The issue starts with a random user asking a channel operator (bonsaikitten) about what 'kdebuild' is. This is followed by two ops (bonsaikitten and Naib) responding with lies. The lie that motivated me to pursue the issue is this: ( 11:51 + Naib ) he even tried to use the kde team as justification for its existance, only for the kde team lead to say "its out" The truth is that kdebuild-1 was created by the initiative of myself, Ingmar and Philantrop who were the most active part of the kde team at the time. Philantrop was then retired over night and never given a real explanation and Ingmar and myself retired a few months later because of that. The new kde team that has formed after our departure don't like it but that doesn't change the fact that the kde team at the time took the initiative and did the work to use it. ( 11:59 +bonsaikitte ) kdebuild-1 has been explicitly removed, banned, burned out of PMS This too is an outright lie as can be easily verified by looking at the history of the pms.git repository. kdebuild-1 is a part of PMS that can be optionally disabled. At a council meeting ages ago it was decided that kdebuild-1 hasn't been approved by the council but it was never removed nor banned from PMS. dleverton (a user) then called them out on these lies and was banned for that. I later noticed and called them out on it only to be told to drop it or pm the channel owner (edit_21). I then had a long, fruitless conversation with edit_21 in which he basically told me to go away if I don't like ops abuse and lying ops. Logs of the relevant snippets from #gentoo-chat as well as my conversation with edit_21 will be attached. Now what I want to achieve with this bug is merely that 1) #gentoo-chat ops stop outright lying and then silencing people calling them out on it with bans. 2) That the channel owner of #gentoo-chat cares in the slightest about ops abuse in his channel.
Created attachment 186427 [details] relevant snippets from #gentoo-chat
Created attachment 186428 [details] My fruitless conversation with edit_21.
CC'ing Naib
CC'ingg bonsaikitten
(In reply to comment #0) > ( 11:59 +bonsaikitte ) kdebuild-1 has been explicitly removed, banned, burned > out of PMS > > This too is an outright lie as can be easily verified by looking at the history > of the pms.git repository. kdebuild-1 is a part of PMS that can be optionally > disabled. At a council meeting ages ago it was decided that kdebuild-1 hasn't > been approved by the council but it was never removed nor banned from PMS. Seeing I'm getting tired of the above argument and of people trying to twist reality, please check http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20080410.txt - even though the people behind PMS tried to shove it in, there was a clear decision by the council members that any non-approved EAPIs (approved by council) are not part of the official PMS. You may try to argue as much as you want about the history of the PMS repo, it doesn't matter. The official PMS is what is approved by council and not what the PMS authors do in their repo. If we get back to this argument again, it probably means we'll have to get back to the argument of why we have a document that is meant to be central to the future of Gentoo at the hands of external entities, which clearly are more interested in achieving their own goals than in reflecting Gentoo's decisions. I, for one, like the concept of PMS and would prefer to "fix it" (if required) than to simply throw it away.
cc
(In reply to comment #0) > The lie that motivated me to pursue the issue is this: > > ( 11:51 + Naib ) he even tried to use the kde team as justification for > its existance, only for the kde team lead to say "its out" > > The truth is that kdebuild-1 was created by the initiative of myself, Ingmar > and Philantrop who were the most active part of the kde team at the time. > Philantrop was then retired over night and never given a real explanation and > Ingmar and myself retired a few months later because of that. The new kde team > that has formed after our departure don't like it but that doesn't change the > fact that the kde team at the time took the initiative and did the work to use > it. Patrick's comment is that ciaranm justified the inclusion of kdebuild-1 in PMS because the KDE lead officially approved it and that the current KDE Lead (me) has already stated that it is no longer officialy approved by the current KDE team. Your argument about the creation of kdebuild-1 is obviously correct. ciaranm's justification that it is part of PMS because the KDE team wants it, is not. It may have been wanted by the KDE team, but it no longer is. Even though you've created it and used it for genkdesvn, there was never an official vote about it (I know as I was there) and when that was pointed out to ciaranm he then justified it by having been approved by the KDE Lead. He obviously was talking about Philantrop (I don't know whether he did or not, but it really doesn't matter), but wrote it in a way that conveyed the meaning that it had been approved "ad infinitum". That was why I cleared that even though the historical context is right, kdebuild-1 has become an issue of history, and it is no longer used nor supported by the current KDE team. So I would say that all the parties here are arguing about different points. As that, and providing context to Patrick's statement, it is by no means a lie.
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #0) > > The lie that motivated me to pursue the issue is this: > > > > ( 11:51 + Naib ) he even tried to use the kde team as justification for > > its existance, only for the kde team lead to say "its out" > > > > The truth is that kdebuild-1 was created by the initiative of myself, Ingmar > > and Philantrop who were the most active part of the kde team at the time. > > Philantrop was then retired over night and never given a real explanation and > > Ingmar and myself retired a few months later because of that. The new kde team > > that has formed after our departure don't like it but that doesn't change the > > fact that the kde team at the time took the initiative and did the work to use > > it. > > Patrick's comment is that ciaranm justified the inclusion of kdebuild-1 in PMS > because the KDE lead officially approved it and that the current KDE Lead (me) > has already stated that it is no longer officialy approved by the current KDE > team. > Your argument about the creation of kdebuild-1 is obviously correct. ciaranm's > justification that it is part of PMS because the KDE team wants it, is not. It > may have been wanted by the KDE team, but it no longer is. Even though you've > created it and used it for genkdesvn, there was never an official vote about it > (I know as I was there) and when that was pointed out to ciaranm he then > justified it by having been approved by the KDE Lead. He obviously was talking > about Philantrop (I don't know whether he did or not, but it really doesn't > matter), but wrote it in a way that conveyed the meaning that it had been > approved "ad infinitum". That was why I cleared that even though the historical > context is right, kdebuild-1 has become an issue of history, and it is no > longer used nor supported by the current KDE team. > So I would say that all the parties here are arguing about different points. As > that, and providing context to Patrick's statement, it is by no means a lie. > So how do we go about raising a Userrel against the parties concerned here because this behaviour "by them" is now getting petty and distruptive to #gentoo-chat I would +b them all right now for their continued distruptive behaviour and raising userrel/devrel bugs but that would just produce a barrage of counter-bugs and vitriol. So how do we nip this in the bud once and for all. They have come out and accused a number of people of lying and that will not be tolerated. They were asked to drop the topic (to maintain the harmony of the channel) and failed to honour the OP's decision
Taking into account my 2 previous comments and having read the extracts of the #gentoo-chat channel, I don't see a valid complaint here. I see people having a divergence of opinion about an issue, but I don't see any "blatant lies" nor do I think the actions on the extract reveal any serious breach of the CoC.
Naib and Bonsi are firstly users of -chat, they are also ops and do a very good job at keeping things on an even keel, they comment as users. I for one am fed up with lurkers in the chan who do not take part in any conversation but just lurk looking to start a fight. Not mentioning any names but we all know who's responsible, just picking fight because they disagree with statements. I have asked users many times to stop, if they don't like the comments of other users they might as well leave the chan but as it stands the sole purpose of them being in the chan in the first place is to lurk looking for something to bite on to. Childish. Another wasted bug.
It is a bit provocative however. kdebuild-1 seems to come up in about every council meeting so gentoo does not consider it to be a "non-topic". A better approach might be simply say "I personally do not wish to discuss it" rather a rather strong version of "I do not want it discussed here". That might be appropriate in #gentoo-kde, but I don't see why what seems to be a simple a request for information.
I'm closing this, because it seems bonsaikitten's statements are correct in the context of official PMS, and thus edit_21 is correct to take no action on the "lying" issue. That said. I have no idea why AllenJB brought up the kdebuild topic at all, nor do I know why he took it to bonsaikitten since his antipathy to kdebuild is well known. However, I suggest that because of their authority, channel ops have a special responsibility to keep discussions civil. Thus, I ask that the channel ops in #gentoo-chat read my Comment 11 and take it to heart. In my opinion, a channel op in general should work to lower the temperature, not to raise it. We are going to watch how this channel goes, and if it looks like the ops are getting provocative, we'll expect edit_21 to handle it.
(In reply to comment #13) > I'm closing this, because it seems bonsaikitten's statements are correct in the > context of official PMS, and thus edit_21 is correct to take no action on the > "lying" issue. > > That said. I have no idea why AllenJB brought up the kdebuild topic at all, > nor do I know why he took it to bonsaikitten since his antipathy to kdebuild is > well known. However, I suggest that because of their authority, channel ops > have a special responsibility to keep discussions civil. Thus, I ask that the > channel ops in #gentoo-chat read my Comment 11 and take it to heart. In my > opinion, a channel op in general should work to lower the temperature, not to > raise it. We are going to watch how this channel goes, and if it looks like > the ops are getting provocative, we'll expect edit_21 to handle it. > so basically you are censoring #gentoo-chat And why bring AllenJB in on this For your information #gentoo-chat is for... chat. AllenJB has every right to raise any point he likes So now "kdebuild" is off-limits... I don't think so
What is happening about a user wasting userrel's time with opening this bug, a bug that has been shown to be a waste of time What about the slanderous accusations
What about the continued distruption to the harmony of #gentoo-chat where anything a certain group disagree's with they then go off and either get devrel to talk "on the side" or open a bug
09-02-24 in #gentoo-ops <@doc|work> TheSkorm: edit_21 this is the wrong channel for this discussion. We have nothing to do with #gentoo-chat ... 15:08 <+jmbsvicetto> The only team that at one point was seen as being able to patrol all of #gentoo-* was the proctors 15:11 <+jmbsvicetto> Some people have thought that one interesting option would be to have gentoo-ops (with additional members) become part of devrel/userrel (or more appropriately comrel) and be responsible for all #gentoo-* channels, but I don't recall if it ever has been submitted as an official proposal 15:13 -!- mode/#gentoo-ops [+v bonsaikitten] by ChanServ 15:19 -!- mode/#gentoo-ops [+v bonsaikitten] by ChanServ 15:40 < edit_21> doc|work, i occasionly get chewed out for the odd user discrepancy in #gentoo-chat - when i originaly asked for permission from the proctors the gladly let me set up -chat as long as they did not have to deal with it, i stated that i would follow the CoC - my offering, and take away as much off topic chat from other gentoo-* to -chat 15:42 < edit_21> it seems not that when its "useful" - #gentoo-chat is offical to some Dev's and other times not. Would just like to state that -chat holds on to Gentoo CoC and this when usefull intervention is dangerous and should be maybe notified to dev-rel or an appropriate bug =] 15:43 <@astinus> I thought we got rid of the Proctors because they were useless. 15:43 * astinus could be behind the times. 15:43 < edit_21> well proctors- trustee's - heads of gentoo, it was a long time ago 15:44 < edit_21> and #gentoo-chat upholds and i feel compliments users experiance of gentoo :)
(In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > > I'm closing this, because it seems bonsaikitten's statements are correct in the > > context of official PMS, and thus edit_21 is correct to take no action on the > > "lying" issue. > > > > That said. I have no idea why AllenJB brought up the kdebuild topic at all, > > nor do I know why he took it to bonsaikitten since his antipathy to kdebuild is > > well known. However, I suggest that because of their authority, channel ops > > have a special responsibility to keep discussions civil. Thus, I ask that the > > channel ops in #gentoo-chat read my Comment 11 and take it to heart. In my > > opinion, a channel op in general should work to lower the temperature, not to > > raise it. We are going to watch how this channel goes, and if it looks like > > the ops are getting provocative, we'll expect edit_21 to handle it. > > > > so basically you are censoring #gentoo-chat > And why bring AllenJB in on this > For your information #gentoo-chat is for... chat. AllenJB has every right to > raise any point he likes > > So now "kdebuild" is off-limits... > > I don't think so > I intended no such thing. If you look at what I said, I said that bonsaikitten could politely decline to discuss a topic, but a response of "this topic may not be discussed" might be appropiate in #gentoo-kde but not in #gentoo-chat. To the extent I was unclear on that, I apologize.
(In reply to comment #15) > What is happening about a user wasting userrel's time with opening this bug, a > bug that has been shown to be a waste of time > What about the slanderous accusations > He opened it at my request so we could examine the problem.
(In reply to comment #5) > Seeing I'm getting tired of the above argument and of people trying to twist > reality, please check > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20080410.txt - even though > the people behind PMS tried to shove it in, there was a clear decision by the > council members that any non-approved EAPIs (approved by council) are not part > of the official PMS. It's quite "clear" that they were happy to have it left in as long as it was behind the conditionals. And oh look, that's exactly what happened. > If we get back to this argument again, it probably means we'll have to get back > to the argument of why we have a document that is meant to be central to the > future of Gentoo at the hands of external entities, which clearly are more > interested in achieving their own goals than in reflecting Gentoo's decisions. It would be much appreciated if you would stop telling other people what their intentions are.
