] it to violate Gentoo policy," I don't see anything for devrel to do. Now, that said, it's beyond me what the trustees care about a squabble between solar and a couple developers. They asked devrel to force solar to so something with jeeves, and once we all figured out jeeves's status, we declined the invitation to act. Of course we are going to have people trying to force others to do something with their private resources. In some cases, like this one, in part this will come about because it's not clear what's private and what's official (jeeves is so well integrated into our IRC lives that it looks official, and that is a question for solar along with infra to answer. It's not a question for devrel). Neither devrel nor infra nor trustees nor anyone else can stop our developers or users from insisting on things. That doesn't mean they will get what they want, and I suspect our sponsors are well aware of that. All, please leave the bug closed. If forced, we can lock the bug, but I'd prefer not to do that. Since the argument here is how a tool from solar is treating you, best is that you discuss the matter with solar. Adding solar just for information purposes; not because of any violation.
(In reply to comment #35) > Look, I really don't give a damn what any of you think. As soon as you start > threatening the continued viability of Gentoo to host itself with our sponsors, > you start getting well out of the realm of inter-developer communications and > into the realm of the Gentoo Foundation and its partners. I'm sorry, but I am > siding with our partners, any day. After all, they donate literally thousands > of dollars a month in power and bandwidth to Gentoo for nothing. Now we have > some people out there not only looking this gift horse in the mouth, but also > potentially causing conflict and trouble with this sponsor. So, until you pony > up the bill... With you still being a trustee, I'd assume you are familiar with the following document: http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/ Namely: <snip>Gentoo is independent Gentoo will never be reigned by a company nor be dictated by an organisation. </snip> Sorry, but your position is completely unacceptable to me, and actually something that directly contravenes the very basic principles that Gentoo's based on. And no, this bug is no longer about some IRC bot, unfortunately, as documented by Comment #25 and others.
(In reply to comment #37) urther. > > Uhm... I'm kinda confused by the last two comments. So, wrt my yesterday's > conversation w/ fmccor (which you are well aware of) I'm seriously afraid that > the ball is in infra's court, and not conflict resolution/devrel one. @jakub Actually the ball has always been on your court, you've just ignored the warnings from everyone. And now you have suggested that infra in general is out to get you. I really don't appreciate this FUD being spread around because you feel like you're the only person that's always right. The intent with that statement is as follows: If you harass any user/developer/bot in any way shape or form that happens within our infrastructure, we will disable the access to said resource for a certain amount of time. Our infrastructure has been donated by many special people and our sponsors aren't willing to tolerate anymore abuse that happens on them (they have communicated that with us recently). So either you get into line, or we start losing hardware. Would you like to be known as the developer who made Gentoo lose 70% of the hardware? If we start losing hardware, I have to do something to protect our hardware/project so our next step is to disable the access of the person until the matter gets resolved in a more "fair" setting. So, consider this your last warning from infra to shape up and use respect to ALL developers, users, etc. I will not tolerate anymore embarrassment from our sponsors over this. Thanks- -Lance
OK, so let's make things clear here because this really is getting beyond ridiculous - I'm not gonna sit here silent and stare like an idiot when solar (or any other infra member) threatens me like this, ad I'm not gonna shut up when solar, or any other member of infra, abuses his position to ban me from using official Gentoo resources (such as banning me from Gentoo bugzilla yesterday) just because he's got some childish personal agenda with me, or because I've allegedly insulted his collection of bytes a.k.a. jeeves. This is plain unacceptable behavior.
(In reply to comment #40) > (In reply to comment #37) > urther. > > > > Uhm... I'm kinda confused by the last two comments. So, wrt my yesterday's > > conversation w/ fmccor (which you are well aware of) I'm seriously afraid that > > the ball is in infra's court, and not conflict resolution/devrel one. > > @jakub > > Actually the ball has always been on your court, you've just ignored the > warnings from everyone. And now you have suggested that infra in general is out > to get you. I really don't appreciate this FUD being spread around because you > feel like you're the only person that's always right. > > The intent with that statement is as follows: If you harass any > user/developer/bot in any way shape or form that happens within our > infrastructure, we will disable the access to said resource for a certain > amount of time. > Take care here, please. The statement about "harassing a bot" is just silly, or are you making a special case for jakub? So far as I know, he hasn't been harassing bots. If you are saying that infra is going to take it upon itself to determine if jakub is harassing someone, I believe that is not really your call. At least, not unilaterally. Several people have been intemperate at times on this bug. You know that, of course. I don't see that anyone is harassing anyone else on this bug. I don't see any possible interest trustees have in this bug. The only interest I see from infra is because I raised on it the possibility that putting on ignore by jeeves might have unintended consequences. As of now, the bug is closed, and jakub at least does not intend to reopen it. The bug was quiet, in fact, until Comment 35 brought it back to life after 3 days' rest. I had kept it open for reasons I have tried to explain. Apparently, not very clearly. > Our infrastructure has been donated by many special people and our sponsors > aren't willing to tolerate anymore abuse that happens on them (they have > communicated that with us recently). So either you get into line, or we start > losing hardware. Would you like to be known as the developer who made Gentoo > lose 70% of the hardware? If we start losing hardware, I have to do something > to protect our hardware/project so our next step is to disable the access of > the person until the matter gets resolved in a more "fair" setting. > > So, consider this your last warning from infra to shape up and use respect to > ALL developers, users, etc. I will not tolerate anymore embarrassment from our > sponsors over this. > > Thanks- > > -Lance >
(In reply to comment #41) > OK, so let's make things clear here because this really is getting beyond > ridiculous - I'm not gonna sit here silent and stare like an idiot when solar > (or any other infra member) threatens me like this, ad I'm not gonna shut up > when solar, or any other member of infra, abuses his position to ban me from > using official Gentoo resources (such as banning me from Gentoo bugzilla > yesterday) just because he's got some childish personal agenda with me, or > because I've allegedly insulted his collection of bytes a.k.a. jeeves. How dare you accuse me of something I did not do? I've yet to remove/disable you from anything other than jeeves so please stick to the facts.
(In reply to comment #43) > (In reply to comment #41) > > OK, so let's make things clear here because this really is getting beyond > > ridiculous - I'm not gonna sit here silent and stare like an idiot when solar > > (or any other infra member) threatens me like this, ad I'm not gonna shut up > > when solar, or any other member of infra, abuses his position to ban me from > > using official Gentoo resources (such as banning me from Gentoo bugzilla > > yesterday) just because he's got some childish personal agenda with me, or > > because I've allegedly insulted his collection of bytes a.k.a. jeeves. > > How dare you accuse me of something I did not do? I've yet to remove/disable > you from anything other than jeeves so please stick to the facts. > This is my fault, and I regret it. Both Cardoe and Jakub saw unusual behavior from Bugzilla after the jeves-ignore, and I passed the possibility of unintended consequences to infra. I hope I never gave anyone the impression that this was intentional, nor that there was a cause/effect repationship. I meant only to indicate that I was watching, because if there was a problem, it was infra's. So far as I know, it was all coincidence, and even if not, certainly unintentional.
(In reply to comment #43) > How dare you accuse me of something I did not do? I've yet to remove/disable > you from anything other than jeeves so please stick to the facts. I'd suggest that you talk to kingtaco and other infra members and go sort it out yourself and make sure similar accident never happens again. I don't have a root access, so I couldn't have banned myself on the firewall obviously. Not my problem, infra's one. And while at it, all I got to was some 'side-effect' claims of the jeeves ban. I find it completely unacceptable for an unofficial bot to mess with official infrastructure. So, either the bot is unofficial, and then you'd better keep its 'hands' way off our servers configuration, or it's official, and then you should stop using your personal agenda as an excuse for banning anyone from it. So, which case is this? Can we get the answer finally?
(In reply to comment #42) > I don't see that anyone is harassing anyone else on this bug. I don't see any > possible interest trustees have in this bug. The only interest I see from > infra is because I raised on it the possibility that putting on ignore by > jeeves might have unintended consequences. The Trustees have no interest in inter-developer issues. This was being watched only because it appeared that it would escalate beyond an inter-developer issue and into an issue involving our sponsors. I am now removing trustees from CC. > As of now, the bug is closed, and jakub at least does not intend to reopen it. > The bug was quiet, in fact, until Comment 35 brought it back to life after 3 > days' rest. I had kept it open for reasons I have tried to explain. I was unaware of why the issue was still open as it was not clear. At any rate, it looks like it is taken care of, as far as Gentoo/sponsors are concerned.
I regret causing misunderstandings on what was going on here. Right now, the bug is closed and quiet. Please keep it that way. I can restrict it, but prefer not to. If you feel the need to beat up on me, take it private please.
My apologies to everyone for commenting on this bug again, but I felt the need to post this comment after being in #gentoo-releng this evening. Why? Well, it is rare that we see positivity in these bugs, so I just wanted to show something good. * solar likes turtles <wolf31o2> heh * Cardoe hugs solar <wolf31o2> aww It is good to see that people can have differences, even ones that require some third-party mediation, and still not hold a grudge or take things personally. Good job to both of you.
