I have spoken with Kingtaco and dmwaters and they have requested that I open a bug. The will br proving the logs of the harassment that has been going on. I do not log irc due to space constrants, is the reason I am not gonna be provding the logs directly.
any reason to keep this bug closed ?
(In reply to comment #1) > any reason to keep this bug closed ? No. I've opened it and CC ciaranm for his information/comments.
Too early. Forgot the relevant managers.
This is the least useful bug report I've ever seen.
(In reply to comment #4) > This is the least useful bug report I've ever seen. Perhaps so, but it's assigned to devrel at the moment. Please leave it open until it can be processed.
*shrug* If you want. In that case, add me back on the Cc: list whenever this bug gets some substance -- I can't make any useful comment on whatever it is about which this bug is supposed to be with it in its current state. In the mean time, I get more than enough bugspam as it is.
It's not Ciaran's bug to close, this I agree with. There's not actually any information or logs about Ciaran's alleged harrassment of people on it, this I also agree with. So, if there is a real complaint with logs, etc, please follow-up. I'm speaking here in my role as temporary ombudsman -- I am specifically *not* a member of devrel (though I am a rare recruiter). My only interest here is in resolving whatever conflict there seems to be. That being the case, we do have here a bug with no conflict on it, so please can the reporter provide further information or close the bug? Thanks, Seemant
Created attachment 74384 [details] complete unedited #gentoo-dev log sense 1 Dec 2005 This is the complete log of #-dev sense the begining of the month. All times are in CST. Sorry I couldn't edit out the unrelated stuff, maybe someone else can so we all don't have to read 20k lines.
Can you narrow the focus of your complaint to specific day/time in that log? I did a quick search through it, and I don't see anything really surprising. Sure, there's a few instances where ciaranm takea a few potshots at you, but my opinion is that they're nothing compared to his old behavior.
der, "you" in Comment #9 refers to Anarchy. Thought Comment #8 was posted by him.
I've read through the log. I didn't really see anything to warrant this bug. Sure, there are some sarcastic remarks sprinkled in there. But honestly, we've all had our moments. My vote is to close this.
Agreed, I've read through it and I see nothing overly problematic there that would warrant this bug.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-alt&m=113449303511773&w=2 ^^^ here's something. Kind of insane he's responding to an email pointing out _where_ the source sits in svn that is prefix aware, yet has no qualms slandering it as vapourware. If you'd like, I'll go dig up the friendly rhetoric ciaran has sent since his suspension regarding prefix beyond this. People have their opinions, and not all agree- this is fine. Getting sick of the flood of bullshit from ciaran every time prefix is mentioned however, *especially* since people are attempting to work on the prototype and bringing new folk in to help develop it is needed. It's kind of pathetic to be honest, but the only reason this is being mentioned is to document the toeing of the line harassment wise. That and it's getting damn old to waste time defending an embryonic effort, rather then actually working on it, let alone having to clarify comments about portage rather then _hacking_ on the bugger.
Created attachment 74687 [details] 10/6 gentoo-dev attacks Further... relevant thread; trail end of it (where it's made clear that folks _are_ going to work on prefix regardless of what ciaranm thinks/wants), http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/1042 Resulting in the attached irc log. What's the point here? It's a demonstration of what this bug is about, ciaran's method of harassing those involved in things he dislikes. It's not technical discussion here folks, it's ad hominem and deflection. Some poor SOB's get it just for being a dev, others are on the receiving end of it because they're involved in efforts ciaran dislikes. Heading off the line of defense here, the response to this will be that he has 'concerns' over the prefix development approach- problem here is that he is _not_ even involved in the work, merely sniping whenever chances open up. Again, the _dumb_ thing about all this is that behaviour of this sort is exactly the opposite of what's needed for a maintaining a FOSS project. Folks come and go, a civil atmosphere is required to allow new blood to come in, for people to try new things and new approaches. Folks getting attacked merely because they disagree with what ciaran deems as correct (or because they've screwed up and made a mistake in the tree) is a problem, one we've already had seen ciaran suspensed _once_ because of. The behaviour still is there, just lower key then before- it unfortunately is also becoming more frequent, as the bugger becomes more bold (same scenario we had last time around). Bluntly, the issue here is cycles of behaviour. He gets progressively more bold as folks start ignoring him or standing up to him, till he *finally* crosses the line, and *finally* something is done. Complaints _should_ serve to warn you it's starting again, let alone watching his behaviour on mls, how other devs treat him (spanky's "blah blah blah, same old" on dev ml is a good example). Suspension isn't the best route, since it just resets the cycle. Guy's not an idiot, work is good, but his behaviour flat out blows. I'd rather see the behavioural issues *contained* instead of waiting till it becomes outrageous and then acting.
Why is this restricted to devrel? It's an open bug, and should be open to Gentoo developers.
Well, policy is that generally these should be public to the developer community; I'm opening, but will listen to reasons why I am wrong to do so.
Nice general comments regarding tcsh/csh http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/35652 Followed up by http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/35653
(In reply to comment #13) > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-alt&m=113449303511773&w=2 > ^^^ here's something. Kind of insane he's responding to an email pointing out > _where_ the source sits in svn that is prefix aware, yet has no qualms > slandering it as vapourware. And it's repeated itself yet again in core, 01/30/06. Differing opinions is fine, lieing just to level a baseless attack isn't... As per the norm, all crappy behaviour, but nothing that's blantantly over the line; same games prior to his suspension, and laid out in comment 14. Folks have varying levels of thick skin; flare ups from disagreements *do* occur and are fine, but the behaviour displayed doesn't qualify.
(In reply to comment #17) > Nice general comments regarding tcsh/csh > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/35652 > > Followed up by > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/35653 > Incidentally, it seems that grobian took no offense: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/35505
Thats one way to look at it, another would be that grobian turned the other cheek. Following that logic, if you don't respond to trolls, well, they must not be a troll! If i responded to everything he says that I find offensive in an equally offensive manner I'd a) spend 90% of my gentoo time doing so b) probably be suspended. The fact remains he to seems take perverse pleasure in making every attempt possible to slow the dev process of things he has absolutely nothing to do with. How is that comment in anyway related to the discussion of the thread? From his 1/30/06 post to -core: ""Prefixed Portage" for Gentoo for Mac OS X " Kill this please. It's vapour and unimplementable in its current form. If its vapour, how can he possibly know the form and that its 'unimplementable'? I could really care less about being 'offended', I'm a tough kid, and have dealt with pissy trolls plenty, it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the constant time wasting, and senseless bashing that does nothing but hinder actual progress. Its one thing for me to have to sift through is endless pointless comments on -dev and -core, but when he starts trolling on project MLs that he has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with( see 11/25/05 gentoo-portage-dev and every post he's ever made to -alt) basically turning every technical discussion into a senseless,cyclical,non-technical argument. Voicing opinions is fine, browbeating people until they give up, is lame. My team has lost recruits, devs, and made some of those who remain(myself included) completely uninterested in participating in the broad Gentoo community communication channels. Again, thats fine, I personally don't mind working behind the scenes, but I think Gentoo as a whole has lost a lot of valuable input from people who aren't as thick skinned or who don't have the patience to deal with such immature and antagonistic behavior. All that being said, its obvious he knows what he can and can't get away with, and most don't seem terribly bothered by that fact,therefore this will never stop. So, this bug is a a continuation of his very successful track record of bringing the communication overhead to a ridiculously unproductive level. Thanks!
(In reply to comment #19) > Incidentally, it seems that grobian took no offense: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/35505 Assume you meant http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/35661 After seeing him bash the hell out of osx developers, my read through of it is far from a joke, with grobian taking it as a comment on sh vs bash rather then a jab at him. Ask grobian regarding for his interpretation of it; entirely possible he's shrugging it off (he should be cc'd anyways since he's on the receiving end of prefix crap also). The email serves as a nice demonstration of how not to phrase things to piss people off though; either it's interpretted as a sh/bash comment, or a flat out "you suck" email- why this matters is that ciaran's behaviour has usually had a base technical core, with liberal napalm thrown on that's rarely needed. Yes, one can argue the miscommunication/misphrasing angle for ciaran's responses, but it doesn't hold any water whenever the 'miscommunication' happens to be directed towards those on his shitlist (look for any response to bonsaikitten if you want gross examples).
(In reply to comment #19) > Incidentally, it seems that grobian took no offense: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/35505 Thanks Brian for CC-ing me. If you'd not CC-ed me, I'd probably filed a complaint in the near future. I guess the prefix/portage bashing strategy is to clear the way for his own toy: paludis. I for sure took offence, but learnt from previous clashes with Ciaran that it is probably the best to keep on smiling and not give him what he wants: another next flame. Thanks to kito for stopping me giving him what he wants in the last -core thread. For what it's worth, I haven't searched the forums thoroughly, but I hope not to find another thread full of 'non-professional acts of a Gentoo developer'. On a concluding note, I experience it highly frustrating, demotivating, and inhumane to see a co-developer stabbing so many people in the back, hurting them deep and precise and tearing down the good public face of the Gentoo project as a whole by (mis)using his 'company uniform'.
> In that case, add me back on the Cc: list whenever this bug gets some substance Since that has now happened I'm adding you back onto the CC list.
All I see here is ferringb going on a crusade to deliberately hunt for things that can be misinterpreted in an attempt to harass me and get his way in a technical argument (which, if it happens, will result in another mess similar to the original OS X fiasco) by non-technical means.
That's really all you see? Apparently the several people obviously bothered by your antagonism are of no consequence to you. It's good to hear you aren't bothered by your own behavior, regardless of the effect it has on project morale.
(In reply to comment #25) > It's good to hear you aren't bothered by your own behavior, regardless of the > effect it has on project morale. I am not the one damaging the project by sticking out bogus press items, promising things that cannot be delivered and trying to push through massive unworkable changes without consultation. If you care about Gentoo, start by handling the whole prefix thing properly (i.e. getting proper requirements from the people who will have to support it) rather than going around filing frivolous bugs in an attempt to distract people from what's really going on.
(In reply to comment #26) > (In reply to comment #25) > > I am not the one damaging the project by sticking out bogus press items, > promising things that cannot be delivered and trying to push through massive > unworkable changes without consultation. Please point to specific evidence of all 3 of those accusations. > If you care about Gentoo, start by > handling the whole prefix thing properly (i.e. getting proper requirements from > the people who will have to support it) I have done this. The people who have to support it, have been consulted, contributed, and supported it since it was checked in to -alt svn repo, and the portage branch created. AFAIK you are not a member of the alt or portage teams. Please show me how any of this work has had any impact on you or any of your projects. I can, however, show how your constant slander has had a negative impact on my projects. Somehow, that seems very wrong. > rather than going around filing > frivolous bugs in an attempt to distract people from what's really going on. > Again, its clear you view both developers and users who are supposedly members of the same community as you 'frivolous'.
(In reply to comment #27) > > I am not the one damaging the project by sticking out bogus press items, > > promising things that cannot be delivered and trying to push through massive > > unworkable changes without consultation. > > Please point to specific evidence of all 3 of those accusations. Bogus press item promising things that cannot be delivered: http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060130-newsletter.xml#doc_chap2 . Massive unworkable changes without consultation: extension of the above. You've been told repeatedly about some of the problems with the way things are being done currently, yet have chosen to ignore any feedback on issues that would require changes. I know straight off that *at least* 87 of the packages that I maintain will require substantial changes (including upstream code changes) to work with this. This is without having sat down and tested in depth. I've explained at least some of the issues before (it's a safe bet that there are a load more -- but since you haven't asked the developers who know best, you won't find out until far too late on), but rather than sitting down and fixing the design, you stick out a press release. The issue here is not Portage. No matter how big the changes are to Portage, they're nowhere near the scope of what will have to be done to the tree if the implementation is anything less than perfect. Heck, they're nowhere near the scope of what will have to be done to the tree even if the design and implementation are perfect -- which, at the moment, they most definitely are not since you haven't consulted the people who know the packages in the tree best. Even if you claim that Portage is so broken internally that fixing it is a huge deal, it's still not something you should be doing first -- why make huge changes when you don't know what those huge changes are supposed to do? > > If you care about Gentoo, start by > > handling the whole prefix thing properly (i.e. getting proper requirements from > > the people who will have to support it) > > I have done this. The people who have to support it, have been consulted, > contributed, and supported it since it was checked in to -alt svn repo, and the > portage branch created. AFAIK you are not a member of the alt or portage teams. Wrong. The people who will support it are all the people with ebuilds in the tree that people may wish to use on alt. The tree is by far our largest and most significant piece of work, yet it's also the thing that is being ignored in what is being called the design. > Please show me how any of this work has had any impact on you or any of your > projects. I am one of the many people who will end up having to tidy up the mess. Again. > I can, however, show how your constant slander has had a negative impact on my > projects. Somehow, that seems very wrong. Slander requires untruth. What have I said that isn't true? > > rather than going around filing > > frivolous bugs in an attempt to distract people from what's really going on. > > Again, its clear you view both developers and users who are supposedly members > of the same community as you 'frivolous'. Now *this* is slander. You're maliciously accusing me of having said something that I did not in an attempt to make me look bad. I did not say anyone was frivolous. Perhaps if you took the time to read what I wrote rather than randomly inventing things you'd suddenly not be offended by things I didn't actually say. At this point I'm going to ask for someone from devrel to reclose this bug, since it appears to me that it is just being used by a select few to push a political agenda using underhanded tactics.
(In reply to comment #28) > (In reply to comment #27) > > Bogus press item promising things that cannot be delivered: > http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060130-newsletter.xml#doc_chap2 . Again, I asked for specifics. I'll rephrase - point out any and all 'bogus promises' please. > > Massive unworkable changes without consultation: extension of the above. Thats too vague. Please be specific. > > You've been told repeatedly about some of the problems with the way things are > being done currently, Actually, I've asked repeatedly for specifics, if not an actual contribution. I don't have time to interpret vague rhetoric. > yet have chosen to ignore any feedback on issues that > would require changes. Sorry to sound redundant, but I really need specifics of the constructive feedback you've so generously provided to the projects you aren't an active member of. > I know straight off that *at least* 87 of the packages > that I maintain will require substantial changes (including upstream code > changes) to work with this. Again, AFAIK you don't maintain packages in svn.gentoo.org/var/svnroot/gentoo-alt/trunk, nor are you a contributor to svn.gentoo.org/var/svnroot/portage/main/branches/prefix, so I'm still very very unclear as to how this project effects you even a little bit. > This is without having sat down and tested in > depth. If spending on avg. -7 hours per day, 6 days a week, using and working on this project, is not testing, I'm not sure what is. And I usually do sit down when I'm at my desk. > I've explained at least some of the issues before (it's a safe bet that > there are a load more -- but since you haven't asked the developers who know > best, you won't find out until far too late on), How would you know who I've talked to/consulted on this issue? Not that I should even have to justify this to you, but I think frequently speaking to and getting advice/information from the maintainers/leads/creators of several successful open source projects that do exactly the same thing as well as working with and consulting anyone withthin Gentoo willing to listen/help counts as 'people who know best'. > > > > If you care about Gentoo, start by > > > handling the whole prefix thing properly (i.e. getting proper requirements from > > > the people who will have to support it) > > > > I have done this. The people who have to support it, have been consulted, > > contributed, and supported it since it was checked in to -alt svn repo, and the > > portage branch created. AFAIK you are not a member of the alt or portage teams. > > Wrong. The people who will support it are all the people with ebuilds in the > tree that people may wish to use on alt. The tree is by far our largest and > most significant piece of work, yet it's also the thing that is being ignored > in what is being called the design. What on earth are you basing all this FUD on? This work has been going on for months. What have you supported so far? > > > Please show me how any of this work has had any impact on you or any of your > > projects. > > I am one of the many people who will end up having to tidy up the mess. Again. Yeah....I'm sorry to not be very eloquent here but, wtf man? > > > I can, however, show how your constant slander has had a negative impact on my > > projects. Somehow, that seems very wrong. > > Slander requires untruth. What have I said that isn't true? Re-read this thread again, very slowly. > > > > rather than going around filing > > > frivolous bugs in an attempt to distract people from what's really going on. > > > > Again, its clear you view both developers and users who are supposedly members > > of the same community as you 'frivolous'. > > Now *this* is slander. You're maliciously accusing me of having said something > that I did not in an attempt to make me look bad. I did not say anyone was > frivolous. Perhaps if you took the time to read what I wrote rather than > randomly inventing things you'd suddenly not be offended by things I didn't > actually say. I didn't intend that to be slanderous. But when you dismiss the comments of 5 people, and single one person out and call it an attack and say its frivolous, that seems, well, dismissive. > > At this point I'm going to ask for someone from devrel to reclose this bug, > since it appears to me that it is just being used by a select few to push a > political agenda using underhanded tactics. > I'm not sure where/what the agenda is you are referring to, and please be specific in your 'underhanded' accusation. My understanding is this that this is the official method listed in the Developer Handbook to resolve conflicts, which this undeniably is. (In reply to comment #26) > rather than going around filing >frivolous bugs in an attempt to distract people from what's really going on. And hijacking a bug that was filed as a result of MULTIPLE developers being bothered by your behavior and turning into an argument about some sub-projects/developers that you don't personally like isn't to be construed as 'an attempt to distract people from what's really going on' ?
(In reply to comment #29) > Again, I asked for specifics. I'll rephrase - point out any and all 'bogus > promises' please. You're implying that Gentoo will be able to deliver prefixed installs that work. As it stands, we can't. > > Massive unworkable changes without consultation: extension of the above. > > Thats too vague. Please be specific. How many ebuilds are there in the tree? How many of them will need modification? > > You've been told repeatedly about some of the problems with the way things are > > being done currently, > > Actually, I've asked repeatedly for specifics, if not an actual contribution. I > don't have time to interpret vague rhetoric. You've been given specific details of how particular things will fail. You've chosen to ignore them and dismiss them as minor details. > > yet have chosen to ignore any feedback on issues that > > would require changes. > > Sorry to sound redundant, but I really need specifics of the constructive > feedback you've so generously provided to the projects you aren't an active > member of. I'm a member of the Gentoo project. So, I assume, are you. Prefixing, as something that will require massive tree changes, is something that affects the entire Gentoo community. You've already been told several specific ways in which the current 'design' is insufficient. > > I know straight off that *at least* 87 of the packages > > that I maintain will require substantial changes (including upstream code > > changes) to work with this. > > Again, AFAIK you don't maintain packages in > svn.gentoo.org/var/svnroot/gentoo-alt/trunk, nor are you a contributor to > svn.gentoo.org/var/svnroot/portage/main/branches/prefix, so I'm still very very > unclear as to how this project effects you even a little bit. You don't work in a vacuum. Gentoo/Alt is part of Gentoo, so it affects us all. > > This is without having sat down and tested in > > depth. > > If spending on avg. -7 hours per day, 6 days a week, using and working on this > project, is not testing, I'm not sure what is. And I usually do sit down when > I'm at my desk. Then I'm amazed as to how you can so brazenly lie to our users. > > I've explained at least some of the issues before (it's a safe bet that > > there are a load more -- but since you haven't asked the developers who know > > best, you won't find out until far too late on), > > How would you know who I've talked to/consulted on this issue? Not that I > should even have to justify this to you, but I think frequently speaking to and > getting advice/information from the maintainers/leads/creators of several > successful open source projects that do exactly the same thing as well as > working with and consulting anyone withthin Gentoo willing to listen/help > counts as 'people who know best'. The people who know best are the people who maintain the ebuilds. The people who maintain the ebuilds are on the gentoo-dev list. > > Wrong. The people who will support it are all the people with ebuilds in the > > tree that people may wish to use on alt. The tree is by far our largest and > > most significant piece of work, yet it's also the thing that is being ignored > > in what is being called the design. > > What on earth are you basing all this FUD on? This work has been going on for > months. What have you supported so far? The work has been going on for months, and there's still been no basic discussion with the ebuild maintainers as to how the ebuild side will work. All we have is magic promises, a couple of rough partial implementations (there's a huge difference between getting something to appear to work in a very limited situation and having something usable) and continuous disregard for the Gentoo development community. > > > Please show me how any of this work has had any impact on you or any of your > > > projects. > > > > I am one of the many people who will end up having to tidy up the mess. Again. > > Yeah....I'm sorry to not be very eloquent here but, wtf man? You do not work in a vacuum. > > > I can, however, show how your constant slander has had a negative impact on my > > > projects. Somehow, that seems very wrong. > > > > Slander requires untruth. What have I said that isn't true? > > Re-read this thread again, very slowly. Mmm, and you say I'm not giving enough specifics. > > At this point I'm going to ask for someone from devrel to reclose this bug, > > since it appears to me that it is just being used by a select few to push a > > political agenda using underhanded tactics. > > > > I'm not sure where/what the agenda is you are referring to, and please be > specific in your 'underhanded' accusation. My understanding is this that this > is the official method listed in the Developer Handbook to resolve conflicts, > which this undeniably is. This is a technical disagreement on some rather important issues affecting the future of Gentoo as a whole. Keep it that way, and stop trying to use politics to get your way. > (In reply to comment #26) > > rather than going around filing > >frivolous bugs in an attempt to distract people from what's really going on. > > And hijacking a bug that was filed as a result of MULTIPLE developers being > bothered by your behavior and turning into an argument about some > sub-projects/developers that you don't personally like isn't to be construed as > 'an attempt to distract people from what's really going on' ? This whole bug is a distraction attempt. I'm bringing it vaguely back on topic. But then, the place for technical discussions is the -dev list, so why not do this properly and start by posting a detailed proposal explaining the ebuild side of the prefix things and asking for feedback from the people that can tell you how to avoid hideously screwing over the project again?
Ok, I'll bite yet another time. (In reply to comment #30) > (In reply to comment #29) > > Again, I asked for specifics. I'll rephrase - point out any and all 'bogus > > promises' please. > > You're implying that Gentoo will be able to deliver prefixed installs that > work. As it stands, we can't. > Nothing was meant to be 'implied' in that press release, every single word can be taken quite literally. > > > Massive unworkable changes without consultation: extension of the above. > > > > Thats too vague. Please be specific. > > How many ebuilds are there in the tree? How many of them will need > modification? > Feel free to ask me about technical details in the appropriate forums (-alt@ or -osx@, #-alt or #-osx), you can email directly, or better yet, since you are a dev, do `svn co svn+ssh://USERNAME@svn.gentoo.org/var/svnroot/gentoo-alt/trunk/prefix` and check out the progress. > > > You've been told repeatedly about some of the problems with the way things are > > > being done currently, > > > > Actually, I've asked repeatedly for specifics, if not an actual contribution. I > > don't have time to interpret vague rhetoric. > > You've been given specific details of how particular things will fail. I know, and those details were not constructive, productive, or courteous, nor were they coupled with any possible solutions from you, but I appreciate them nonetheless. FWIW none of those 'details' (specifics?) have proven to be a cause for failure so far, but again you wouldn't know that because you have not participated in any way,shape, or form....and no, I don't count browbeating and making every attempt possible to discourage new users/developers from helping out as 'participating'. > You've > chosen to ignore them and dismiss them as minor details. If you are referring to the few points you made on a ML thread about a year ago [1],none of them have been dismissed or considered minor. If you would like to see any of your additional feature/design requests implemented in a more timely fashion, I'm sure there aren't any of the people working on this that would object to any patches you might have. Not sure how you could know what we have and have not implemented without having asked/looked/participated though.... > > > > yet have chosen to ignore any feedback on issues that > > > would require changes. > > > > Sorry to sound redundant, but I really need specifics of the constructive > > feedback you've so generously provided to the projects you aren't an active > > member of. > > I'm a member of the Gentoo project. So, I assume, are you. Prefixing, as > something that will require massive tree changes, is something that affects the > entire Gentoo community. So again I ask, can you point to any negative impact its had thus far? It will only require 'massive tree changes' WHEN AND IF we ever try to get this merge with mainline. >You've already been told several specific ways in > which the current 'design' is insufficient. No, 'I've been told' that several additional features are design requirements, which they are not. The current design in no way prohibits implementation of your additional feature requests. In fact, your feature requests could not exist WITHOUT the work being done now. Again, you couldn't have known that as you are not an active member of the project. > > > > I know straight off that *at least* 87 of the packages > > > that I maintain will require substantial changes (including upstream code > > > changes) to work with this. > > > > Again, AFAIK you don't maintain packages in > > svn.gentoo.org/var/svnroot/gentoo-alt/trunk, nor are you a contributor to > > svn.gentoo.org/var/svnroot/portage/main/branches/prefix, so I'm still very very > > unclear as to how this project effects you even a little bit. > > You don't work in a vacuum. Actually, I do work in a vacuum most of the time, and thats why I've felt the need to contribute my experiences to this bug. Your incessant belittling, public bashing, and the near-perfect ability to bring any meaningful discussion in your line of sight to a grinding halt whenever you see fit, has sucked out any urge I, several former devs, several current devs, several users, and several recruits might ever have had to engage a technical discussion anywhere you linger, i.e. -dev@ and #-dev. Hell, you even manage to keep us off our own mailing list(-alt@) because of the signal:noise ratio you introduce. > Gentoo/Alt is part of Gentoo, so it affects us all. So why don't you help us by either contributing, or leaving us alone to do our work? > > > This is without having sat down and tested in > > > depth. > > > > If spending on avg. -7 hours per day, 6 days a week, using and working on this > > project, is not testing, I'm not sure what is. And I usually do sit down when > > I'm at my desk. > > Then I'm amazed as to how you can so brazenly lie to our users. > Please paste any instance of me lying to any user. In the future, please follow your accusations with actual evidence. > > > I've explained at least some of the issues before (it's a safe bet that > > > there are a load more -- but since you haven't asked the developers who know > > > best, you won't find out until far too late on), > > > > How would you know who I've talked to/consulted on this issue? Not that I > > should even have to justify this to you, but I think frequently speaking to and > > getting advice/information from the maintainers/leads/creators of several > > successful open source projects that do exactly the same thing as well as > > working with and consulting anyone withthin Gentoo willing to listen/help > > counts as 'people who know best'. > > The people who know best are the people who maintain the ebuilds. The people > who maintain the ebuilds are on the gentoo-dev list > > > > Wrong. The people who will support it are all the people with ebuilds in the > > > tree that people may wish to use on alt. The tree is by far our largest and > > > most significant piece of work, yet it's also the thing that is being ignored > > > in what is being called the design. > > > > What on earth are you basing all this FUD on? This work has been going on for > > months. What have you supported so far? > > The work has been going on for months, and there's still been no basic > discussion with the ebuild maintainers as to how the ebuild side will work. Ok, so you are basing this FUD on the lack of information sent to -dev? Gotcha, god forbid you look at source or ask one of us for info before you start making warrant-less accusations and assumptions. > All > we have is magic promises, a couple of rough partial implementations (there's a > huge difference between getting something to appear to work in a very limited > situation and having something usable) and continuous disregard for the Gentoo > development community. At what point have I "disregarded" the gentoo community? I think giving a publicized status report and call for contributions a rather inclusive move. But apparently I will get flamed and attacked and accused both when, and when I don't try to involve others in my work. > > > > > Please show me how any of this work has had any impact on you or any of your > > > > projects. > > > > > > I am one of the many people who will end up having to tidy up the mess. Again. > > > > Yeah....I'm sorry to not be very eloquent here but, wtf man? > > You do not work in a vacuum. > > > > > I can, however, show how your constant slander has had a negative impact on my > > > > projects. Somehow, that seems very wrong. > > > > > > Slander requires untruth. What have I said that isn't true? > > > > Re-read this thread again, very slowly. > > Mmm, and you say I'm not giving enough specifics. You've accused me of lying directly to users, disregarding the community, ignoring you 'telling me about design failures', telling anyone who will listen the thing I spend the majority of my time on is 'vaporware'. All of which are blatant lies and slander with 0 factual basis, and 0 desire on your part to stop. > > > > At this point I'm going to ask for someone from devrel to reclose this bug, > > > since it appears to me that it is just being used by a select few to push a > > > political agenda using underhanded tactics. > > > > > Thats fine, if gets closed, please close it as {CANT,WONT}FIX, because it's not RESOLVED, FIXED or INVALID, and certainly doesn't WORKFORME. > > I'm not sure where/what the agenda is you are referring to, and please be > > specific in your 'underhanded' accusation. My understanding is this that this > > is the official method listed in the Developer Handbook to resolve conflicts, > > which this undeniably is. > > This is a technical disagreement on some rather important issues affecting the > future of Gentoo as a whole. Keep it that way, and stop trying to use politics > to get your way. I don't know what you are referring to as 'my way'. What I'm trying to get here is a civil development environment that doesn't have to be approached like a goddamned war resulting in extreme non-progress and a general feeling of distaste and discouragement. > > > (In reply to comment #26) > > > rather than going around filing > > >frivolous bugs in an attempt to distract people from what's really going on. > > > > And hijacking a bug that was filed as a result of MULTIPLE developers being > > bothered by your behavior and turning into an argument about some > > sub-projects/developers that you don't personally like isn't to be construed as > > 'an attempt to distract people from what's really going on' ? > > This whole bug is a distraction attempt. I'm bringing it vaguely back on topic. If you'll notice, this bug was filed by someone who AFAIK does not, and has not ever worked on any of my projects. This bug was re-opened by another person who also, AFAIK, has nothing to do with this project you can't seem to stop being obsessed with. > But then, the place for technical discussions is the -dev list, so why not do > this properly and start by posting a detailed proposal explaining the ebuild > side of the prefix things and asking for feedback from the people that can tell > you how to avoid hideously screwing over the project again? > Because that was already done by someone else [1], and I personally don't always have the energy/time/desire to try to wave my hands faster and scream louder than you. But don't worry, you'll get your chance to scream and shout WHEN AND IF we ever decide to get this accepted 'mainstream'. Anyway, that initial thread basically ended with you yelling out arbitrary features/demands that were beyond the scope of the discussion, and iggy saying 'I would want to see at least a successful emerge system before this GLEP could be accepted'. Well, we are far beyond `emerge system`, and whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, some of your 'advice' *was* heeded, but I still don't feel that its sufficient to re-start the GLEP process, when and IF the small team of people who are working on this are interested in getting it merged to a) portage/trunk/ b) gentoo-x86/ then the -dev discussion and GLEP process and begin(again). In the meantime, if you want to increase your comments:code ratio and implement some of the additional features you requested, please send any patches to the -osx@, -alt@, or -portage-dev@ mailing lists, but also keep in mind there are no immediate plans to attempt a merge with trunk/gentoo-x86. Whew...and I thought having a girlfriend was tough. [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/27569
(In reply to comment #28) > (In reply to comment #27) > > > I am not the one damaging the project by sticking out bogus press items, > > > promising things that cannot be delivered and trying to push through massive > > > unworkable changes without consultation. > > > > Please point to specific evidence of all 3 of those accusations. > > Bogus press item promising things that cannot be delivered: > http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060130-newsletter.xml#doc_chap2 . > > Massive unworkable changes without consultation: extension of the above. Being that you've not even looked at the code, I honestly question your capability to make any form of valid judgement on this. You state no portage modifications are required, yet state ebuild.sh modifications are required in the same breath- same damn thing. The reality of this is that you're hiding behind claimed expertise of the tree (specifically being able to judge the issues better then the heathens who are doing the work), and abusing deflection to screw with those doing the work. > You've been told repeatedly about some of the problems with the way things are > being done currently, yet have chosen to ignore any feedback on issues that > would require changes. > I know straight off that *at least* 87 of the packages > that I maintain will require substantial changes (including upstream code > changes) to work with this. Actually, this is mild bullshit. Nice try- as was stated already, this is *prefix*, not your desired $HOME support. In other words, a global offset prefix, not autopackage level path monkeying. Further, it's a *prototype* with builtin filtering to it. Meaning your vaulted vim packages can just be marked as non-prefixable, and the problem goes away till someone interested gets off their ass and fixes your packages. > but since you haven't asked the developers who know best, you won't find out > until far too late on), but rather than sitting down > and fixing the design, you stick out a press release. Arrogance aside, perhaps we have a clue about some things. The problem also is that your 'list' of issues is nebulous every time you try to claim you've contributed. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/1042 Specifically, 10/06/05; It's either you think we're too incompetent to do this properly, or that we're not running things in the manner you want- design every last detail up front, then do a prototype. Both of your angles of attack have been addressed, but that's (frankly) pointless- the issue here is that of devs doing work on their *own* times, an external project that you have spent 5 months harassing and slandering whenever possible. > > Please show me how any of this work has had any impact on you or any of your > > projects. > > I am one of the many people who will end up having to tidy up the mess. Again. Having not seen *any* of the code nor the mods required, your statement is rather meaningless. That and it's rhetoric, since it was made clear numerous times that this is external, when/if it's pushed forth as mainstream it has to meet the *communities* approval. > > I can, however, show how your constant slander has had a negative impact on my > > projects. Somehow, that seems very wrong. > > Slander requires untruth. What have I said that isn't true? Err, vapourware? Seriously, this is retarded. > Now *this* is slander. You're maliciously accusing me of having said something > that I did not in an attempt to make me look bad. I did not say anyone was > frivolous. Actually, you've told me I'm useless multiple times. You've also gone out of your way to state the portage team is doing more damage then good, and are idiots.
(In reply to comment #31) > Nothing was meant to be 'implied' in that press release, every single word can > be taken quite literally. Including the "working" part? Because, ya know, you'd have to take a pretty liberal view of that word... > > How many ebuilds are there in the tree? How many of them will need > > modification? > > Feel free to ask me about technical details in the appropriate forums (-alt@ or > -osx@, #-alt or #-osx), you can email directly, or better yet, since you are a > dev, do `svn co > svn+ssh://USERNAME@svn.gentoo.org/var/svnroot/gentoo-alt/trunk/prefix` and > check out the progress. Did that. Got told that "it's a Portage issue" and that the tree is only a minor consideration. > > You've been given specific details of how particular things will fail. > > I know, and those details were not constructive, productive, or courteous, nor > were they coupled with any possible solutions from you, but I appreciate them > nonetheless. FWIW none of those 'details' (specifics?) have proven to be a > cause for failure so far, but again you wouldn't know that because you have not > participated in any way,shape, or form....and no, I don't count browbeating and > making every attempt possible to discourage new users/developers from helping > out as 'participating'. From that I can only conclude that your testing is as inadequate as your design. Why don't you go back and get some proper design requirements from the people who write ebuilds? Start with a mail to -dev describing your current plans. > > You've > > chosen to ignore them and dismiss them as minor details. > > If you are referring to the few points you made on a ML thread about a year ago > [1],none of them have been dismissed or considered minor. If you would like to > see any of your additional feature/design requests implemented in a more timely > fashion, I'm sure there aren't any of the people working on this that would > object to any patches you might have. Not sure how you could know what we have > and have not implemented without having asked/looked/participated though.... What makes you think I haven't looked? > > I'm a member of the Gentoo project. So, I assume, are you. Prefixing, as > > something that will require massive tree changes, is something that affects the > > entire Gentoo community. > > So again I ask, can you point to any negative impact its had thus far? It will > only require 'massive tree changes' WHEN AND IF we ever try to get this merge > with mainline. Right, at which point all hell will break loose when you expect your massive sweeping changes to be merged as-is when they're utterly inappropriate, with the reasoning that "if you don't like it you should have commented earlier". We saw this last time around with OS X too, and you know how much mess that caused. Wouldn't you rather get as many issues as possible fixed at the design stage, rather than later on? Or do you not care for the good of Gentoo as a whole if it doesn't fit in with a minor pet project? > >You've already been told several specific ways in > > which the current 'design' is insufficient. > > No, 'I've been told' that several additional features are design requirements, > which they are not. The current design in no way prohibits implementation of > your additional feature requests. In fact, your feature requests could not > exist WITHOUT the work being done now. Again, you couldn't have known that as > you are not an active member of the project. I'm not talking additional features. I'm talking basic requirements for doing what you need with ebuilds. > Actually, I do work in a vacuum most of the time, and thats why I've felt the > need to contribute my experiences to this bug. Your incessant belittling, > public bashing, and the near-perfect ability to bring any meaningful discussion > in your line of sight to a grinding halt whenever you see fit, has sucked out > any urge I, several former devs, several current devs, several users, and > several recruits might ever have had to engage a technical discussion anywhere > you linger, i.e. -dev@ and #-dev. Hell, you even manage to keep us off our own > mailing list(-alt@) because of the signal:noise ratio you introduce. I'm not the one making noise. The noise is the phony press releases and bogus promises when you don't even have a usable design to back it up. It's all very well you going around being all happy about what you're doing, but Gentoo is not your own little playground and you should be considering the mess you're going to make for others, not just yourselves. > > Gentoo/Alt is part of Gentoo, so it affects us all. > > So why don't you help us by either contributing, or leaving us alone to do our > work? Sure. Start a proper ebuild-side design discussion and I'll tell you (again) all the things that I can see in the current design that make it unworkable. But this time, promise me first you won't brush off gaping holes as minor irrelevant details and simply charge ahead with whatever someone happens to code, usable or not. > > Then I'm amazed as to how you can so brazenly lie to our users. > > > > Please paste any instance of me lying to any user. In the future, please follow > your accusations with actual evidence. Did that already. See the "working" claim in GWN. > Ok, so you are basing this FUD on the lack of information sent to -dev? Gotcha, > god forbid you look at source or ask one of us for info before you start making > warrant-less accusations and assumptions. Ok, prove me wrong and show me the ebuild-side design documentation that deals with all the issues about which you've already been informed. > At what point have I "disregarded" the gentoo community? I think giving a > publicized status report and call for contributions a rather inclusive move. > But apparently I will get flamed and attacked and accused both when, and when I > don't try to involve others in my work. You're pushing things to users which, at this stage, should instead be pushed at developers with requests for design commentary. You're doing this despite developer concern about the unworkable design. You're effectively saying "get stuffed, we don't care about you" to all the people who will end up having to support this. > You've accused me of lying directly to users, disregarding the community, > ignoring you 'telling me about design failures', telling anyone who will listen > the thing I spend the majority of my time on is 'vaporware'. All of which are > blatant lies and slander with 0 factual basis, and 0 desire on your part to > stop. All of which are the truth. > I don't know what you are referring to as 'my way'. What I'm trying to get here > is a civil development environment that doesn't have to be approached like a > goddamned war resulting in extreme non-progress and a general feeling of > distaste and discouragement. Then start by consulting your fellow developers, rather than turning around and mooning them whilst going "nyah nyah, we're putting out press releases telling our users about things without caring the slightest bit about the rest of the Gentoo development community". > Because that was already done by someone else [1], and I personally don't > always have the energy/time/desire to try to wave my hands faster and scream > louder than you. I'm not handwaving. That you admit that you are is a fairly telling sign of the state of this project. > But don't worry, you'll get your chance to scream and shout > WHEN AND IF we ever decide to get this accepted 'mainstream'. Yeah, we've all heard that one before... Are you really prepared to undergo a massive rewrite at such a late stage? Why not try to get issues fixed *now*, rather than down the line? > In the meantime, if you want to increase your comments:code ratio and implement > some of the additional features you requested, please send any patches to the > -osx@, -alt@, or -portage-dev@ mailing lists, but also keep in mind there are > no immediate plans to attempt a merge with trunk/gentoo-x86. See, again you're running off on the code without figuring out the ebuild-side design.
Created attachment 78986 [details] 12-16-05 log, ciarans modus operandi Attached log is #gentoo-dev, 12-16-05; The reason for no lead in on this is because it's one of ciaran's usual tricks- comments in other media (bugs.g.o specifically), making it personal in irc in #-dev to harass the dev with the opposing view (solar in this case). Worth reading through the log however, specifically for seeing ciaran's own statements about his social interactions with others (namely, if they're stupid I'll insult them).
(In reply to comment #32) > Being that you've not even looked at the code, I honestly question your > capability to make any form of valid judgement on this. You state no portage > modifications are required, yet state ebuild.sh modifications are required in > the same breath- same damn thing. No no. I state that the changes to Portage are insignificant compared to the changes to the ebuilds. We have an awful lot of ebuilds... > The reality of this is that you're hiding behind claimed expertise of the tree > (specifically being able to judge the issues better then the heathens who are > doing the work), and abusing deflection to screw with those doing the work. The work that will need doing is mostly tree-related. Simple matter of size. > > I know straight off that *at least* 87 of the packages > > that I maintain will require substantial changes (including upstream code > > changes) to work with this. > > Actually, this is mild bullshit. Nice try- as was stated already, this is > *prefix*, not your desired $HOME support. In other words, a global offset > prefix, not autopackage level path monkeying. And those 87+ packages will need substantial changes, including upstream code changes, to work with prefix support. > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/1042 > Specifically, 10/06/05; It's either you think we're too incompetent to do this > properly, or that we're not running things in the manner you want- design every > last detail up front, then do a prototype. Both of your angles of attack have > been addressed, but that's (frankly) pointless- the issue here is that of devs > doing work on their *own* times, an external project that you have spent 5 > months harassing and slandering whenever possible. How I want it done is irrelevant. What matters is how it should be done to avoid damaging Gentoo. The way it's being done now is going to give us a repeat of the original OS X fiasco. What is also irrelevant is whether people do things in their own time. The tree is not a playground. By working upon Gentoo you're accepting the responsibility of not breaking things for other people. You are not, for example, free to spend your own time breaking the tree. And I am not the one harassing and slandering here. > Having not seen *any* of the code nor the mods required, your statement is > rather meaningless. That and it's rhetoric, since it was made clear numerous > times that this is external, when/if it's pushed forth as mainstream it has to > meet the *communities* approval. Ah yes, that old chestnut. At what point will this change to "if you were going to object, you should have done so earlier"? And wouldn't you rather know *now* rather than later what design changes are needed? > > > I can, however, show how your constant slander has had a negative impact on my > > > projects. Somehow, that seems very wrong. > > > > Slander requires untruth. What have I said that isn't true? > > Err, vapourware? > Seriously, this is retarded. Big difference between "I got it working under a very limited set of circumstances" and "it works". > > Now *this* is slander. You're maliciously accusing me of having said something > > that I did not in an attempt to make me look bad. I did not say anyone was > > frivolous. > > Actually, you've told me I'm useless multiple times. You've also gone out of > your way to state the portage team is doing more damage then good, and are > idiots. No, I said you're useless to Paludis. Which is a whole different issue, and entirely true. Again you're going around inventing things to try to push your agenda.
Created attachment 78988 [details] 12-23-05 #-dev logs, aka portage devs suck From thread http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/34093 Specifically, http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/34338 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/34360 is of note. It's actually worth while reading that subthread in whole- what you'll see is ongoing potshots at portage/team. The attached log is the irc side of it. Frankly, I'm sick of the underhanded attacks at portage, the same sniping he does for everything else he dislikes- what's particularly distressing about this behaviour is that it's either asshattery, or power games. He's actively attempting to replace portage with his paludis (something that is fine- already offered the virtual and have answered his questions about current portage handling of corner cases); doing it via technical superiority is fine, doing it via attacking those involved however isn't fine (see the central theme to this bug yet?).
(In reply to comment #36) > He's actively attempting to replace portage with his paludis What? No I'm not. Stop going around inventing ways in which I'm "out to get you" please. > doing it via technical superiority is fine, > doing it via attacking those involved however isn't fine (see the central theme > to this bug yet?). Is the central theme to this bug "ferringb posts logs that are full of him swearing and coming up with ad hominem attacks in response to any legitimate questions"?
(In reply to comment #35) > > > I know straight off that *at least* 87 of the packages > > > that I maintain will require substantial changes (including upstream code > > > changes) to work with this. > > > > Actually, this is mild bullshit. Nice try- as was stated already, this is > > *prefix*, not your desired $HOME support. In other words, a global offset > > prefix, not autopackage level path monkeying. > > And those 87+ packages will need substantial changes, including upstream code > changes, to work with prefix support. Specifically dodging the point filtering of your packages is built into the prototype, thus as I stated, it's not an issue. Those packages can't be prefixed, those who want it prefixed have to do the work. > How I want it done is irrelevant. What matters is how it should be done to > avoid damaging Gentoo. The way it's being done now is going to give us a repeat > of the original OS X fiasco. > > What is also irrelevant is whether people do things in their own time. The tree > is not a playground. By working upon Gentoo you're accepting the responsibility > of not breaking things for other people. You are not, for example, free to > spend your own time breaking the tree. Who is breaking the tree here? Sorry, but the sky is not falling chicken little, the work is external and will *not* be brought mainline without the communities approval. Stop hiding behind claims of breaking the tree to justify your attacks- ends do not justify the means. > And I am not the one harassing and slandering here. Again, back it up. What's provided is evidence; if you dispute it, I suggest you pick apart the evidence- the issue here is your crap attitude, not your technical opinions. I suggest you stick to explaining away the attitude instead of deflecting this bug into "we differ in technical opinons"- it's known people differ. The question is how the parties act- you're acting by harassing those you disagree with. That's one of the charges, kindly address it instead of dodging it. > > when/if it's pushed forth as mainstream it has to > > meet the *communities* approval. > > Ah yes, that old chestnut. At what point will this change to "if you were going > to object, you should have done so earlier"? Considering this hasn't even occured yet, it's kind of bullshit you're charging us with this behaviour- nor does it justify your 'method' of technical discussion. > > > > I can, however, show how your constant slander has had a negative impact on my > > > > projects. Somehow, that seems very wrong. > > > > > > Slander requires untruth. What have I said that isn't true? > > > > Err, vapourware? > > Seriously, this is retarded. > > Big difference between "I got it working under a very limited set of > circumstances" and "it works". The code is out there supplying a prefix capable portage. I'd define that as quite real. Bluntly, dead end arguing on that one- you're not going to be able to change the definition of vapourware to weasel out of your previous libel. > > > Now *this* is slander. You're maliciously accusing me of having said something > > > that I did not in an attempt to make me look bad. I did not say anyone was > > > frivolous. > > > > Actually, you've told me I'm useless multiple times. You've also gone out of > > your way to state the portage team is doing more damage then good, and are > > idiots. > > No, I said you're useless to Paludis. Which is a whole different issue, and > entirely true. Again you're going around inventing things to try to push your > agenda. Logs are attached directly contradicting that statement. Truth be told, you've said it *both* in regards to my charge and to paludis- the issue isn't the "useless to paludis angle" (again, deflection), it's the ad hominem attacks on portage devs.
(In reply to comment #34) > Created an attachment (id=78986) [edit] > 12-16-05 log, ciarans modus operandi > > Attached log is #gentoo-dev, 12-16-05; The reason for no lead in on this is > because it's one of ciaran's usual tricks- comments in other media (bugs.g.o > specifically), making it personal in irc in #-dev to harass the dev with the > opposing view (solar in this case). > > Worth reading through the log however, specifically for seeing ciaran's own > statements about his social interactions with others (namely, if they're stupid > I'll insult them). That is probably not the best example. That day I was rather fed up with his shit and blew up. Anyway this bug is starting to turn into a waste of database space and has gone pretty far off topic. In reality you just need a tracker bug cuz this is not the first ciaranm bug nor will it probably be the last.
(In reply to comment #38) > Specifically dodging the point filtering of your packages is built into the > prototype, thus as I stated, it's not an issue. Those packages can't be > prefixed, those who want it prefixed have to do the work. You're assuming that those who want it prefixed will be able to do the work and get it done properly, and in such a way that maintaining the modified packages doesn't massively increase the amount of work required for ongoing maintenance. None of these assumptions are safe. > Who is breaking the tree here? Sorry, but the sky is not falling chicken > little, the work is external and will *not* be brought mainline without the > communities approval. Define community and approval. Also explain what will happen when the community points out some huge design flaws that require a complete rethink. > I suggest you stick to explaining away the attitude instead of deflecting this > bug into "we differ in technical opinons"- it's known people differ. The > question is how the parties act- you're acting by harassing those you disagree > with. I am not the one doing the harassing here. > Considering this hasn't even occured yet, it's kind of bullshit you're charging > us with this behaviour Past experience. It happened with the first round of OS X changes, and it happened with www-redesign, and it will happen again here. You're not going to throw away huge amounts of code once it's written no matter how wrong it ends up. > The code is out there supplying a prefix capable portage. I'd define that as > quite real. Bluntly, dead end arguing on that one- you're not going to be able > to change the definition of vapourware to weasel out of your previous libel. Portage isn't the issue here. The issue is the ebuilds. You're claiming that you've invented a flying car and pointing at the gear stick which has a "fly" setting as proof. > Logs are attached directly contradicting that statement. Truth be told, you've > said it *both* in regards to my charge and to paludis- the issue isn't the > "useless to paludis angle" (again, deflection), it's the ad hominem attacks on > portage devs. Again, I'm not the one running around throwing out wild conspiracy theories and attacking anyone who suggests that something might not actually be quite as simple as certain people would like us to believe.
(In reply to comment #37) > (In reply to comment #36) > > He's actively attempting to replace portage with his paludis > > What? No I'm not. Stop going around inventing ways in which I'm "out to get > you" please. Developing a replacement to portage, and attempting recruiting within -core paints a different picture. Again, it's not an issue that you're doing this- I've answered the questions you've had about portage, and already made clear a virtual would be doable once it is released and capable of handling the existing ebuild format requirements. It's not a matter of "you're out to get me", it's a matter of "you're attacking those who disagree with you"- ongoing attacks at portage devs in light of your replacement efforts raise the question of *why* you're hell bent on sniping at portage whenever the opportunity presents itself. Ongoing attacks at prefix also are in line with this. Further, your behaviour of attacking devs you dislike (those you deem useless), such as cpw and bonsaikitten lends further evidence to this pattern. > > doing it via technical superiority is fine, > > doing it via attacking those involved however isn't fine (see the central theme > > to this bug yet?). > > Is the central theme to this bug "ferringb posts logs that are full of him > swearing and coming up with ad hominem attacks in response to any legitimate > questions"? Read the logs. Evidence is posted, as I stated, I suggest you disputing the evidence that you're actively harassing folks instead of yet another ad hominem attack/deflection.
(In reply to comment #41) > Developing a replacement to portage, and attempting recruiting within -core > paints a different picture. Where on -core did I recruit for people to work on a replacement to Portage? My post quite clearly stated that I was looking for people to work on some experimental dep resolving code. And, as it happens, as a result of that email I got a couple more people to help out, and as a result of some of their work I've spend the past several hours fixing various genuine bugs in the tree and filing bugs for other problems. Again, it would do you well to read what I actually wrote, rather than inventing all these wild conspiracy theories. > Ongoing attacks at prefix also are in line with this. I'm not attacking it. I'm trying to get it fixed so that it doesn't end up screwing over Gentoo. > > Is the central theme to this bug "ferringb posts logs that are full of him > > swearing and coming up with ad hominem attacks in response to any legitimate > > questions"? > > Read the logs. Evidence is posted, as I stated, I suggest you disputing the > evidence that you're actively harassing folks instead of yet another ad hominem > attack/deflection. All I see is pages and pages of ad hominem attacks, deflection and swearing from people who aren't me.
Just so we're clear on this, and hopefully to stop this idiotic deflection away from the real issues, the complaints are *not* over technical manners. The complaints are purely that ciaran is harassing devs/projects; as has been made *plainly* clear, differences in opinion on technical crap is not an issue, how the parties state those issues (and work through them if common ground can be found) is the issue. Any questioning this, look in the 10/6 gentoo-dev logs- that's not technical discussion, that's attacking those involved. All of the logs, comments (prior to spamming) demonstrate this point- ciaran is still harassing people. Dragging the issue down into the technical issue that spawned the particular attack serves only to draw attention away from the actual issue, that he's violating the terms of his return to devship, and violating etiquette rules.
(In reply to comment #43) > Just so we're clear on this, and hopefully to stop this idiotic deflection away > from the real issues, the complaints are *not* over technical manners. The real issue is that you're trying to get your way in a technical argument by deflecting the issue into a bug where you post all kinds of random nonsense in the hopes that some people won't realise that I'm not the one swearing, attacking people and acting in a manner damaging to Gentoo. > The complaints are purely that ciaran is harassing devs/projects; as has been > made *plainly* clear, differences in opinion on technical crap is not an issue, > how the parties state those issues (and work through them if common ground can > be found) is the issue. Any questioning this, look in the 10/6 gentoo-dev > logs- that's not technical discussion, that's attacking those involved. What, this lot? 15:38 <@ferringb> well I'm an idiot 15:38 <@vapier> i know 15:39 <@ferringb> ciaranm: and you're capable of nothing but running your mouth. 15:40 <@ferringb> ciaranm: it's external 15:40 <@ferringb> get a fucking life, bluntly. 15:45 <@ferringb> ciaranm: write out a fucking spec then. 15:46 <@ferringb> I'm not. 16:02 <@ciaranm> you know how it goes. once there's code, it gets accepted with "if you don't want us to use this, come up with something better by next week" 16:02 <@kito> this is true 16:02 <@kito> but tehre is no hurry, and noone making /. announcments this time 16:07 <@Ramereth> kito: he's just bored and being a troll like usual ;-) 16:11 <@ferringb> go get drunk or something 16:40 <@Flameeyes> ciaranm, fuck design, you have to see something work 16:54 <@ferringb> christ almighty.
(In reply to comment #44) > The real issue is that you're trying to get your way in a technical argument by > deflecting the issue into a bug where you post all kinds of random nonsense in > the hopes that some people won't realise that I'm not the one swearing, > attacking people and acting in a manner damaging to Gentoo. *cough* conspiracy theories? :) If I'm damaging to gentoo, file a bug. This is your bug, respond to the points made regarding your behaviour instead of attacking those who did the legwork of collecting logs. > > The complaints are purely that ciaran is harassing devs/projects; as has been > > made *plainly* clear, differences in opinion on technical crap is not an issue, > > how the parties state those issues (and work through them if common ground can > > be found) is the issue. Any questioning this, look in the 10/6 gentoo-dev > > logs- that's not technical discussion, that's attacking those involved. > What, this lot? Alright, this is nuts. Your selective editing of the log paints the picture _you_ want people to see, exempting quite a bit of the key comments from you. Full log is there, suggest folks read through it rather then trusting ciaran's editing of evidence. Finally, if you've got a problem with my language, file a bug- this bug is dedicated to your laundry list of misbehaviours.
(In reply to comment #45) > Alright, this is nuts. Your selective editing of the log paints the picture > _you_ want people to see, exempting quite a bit of the key comments from you. I'm not the one brazenly posting logs full of myself acting in an utterly unprofessional manner and trying to use them as evidence in my pet crusade against someone else. > Finally, if you've got a problem with my language, file a bug- Oh, I don't care, beyond your claims that I'm the one misbehaving here. I'd like to just get this prefix thing resolved for the good of Gentoo by having a proper technical discussion with all the relevant parties involved. I'd really rather not stoop to your level and turn this into even more of a devrel pissing match than it already is.
(In reply to comment #46) > (In reply to comment #45) > > Alright, this is nuts. Your selective editing of the log paints the picture > > _you_ want people to see, exempting quite a bit of the key comments from you. > > I'm not the one brazenly posting logs full of myself acting in an utterly > unprofessional manner and trying to use them as evidence in my pet crusade > against someone else. If that's truly your belief, then I'd suggest you ask for a vote then. If I'm 'crusading' against you and the evidence doesn't back up the charges, theres no issue here- nothing is done to you, and I get slapped for wasting peoples time. If as we posit, that your antagonizing behaviour never stopped and is still ab ongoing problem, a vote would also establish that and move to addressing how to remove the behavioural problems so they're no longer an issue.
Why not vote upon whether pink elephants exist?
@devrel: bugs obviously not gaining any ground towards a solution, request investigation proceed.
> @devrel: bugs obviously not gaining any ground towards a solution, request > investigation proceed. Escalation request processed; this has now been passed over to devrel and policy is in the process of invocation as the ombudsman is unable to achive mediation between the involved parties.
Well, ferringb has come right out and stated his intentions: 16:54 <@ferringb_> ciaranm: I'd rather de-op you and throw you out of here. Notice the lack of "I'd rather you were less to the point" or "I'd rather you stopped assuming basic English reading skills" or suchlike. And the context, which illustrates rather well that he's out to cause trouble: In #gentoo-qa, in which ferringb is not: 15:45 < Halcyon> Hmm, what is the policy on requiring USE=test for FEATURES=test? 15:45 < Halcyon> Do you die if you don't have USE=test? 16:00 -!- tove [n=tove@p54A60540.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit ["leaving"] 16:07 < ciaranm> Halcyon: get the frickin' expand implemented 16:41 * antarus chuckles 16:41 < Halcyon> antarus: get on that :) 16:42 < antarus> which one do you want removed? 16:42 * antarus will gladly stab features="test" 16:42 < Halcyon> USE=test makes no sense. 16:42 < antarus> It's all you get 16:42 < antarus> deal with it :-0 16:42 * antarus chuckles 16:43 < ciaranm> FEATURES should be in USE_EXPAND 16:43 < antarus> ciaranm, good luck fighting that fight 16:44 < ciaranm> i'll just go and add it when no-one's looking 16:44 < antarus> Halcyon, kill features="test" make the test use flag pull in extra deps and run src_test 16:44 < antarus> ciaranm, last time I checked you didn't have portage commit access, which means you have to modify the source on the mirrors, and i think we sign our manifests 16:44 < Halcyon> USE=test seems hackish. 16:44 < antarus> Halcyon, USE is all we have for dynamic stuff 16:44 < ciaranm> antarus: oh so very very wrong 16:45 < ciaranm> antarus: a) USE flags only modify the end result of a package, not how it is built 16:45 < ciaranm> b) i can do this quite easily without portatge commit access 16:45 < ciaranm> c) so what if you sign your manifests? 16:45 < ciaranm> d) jstubbs agrees with me 16:46 * antarus sighs 16:46 < antarus> Lets just go with, I am not putting FEATURES in USE_EXPAND 16:46 < antarus> if you want to convince someone else to, it's your ml war 16:46 < ciaranm> uh, we did the ml war about a year ago 16:46 < ciaranm> and i won 16:47 < antarus> Odd that I dont' see it implemented then :P For those that don't follow Portage development or ebuild internals too closely, USE_EXPAND was moved from being a make.globals setting to a profile setting a long while back. The question comes up fairly frequently on the -dev list, and the answer is always "bug #82513". Now, all of a sudden ferringb_ pops up in #gentoo-dev and starts making wild claims and accusations: 16:49 <@ferringb_> ciaranm: actually, jstubbs does not agree with you last I looked. 16:50 <@ferringb_> nor does genone 16:50 <@ciaranm> jstubbs implemented it for me 16:50 <@ferringb_> think I was the only one who thought it was a half way decent idea to jam it in there; the proposed solution was addition of metadata, not abusing existing. 16:50 <@ferringb_> ciaranm: clarify. 16:50 <@ciaranm> he wanted to find out whether it would break anything 16:50 <@ciaranm> it didn't 16:52 <@ferringb_> ciaranm: again, clarify. 16:52 <@ferringb_> bug #, explicit statement of what he actually implemented, etc. 16:52 <@ciaranm> certain people were spreading sneaky rumours that changing USE_EXPAND would make portage explode 16:53 <@ferringb_> ciaranm: just stick to the facts please 16:53 * SuperLag waits for the mushroom cloud 16:53 <@ferringb_> ciaranm: what are you specifically referencing that he implemented; simple question 16:53 <@ciaranm> ferringb_: wouldn't you rather infer things from vaguely worded truths? 16:54 <@ferringb_> ciaranm: I'd rather de-op you and throw you out of here. 16:54 <@ferringb_> but right now I'm going through the proper channels. 16:54 <@ferringb_> so play nice, as I've attempted. 16:54 <@ciaranm> ferringb_: the details were provided in the channel where this was under discussion. you weren't there, and this doesn't concern you, so stop poking around 16:55 <@ferringb_> gah... do I have to sit in here to watch your statements? 16:55 <@ferringb_> just answer the question 16:55 <@ciaranm> no no, no need to join if you'd rather not. you could not get involved if you prefer 16:56 <@ferringb_> bleh, still working well with others I see. 16:56 <@Halcy0n> ferringb_: you aren't helping. 16:56 * antarus sighs 16:56 <@ferringb_> Halcy0n: sorry, I respond to sarcasm with sarcasm. 16:57 <@ferringb_> meanwhile I'll just ask jason specifically, bit easier. 16:57 <@ciaranm> sure. i'm working just fine with the qa team. who are in another channel, discussing the issue properly, rather than relying upon forwarded half-statements from a peon 16:57 <@antarus> ciaranm, to be clear I pasted the entire conversation 16:57 <@antarus> so if they were half statements you made then :) 16:57 <@antarus> s/then/them 16:57 <@ferringb_> ciaranm: and I'm asking because no such changes were made, if they were I want to know when/how 16:57 <@ciaranm> yes, but the people involved in said conversation already knew about what i was talking 16:57 <@ferringb_> and since you're stating it, you presumably know when it was modified. 16:58 <@ciaranm> you've had enough bug and -dev mail about it 16:58 * ferringb_ sighs 16:58 <@antarus> you jokingly(?) said you would modify the source of another project of which you aren't a member 16:59 <@ciaranm> antarus: uh, no i didn't 16:59 <@ciaranm> what's the deal with certain people inventing things and claiming i said them? 16:59 <@antarus> That was my interpretation 16:59 <@antarus> my apologies if thats not what you meant 17:00 <@ciaranm> now read what i actually said 17:00 -!- zmedico [n=zmedico@cpe-66-27-157-183.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #gentoo-dev 17:00 -!- mode/#gentoo-dev [+o zmedico] by ChanServ 17:00 <@antarus> <antarus> ciaranm: b) i can do this quite easily without portatge commit access 17:00 <@ciaranm> yupyup 17:00 <@ferringb_> antarus: key thing is that there is no indication he requires portage modification for it. 17:00 <@ferringb_> word games. 17:01 <@ciaranm> i don't require portage modification for it 17:01 <@ferringb_> or misinterpretation, either way it's a stupid thing to get the knickers in a twist over. 17:01 <@ciaranm> and i don't require portage modification because jstubbs changed portage to not require modification for it 17:01 <@ciaranm> is all now becoming clear? 17:02 <@antarus> see that only took like 15 minutes of arguing ;) 17:02 <@ferringb_> antarus: annoying thing is, still need to find out what the change exactly was. :) 17:02 <@ciaranm> antarus: dude. Halcy0n understood it just fine straight off 17:02 <@antarus> good for him, some of us are "peons" and take a bit longer 17:03 <@ciaranm> so, if you didn't understand, why did you run off crying that i was going to modify portage? 17:03 <@ferringb_> ciaranm: he dumped me the log because you were being a tool; called venting. 17:03 <@antarus> I pasted because someone asked for it 17:03 <@ferringb_> one particular chunk of your statement I wondered about, thus I popped in. 17:04 <@ferringb_> from there... the pissing fest. :) 17:04 <@antarus> after I commented that you were being your usual fun self 17:04 <@ciaranm> ferringb_: uh, no, i was having a technical discussion with someone who understood exactly what i was saying, and then the peanut gallery stepped in 17:04 <@ferringb_> oy. 17:05 <@ciaranm> now, since you asked so politely and didn't jump to any silly conclusions, the bug starts with an 8, and has USE_EXPAND in the title 17:05 <@ciaranm> if you want more than that, you'll have to wait for me to grep for it So, it seems he's no longer content with just picking up on things he notices where he thinks I might have upset some third party. Now he also has to go around grabbing logs off random people in a deliberate attempt to cause trouble, and, as he puts it, get me "thrown out of here".
Created attachment 79297 [details] 02-08-06 #-dev log (In reply to comment #51) > Well, ferringb has come right out and stated his intentions: > > 16:54 <@ferringb_> ciaranm: I'd rather de-op you and throw you out of here. > > Notice the lack of "I'd rather you were less to the point" or "I'd rather you > stopped assuming basic English reading skills" or suchlike. And the context, > which illustrates rather well that he's out to cause trouble: The reign of bullshit continues. My intentions was finding out what the hell he was talking about, since the portage devs consensus last I knew was to _not_ shove features into USE_EXPAND; specifically, 2 out of the 3 were against it. Thus, if it was in, that means either someone flip flopped, or someone shoved something into portage that was 2/3 disagreed with (iow, it shouldn't be there). Meanwhile, supplying the missing snippets- this is the point where I asked after being told by antarus the support was already there (specifically that he could do it without portage modifications). 17:46 <@ferringb_> ciaranm: actually, jstubbs does not agree with you last I looked. 17:46 <@brad[]> Certain proprietary operating systems start requisite services as part of the desktop environment 17:46 <@ferringb_> nor does genone 17:46 <@ciaranm> jstubbs implemented it for me 17:46 <@ferringb_> think I was the only one who thought it was a half way decent idea to jam it in there; the proposed solution was addition of metadata, not abusing existing. 17:46 <@ferringb_> ciaranm: clarify. 17:46 <@ciaranm> he wanted to find out whether it would break anything 17:46 <@ciaranm> it didn't 17:48 <@ferringb_> ciaranm: again, clarify. 17:48 <@ferringb_> bug #, explicit statement of what he actually implemented, etc. 17:48 <@ciaranm> certain people were spreading sneaky rumours that changing USE_EXPAND would make portage explode 17:49 <@ferringb_> ciaranm: just stick to the facts please 17:49 * SuperLag waits for the mushroom cloud 17:49 <@spock> blackace: AFAIK Fedora uses Xvesa for rhgb 17:49 <@ferringb_> ciaranm: what are you specifically referencing that he implemented; simple question 17:49 <@spyderous> ajax: as i recall, it actually caused problems to start kdrive, then stop it, then start regular X 17:49 <@ciaranm> ferringb_: wouldn't you rather infer things from vaguely worded truths? 17:49 <@ferringb_> ciaranm: I'd rather de-op you and throw you out of here. 17:50 <@ferringb_> but right now I'm going through the proper channels. 17:50 <@ferringb_> so play nice, as I've attempted. 17:50 <@ciaranm> ferringb_: the details were provided in the channel where this was under discussion. you weren't there, and this doesn't concern you, so stop poking around 17:51 <@ferringb_> gah... do I have to sit in here to watch your statements? 17:51 <@ferringb_> just answer the question 17:51 <@ciaranm> no no, no need to join if you'd rather not. you could not get involved if you prefer 17:52 <@ferringb_> bleh, still working well with others I see. 17:52 <@Halcy0n> ferringb_: you aren't helping. 17:52 * antarus sighs 17:52 <@ferringb_> Halcy0n: sorry, I respond to sarcasm with sarcasm. 17:52 <@ferringb_> meanwhile I'll just ask jason specifically, bit easier. Full log is attached, including a flair up in the end.
What, this flair up? 20:41 <@ferringb> ciaranm: just do what I tell ya, alright? 20:41 <@ferringb> no debate here 21:18 <@ferringb> ciaranm: why are you here? 21:18 <@ferringb> seriously, what is your driving force for fucking with people? 21:22 <@ferringb> if they're working on something you dislike, or dislike their methods, you harass the fuck out of them. 21:22 <@ferringb> bullshit. 21:25 <@ferringb> ciaranm: there is no technical discussion to be had. 21:27 <@ferringb> which is flat out bullshit.
Kindly read the full log. Finally, ciaran- you win. My responsibilities I'll be transfering to those who are next in line; I'm done.
Can we start a list of devs that've been turned off Gentoo due to Ciaran's attitude and devrel's inability to deal with it? I know I'd be on it, perhaps ferringb also
Sign me up on that list as well. (and, for those who have been around long enough, I used to support ciaran. to those folks, I apologize for being wrong)
Where's a pen? For the record, USE_EXPAND wasn't added to the profiles so that FEATURES could be added to it. It was added so that things like VIDEO_CARDS or whatever other ebuild related stuff could be. I'm not going to get worked up over some specific instance like Brian did as I've also done so several times before and achieved nothing but to shame myself - so much so that Mr. Portnoy placed me into the "it's people like you that make gentoo feel like work" boat. So, Ciaran. I just have one small question. Please read through this bug and cut out any comments that are from or to Brian. Why do all the other commenters feel the way they do?
18:49 <@ciaranm> Flameeyes: you're mistaking your packages for packages that are important I'll be documenting stuff as I see it here. I don't even know if devrel does anything any more, but at least there will be a record.
(In reply to comment #58) > 18:49 <@ciaranm> Flameeyes: you're mistaking your packages for packages that > are important > > I'll be documenting stuff as I see it here. I don't even know if devrel does > anything any more, but at least there will be a record. > I have not been commenting on this bug, but this time I am going to. This is one sentence out of a very long conversation among several people, none of whom (including FlameEyes) seem to be upset about anything (I happened to be watching it as it went). It is very hard to know how to process entries like this without complete context, which in this case is about 100 lines of the log.
/shrug. take it for what it is. I imagine most folks are somewhat inured to ciaran being ciaran.
Uh, isn't the process supposed to be "if someone has an issue, they report it", not "someone in the peanut gallery picks up remarks that were perfectly understood by all relevant parties, takes them wildly out of context without even bothering to look up what was under discussion and makes wild speculation based upon misconceptions in an attempt to cause trouble"? I'm seeing rather a lot of the latter in this bug... (And for context, you also need to look at various other bugs that weren't mentioned by number at all on IRC, since all relevant people already knew what was under discussion.)
I must say that in this case the sentence was no more and no less that the usual poking between me and ciaranm (and spb sometimes)... Like saying I'm not funny (well I'm not funny, that's true). Really that is a way to nitpicking it.
(In reply to comment #55) > Can we start a list of devs that've been turned off Gentoo due to Ciaran's > attitude and devrel's inability to deal with it? > > I know I'd be on it, perhaps ferringb also > Sure... (equally turned off by ciaranm and devrel not being able to do it's job)
(In reply to comment #61) > Uh, isn't the process supposed to be "if someone has an issue, they report it", > not "someone in the peanut gallery picks up remarks that were perfectly > understood by all relevant parties, takes them wildly out of context without > even bothering to look up what was under discussion and makes wild speculation > based upon misconceptions in an attempt to cause trouble"? I'm seeing rather a > lot of the latter in this bug... Realistically, this entire bug (all provided evidence) falls into the former, not the latter of your definitions. Still waiting on an actual response from you regarding the behaviour in question, beyond more games (why not vote on pink elephants...) As you said, if someone has an issue, they report it; it's been reported, respond instead of the mayhem on this bug and making vague statements like http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/35995 .
(In reply to comment #64) > Realistically, this entire bug (all provided evidence) falls into the former, > not the latter of your definitions. What, the stuff where you post comments saying "I think $foo may have been offended by $bar. $foo, would you like to comment?". Those're leading questions. > why not vote on pink elephants... You could hold a vote on whether pink elephants exist. It won't affect whether pink elephants actually exist. All voting does is remove individual accountability and the need to understand an issue before being able to affect the outcome. > As you said, if someone has an issue, they report it; it's been reported, > respond instead of the mayhem on this bug and making vague statements like > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/35995 . *They* report it. Not "ferringb reports what he thinks might be an issue and then adds a person to the Cc: list with a leading question" or "klieber reports something that he's taken completely out of context that was understood perfectly well by all involved in an attempt to cause trouble".
I'm sorry if you feel that I reported it in an attempt to cause trouble. That couldn't be further from the truth. I reported it because I feel you're detrimental to the project and are driving some good devs away. That is the issue I have -- I posted Flameyes' comments here because I felt it was indicative of your continued antagonistic attitude. Flameyes corrected me, so I apologizing for misconstruing that particular remark. However, Ciaran, that is but one example. You never responded to Jason's question in comment #57. So maybe ferringb has an axe to grind with you. Maybe I do, too. But look at how many people have spoken out against you. Can you explain all of those people? Are they all trying to stir up trouble? Or could they possibly be on to something?
(In reply to comment #65) > You could hold a vote on whether pink elephants exist. It won't affect whether > pink elephants actually exist. All voting does is remove individual > accountability and the need to understand an issue before being able to affect > the outcome. (I am not saying this as a defense for Brian, just pointing out the flaw in your manipulation attempt) I think Brian was asking you to account for yourself, which you still haven't done. So you can't claim that anybody is removing anyone's individual accountability when this bug has been started to allow a forum for said individuals to account for their actions. .. or maybe I missed it.
(In reply to comment #66) > However, Ciaran, that is but one example. You never responded to Jason's > question in comment #57. So maybe ferringb has an axe to grind with you. > Maybe I do, too. But look at how many people have spoken out against you. Can > you explain all of those people? Are they all trying to stir up trouble? Or > could they possibly be on to something? All I see is lots of people jumping to conclusions and picking out things that are later shown to be bunk. I'd say that that illustrates a rather large hole in the devrel process -- if bugs based upon heresay and third party claims were closed off straight away, this would be long dead. The problem is that certain people are going around looking for things out of which to make an issue, rather than addressing things that actually are issues -- and, if you try hard enough, you can stir up controversy about pretty much anything.
(In reply to comment #68) > All I see is lots of people jumping to conclusions and picking out things that > are later shown to be bunk. Point out where in my complaints (logs) you've not been an asshole please. You've pointed out my language, but the question of your needling behaviour still is unaddressed. Bluntly, no one's jumping to conslusions here but you- answer the concerns. > I'd say that that illustrates a rather large hole > in the devrel process -- if bugs based upon heresay and third party claims There is no hearsay nor third party claims here. The bulk of this bug's complaints are necessarily leveled by me, because I'm the only one who got off his ass to collect evidence. > people are going around looking for things out of which to make an issue, > rather than addressing things that actually are issues -- and, if you try hard > enough, you can stir up controversy about pretty much anything. Amazingly enough, there might actually be an issue here with your behaviour, instead of folks "out to get you" (enter cabal rhetoric).
(In reply to comment #69) > There is no hearsay nor third party claims here. The bulk of this bug's > complaints are necessarily leveled by me, because I'm the only one who got off > his ass to collect evidence. There is a difference between collecting evidence and going on a witch hunt. If you're looking to address a concern that you have (not a concern that someone else may or may not have), please start again and handle this properly. If someone else has a concern, let them do the explaining, and don't go around asking leading questions or posting examples of where you think they might have been offended based upon your misinterpretations. If you're just trying to find an excuse to burn me at the metaphorical stake, I can suggest plenty of more productive uses of your time.
(In reply to comment #70) > (In reply to comment #69) > > There is no hearsay nor third party claims here. The bulk of this bug's > > complaints are necessarily leveled by me, because I'm the only one who got off > > his ass to collect evidence. > > There is a difference between collecting evidence and going on a witch hunt. Discerned by you? You're missing the fact you're not the jury here. The only valid method to decide if there is a legitimate issue is to handle it off to a neutral party and have them decided. Both you and I are biased; I state your being a jackass and driving folks away via active harassment. You state I'm on a witch hunt. Only valid way out of this one is a decision by a neutral group, not you labeling it a witch hunt. > If > you're looking to address a concern that you have (not a concern that someone > else may or may not have), please start again and handle this properly. Properly defined by you? no no no no... see, that's a silly game you would like to play and attempted to play last time someone took their issues to devrel. The bug is here, and whether you like it or not complaints have been stated and investigation is proceeding. You don't get to change the rules just because you're in the crosshairs of it. > If > someone else has a concern, let them do the explaining, and don't go around > asking leading questions or posting examples of where you think they might have > been offended based upon your misinterpretations. Who has the right to judge your public statements as misinterpretations? You? no no no no... see, that's an awful nice clause to get out of any statement made, "waah, you misinterpretted it". Doesn't work that way, you make a statement, if you're too inept (whether socially or intellectually) to phrase it so that folks don't misinterpret it, you pay the costs. Especially when the "misinterpretations" follow a pattern quite similar to harassment. This is assuming it is 'misinterpretations', instead of 'lie my ass off when called on my behaviour'. Regardless of what it is, it is a problem, one you're aparently incapable of controlling let alone acknowledging. > If you're just trying to find > an excuse to burn me at the metaphorical stake, I can suggest plenty of more > productive uses of your time. Ciaran, this statement is exactly why you have *no* say in how this proceeds. You can only defend yourself, just the same as I can only make the case that your actively harassing folks. Either you're incapable of admitting any potential wrongs, or incapable of seeing that your views are not shared by others. Regardless, it's why your requests to restart the process will not fly- your biased (you're a party to the issue) thus you cannot have say in how it's processed, you can only make your side of the case.
And just so it's bloody clear for ciaranm, yes, I have concerns- as I stated at the beginning of this bug, I'm complaining about his actions towards me, just the same as kito and grobian are complaining about his actions towards them (whether direct or towards their work). Reading the bug might help, 'twas stated above already.
(In reply to comment #68) > (In reply to comment #66) > > However, Ciaran, that is but one example. You never responded to Jason's > > question in comment #57. So maybe ferringb has an axe to grind with you. > > Maybe I do, too. But look at how many people have spoken out against you. Can > > you explain all of those people? Are they all trying to stir up trouble? Or > > could they possibly be on to something? > > All I see is lots of people jumping to conclusions and picking out things that > are later shown to be bunk. I'd say that that illustrates a rather large hole > in the devrel process -- if bugs based upon heresay and third party claims were > closed off straight away, this would be long dead. The problem is that certain > people are going around looking for things out of which to make an issue, > rather than addressing things that actually are issues -- and, if you try hard > enough, you can stir up controversy about pretty much anything. This is a perfect example of what gets me. Rather than acknowledging and working through issues - even if it's to prove them wrong - you are immediately dismissing them and, by implication, whomever brought up the issue as well. While it's not a quote, "come back when you have something intelligent to say" is something I'd not be surprised to hear you say.
Well, let's start with comment #58. Is everyone happy that that one's been satisfactorally resolved from the me side, and that the only remaining issue there is the very fact that it was reported?
Yes Ciaran. I admitted I was wrong and apologized for it. Now, can you do the same for the other 71 comments?
For the devrel folks responsible for reviewing this complaint, I hope they will take the time to read through bug 57300, especially the part that starts after comment #32. It's almost an identical copy of this bug. Multiple complaints against Ciaran, each followed by Ciaran's steadfast refusal to admit that he may actually have an attitude problem. Also present is Ciaran's unwillingness/inability to look at the larger problem and instead focus on individual attributes that he can try to pick apart. It's spooky how similar the tone of the two bugs is. Move forwarad to this bug -- completely new group of people making the exact same complaints against Ciaran. In fact, you'll see that myself, cshields and avenj all stuck up for Ciaran in bug 57300. The fact that all three of us are now on the other side should say something in and of itself. It's easy to write off one or two complaints as personality conflicts. However, there is a demonstrable pattern here that speaks for itself. I'll also note that Ciaran has never once admitted that he has a problem. It's always been other folks Out To Get Him or people who "misunderstand" what he's saying. Ciaran, if that many people are misunderstanding you, the communication problem does not lie with them.
Okay, the original report through comment #12 next. Anyone find any unresolved issues there? Kinda hard to say for sure, since the original reporter hasn't commented at all, but afaics comment #12 pretty much sums it up.
(In reply to comment #77) > Okay, the original report through comment #12 next. Anyone find any unresolved > issues there? Kinda hard to say for sure, since the original reporter hasn't > commented at all, but afaics comment #12 pretty much sums it up. Keep going, preferably sequentially rather then jumping around. Makes it easier to ensure all points have been addressed.
(In reply to comment #76) > However, there is a demonstrable pattern here that speaks for itself. Would that pattern be "it is easier to abuse the devrel process than to fix technical issues the right way"?
(In reply to comment #79) > (In reply to comment #76) > > However, there is a demonstrable pattern here that speaks for itself. > > Would that pattern be "it is easier to abuse the devrel process than to fix > technical issues the right way"? Stick to the points in the bug. You want out of this, you're going to have to defend each individual point, proving that it's a misunderstanding/misinterpretation instead of malice/needling/harassment. Alternative is to take no action and just assume folks are going to shut up/go away, which frankly ain't happening.
Every so often I feel I have to say what I'm thinking.. Ciaran the only reason you are still a dev is because devrel exists. If devrel did not exist I'd personally eject you right now for being counter productive to the project. Personally I like and dislike you. Some days you are ok. But most of the time you make gentoo almost unbearable. Perhaps in the interest of the body of Gentoo and you're own personal interests you should retire before waiting for the inevitable to happen.
(In reply to comment #79) > (In reply to comment #76) > > However, there is a demonstrable pattern here that speaks for itself. > > Would that pattern be "it is easier to abuse the devrel process than to fix > technical issues the right way"? > "Also present is Ciaran's unwillingness/inability to look at the larger problem and instead focus on individual attributes that he can try to pick apart."
Folks, I don't want to get sucked into another round of tit-for-tat. I'm going to bow out of this for now since I think I've made my thoughts and opinions clear. If anyone has any questions for me or would like clarification on anything that I said, please drop me an email or /msg me on IRC.
Mmm, and this isn't a witchhunt, eh? #12, #58, #62 and #81 present a pretty good summary. I'm not going to even bother trying on this bug any more, since it's too obvious that it's just being used to stir up trouble. If any of the devrel-appointed investigators wants to talk to me, I'm on IRC or email.
If you or anyone has a problem with #81 you are free to file a bug for it.
(In reply to comment #84) > Mmm, and this isn't a witchhunt, eh? #12, #58, #62 and #81 present a pretty > good summary. I'm not going to even bother trying on this bug any more, since > it's too obvious that it's just being used to stir up trouble. If out of 84 comments, you can only point at 4 comments from folks who are *not* leveling the complaints for your proof of "witch hunts", I'd suggest you get back to addressing those who *are* leveling the complaints. Get on track and stop dodging the actual issues.
I've been trying to stay out of commenting on this bug, but I wanted to make sure I stated my opinion on the overall situation. Ciaran is a fairly technically minded person, but his skills in properly dealing with people who he views as inferior in intellect is extremely poor. He doesn't give a rats ass about what other people think when he says something. He only cares about getting stuff done his way or nothing. He also likes getting entertainment out of making snide comments once in a while that never really go over the boundary of being "terrible" but are still not needed. I'm with solar on there are days which Ciaran is an incredible asset to Gentoo, but there are other days that working with him make me just want to leave Gentoo. I enjoy doing stuff for gentoo partially because of the people involved. Once the people involved get to the point where its not enjoyable anymore, it really makes me wonder why I'm still helping Gentoo out because of the people in it. I say because of the people aspect, Ciaran is a terrible wound in our ability to address our userbase and make us grow. I don't care how smart he or how well he handles stuff for us, I think his attitude has proven time and time again that we have lost good people because of him. I really hope that devrel and the people who will make the ultimate decision actually make something happen out of this. If they can't, then I've lost all hope in Gentoo and will probably find some other open source project to focus on.
I'm really new and my opinion probably counts as close to 0 as possible in the hierachy but Lance's comment inspired me to post. Before I became a dev I was a huge admirer of Ciaran. I quickly realized how much knowledge and intelligence he had and what a big assett it was for Gentoo to have him on the team. He has contributed so much to the project that I can safely say he is in the top 20. I think he is so knowledgable and intelligent that I am planning on asking him to mentor me when I get around to taking the ebuild quiz and getting access to the tree (That won't happen for at least a year or 2). Now some of you are instantly going to say "curtis is on Ciarans side" but you are incorrect. I am on everyones side because there is only one side. I am part of the team just like Ciaran and just like the rest of you and I want us to reach a good resolution on this bug that everyone will be happy with. As far as I'm concerned there are no sides and I'm sure the rest of you agree. Ciaran, it's time to stop the little jabs and sarcasms. Personally it makes me laugh (even when it's directed at me) but all these people on this bug are telling you that it bothers them so much they are willing to quit. Is that what you want? Ciaran, you haver some good points. Even though your way of saying it degrades if you don't get your way, your still right most of the time. But so what? This is a community project Ciaran. Even though you may be right you just have to accept that you can't have your way every time. Even if this means more work in the long run you just have to accept it. It's time to come to the conclusion that Gentoo works the way it does and you will *never* be able to avoid "fixing the mess afterwards" unless you propose that GLEP for a new Chief Architect. Beyond that I can't see a way for you to be happy with this project unless you are willing to accept it and stop all the stuff you are being accused of. Swift, Ramereth and Klieber have all told me a few things that really stuck with me and have made it much easier for me to deal with the Gentoo project in general and, specifically, how to achieve my goals within the project. Some of the most important things they taught me are things that Ciaran seems to be forgetting. We are all volunteers. Things take time so just stick to it and don't get discouraged. Gentoo devs are from all over the planet so expect wierd shit to happen at random times. And last, but most importantly: If you want something done then do it or STFU. Ciaran, as I said at the beginning, I think you are an asset but your current behaviour is negating it. You need to heed that last bit of advice: If you want it done a certain way then do it or STFU because everyone is getting tired of hearing about it. I hope you decide to work it out with everyone here so that we all can be happy. I would hate to see you, or anyone else, leave over this sophmoric shit.
Ciaran, http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36018 Problem with these kinds of responses to me are that they can also be interpreted as "you work on something that sucks and has no (real) users", which is not so nice to say. Normally, this would just be an accidential coincidence, however, after a few of these, it doesn't feel so much like coincidence any more. That's where it gets tricky. Another example of this was reported by Grant in this thread, and it is just how I feel you approach me, in a very unkind way, expressing your opinion on my 'quality' as Gentoo developer. Whatever you think of me is completely up to you, but I would like it when you'd not show that to everyone over public (and restricted) channels. In any way, I don't think it makes sense for me let myself being obstructed or felt unpleasant in a community I am in for fun and on my own free time, so I'll find something useful to do, of which I have plenty.
As for those who are wondering why I have not commented any further I will explain. Everytime I open my mouth a smart ass comment about grammer is directed toward me. I have had it with the bullshit, I did not open this bug with the intention of just abuse I have substained from the prick but for others who have felt asbused as well. All I can say is "If Gentoo wants to become a side kick of grammer" as much as ciaranm and a few others want to make it then say so, I will open the door and close it right now and move on to another open source project. I along with many others will not put up with any further abuse from individuals like ciaranm. With that said I will sit back and wait for devrel to finish the investigation and make a decision before I make a decision as to were I stand with gento as a whole.
Ah, comment #90, a brilliant summary of the state of affairs. So apparently this bug was filed on behalf of some imaginary legion of people that were supposedly offended by me (like the ones in comment #58, presumably), but when it comes to specifics suddenly everything goes quiet. Oh, and lots of unprofessional behaviour, threats and ad hominem attacks, but coming from those doing the complaining. Yet more evidence that the only problem here is that this bug was ever filed...
(In reply to comment #91) > Ah, comment #90, a brilliant summary of the state of affairs. So apparently > this bug was filed on behalf of some imaginary legion of people that were > supposedly offended by me (like the ones in comment #58, presumably), but when > it comes to specifics suddenly everything goes quiet. Specifics are the exact things you're either ignoring in this bug or just plain flat saying they're all taken out of context. You're ignoring the specifics and dwell on the few things that were admittedly said as a mistake on their behalf (ex. comment #58). Whats the point of bringing that up? It was stated as being incorrect, ok move on. I guess that's the only real ground you have to defend yourself. When are you going to start actually taking this bug seriously? The truth is, never. You like how you deal with people. You don't want to change and don't feel like you need to. So either start acknowledging the specifics that have placed here, or just stop. I certainly hope that the group will look at this bug and see you going around everything instead of defending yourself. This whole thing is a game and you're enjoying it, just admit it. You like playing with people's minds to see how far they'll go just because you're antagonizing them. You've successfully made numerous people leave Gentoo and I bet you're happy about that because that means you won. Do we honestly want to keep such a person inside of Gentoo? Technical compentence aside, I say no. And unprofessionalism? What dictionary do you read from? Do you honestly think you acted professionally in this bug on *every* comment you made? I agree that Brian got out of hand on this bug, but many people (including the person who created the bug) are well within the bounds of being professional. You have no right to say who is professional and who is not. You are the absolute opposite of what being a professional is about. I'd love to see you keep a job with the attitudes you show here. I don't know of any employer that puts down as a skill "Must be an asshole" other than car salesmen.
(In reply to comment #92) > And unprofessionalism? What dictionary do you read from? Do you honestly think > you acted professionally in this bug on *every* comment you made? I agree that > Brian got out of hand on this bug, but many people (including the person who > created the bug) are well within the bounds of being professional. So referring to a fellow developer as "the prick" is being professional?
(In reply to comment #93) > (In reply to comment #92) > > And unprofessionalism? What dictionary do you read from? Do you honestly think > > you acted professionally in this bug on *every* comment you made? I agree that > > Brian got out of hand on this bug, but many people (including the person who > > created the bug) are well within the bounds of being professional. > > So referring to a fellow developer as "the prick" is being professional? Why don't you just reply to the rest my comments? This bug isn't about what people are saying about you, its about what *you* are saying about other people and how *you* act. Once again, you're trying to move this bug into /dev/null because you know you've got nowhere to go. Time to play by your rules. Since your claim that people are Out To Get Me. List me *specifics* that aren't taken out of context, are true claims where people have stated exactly word for word "I want ciaran out because he is a prick". I want detailed descriptions of all accounts with at *least* 10 first hand witnesses of said accounts and of course, you'll need lawyers to make sure nobody is pulling something. Just face it, you're never going to be happy with the outcome of this because to you, its all flawed and thats the only arguement you can truely try and fight.
(In reply to comment #94) > Just face it, you're never going to be happy with the outcome of this because > to you, its all flawed and thats the only arguement you can truely try and > fight. See, here's how this bug is going: complainer: $foo, $bar and $baz, therefore $fnord me: demonstration that $foo isn't valid. demonstration that $bar isn't valid. demonstration that $baz isn't valid. hence, $fnord is nonsense. complainer: You're just picking at specifics and not addressing the overall bug!
(In reply to comment #95) > (In reply to comment #94) > > Just face it, you're never going to be happy with the outcome of this because > > to you, its all flawed and thats the only arguement you can truely try and > > fight. > > See, here's how this bug is going: > > complainer: $foo, $bar and $baz, therefore $fnord > > me: demonstration that $foo isn't valid. demonstration that $bar isn't valid. > demonstration that $baz isn't valid. hence, $fnord is nonsense. I seem to have missed the demonstration that you haven't been antagonistic to prefix developers, let alone osx developers. > complainer: You're just picking at specifics and not addressing the overall > bug! You've not addressed harassment. You've hidden behind claims of "I know better then you about the tech involved", which is stupid- nobody gives a damn about your opinions, they are sick and tired of your words/actions towards people. There really isn't any point in continuing discussion with you- lance spelled it out pretty well (despite typos). Only thing this bug is useful for is recording the outcome of the investigation, and recording the damage you'll do to gentoo projects on the way out if punitive measures are taken.
(In reply to comment #96) > nobody gives a damn about your opinions Many people do, including me.
(In reply to comment #97) > (In reply to comment #96) > > nobody gives a damn about your opinions > > Many people do, including me. > I think the point is that few folks would argue that Ciaran has some decent ideas and opinions, but they take issue with the way he chooses to deliver those ideas and opinions. There's honey, there's vinegar and then there's Ciaran.
(In reply to comment #98) > I think the point is that few folks would argue that Ciaran has some decent > ideas and opinions, but they take issue with the way he chooses to deliver > those ideas and opinions. There's honey, there's vinegar and then there's > Ciaran. That's not what Brian came across as trying to say. Either way, I've never had a problem with how he's expressed them, and we've disagreed on quite a few things in the past.
(In reply to comment #99) > (In reply to comment #98) > > I think the point is that few folks would argue that Ciaran has some decent > > ideas and opinions, but they take issue with the way he chooses to deliver > > those ideas and opinions. There's honey, there's vinegar and then there's > > Ciaran. > > That's not what Brian came across as trying to say. Misread then- reread my comments, have made it pretty clear that ciaran can think whatever the hell he wants, the problem is in what he says/does when he's interacting with others- I don't give a damn if he likes his trollish games as long as he doesn't involve me and mine in his games. > Either way, I've never had > a problem with how he's expressed them, and we've disagreed on quite a few > things in the past. That's fine; the complaints leveled (and being investigated) are regarding those who *have* had problems with his method of 'expression'. Those standing up for ciaran seem to be missing that; the complaint isn't regarding his treatment of *them* it's regarding his treatment of those leveling the complaint; ancillary "he's nice to me" doesn't absolve the complaints, just means either they're not offended, or he's not out to screw with them. And again... they're not the ones leveling the complaint- if it's decided there is an issue, comments of "he's nice to me" only really factor into the decision of punishment if the investigation finds he's violating terms of his return/etiquette rules. Basically, you could be an upstanding member of society, but if the facts fit for a charge, you *should* be convicted of it- the upstanding bit only comes into play in sentencing, not in determination of guilt.
(In reply to comment #100) > the complaint isn't regarding his > treatment of *them* it's regarding his treatment of those leveling the > complaint; ancillary "he's nice to me" doesn't absolve the complaints, just > means either they're not offended, or he's not out to screw with them. Perhaps I should be more clear. I've been on the receiving end of much the same treatment that people are complaining about on several occasions, and have never seen a problem with it. Then again, I tend to think that if someone tells you you're being an idiot it's usually worth considering the possibility that you are and not immediately getting offended by the mere suggestion. Apparently others differ.
(In reply to comment #101) > (In reply to comment #100) > > the complaint isn't regarding his > > treatment of *them* it's regarding his treatment of those leveling the > > complaint; ancillary "he's nice to me" doesn't absolve the complaints, just > > means either they're not offended, or he's not out to screw with them. > > Perhaps I should be more clear. I've been on the receiving end of much the same > treatment that people are complaining about on several occasions, and have > never seen a problem with it. Then again, I tend to think that if someone tells > you you're being an idiot it's usually worth considering the possibility that > you are and not immediately getting offended by the mere suggestion. Apparently > others differ. Stephen, you're a complete moron and are wrong. Come back next time when you've figured out how to make a good point. Am I getting across why I think you're wrong? No, I'm just insulting you, and vaguely stating 'your point sucks'. The issues with ciaran come down to either outright harassment, or hiding behind "constructive advice" that just happens to lack anything constructive, until you pull it out of him- demonstration in point, http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36053 Really think jakub would've called him a troll if it hadn't taken 4 emails just to get what ciaran was on about, beyond stating "sorry, you're not doing it right" and calling him incompetent every step of the way? And just to head off the peanut gallery who'll point at that as "witch hunt" material, it's a good example for my point- it's not evidence, so kindly save your breath.
(In reply to comment #101) > Perhaps I should be more clear. I've been on the receiving end of much the same > treatment that people are complaining about on several occasions, and have > never seen a problem with it. Then again, I tend to think that if someone tells > you you're being an idiot it's usually worth considering the possibility that > you are and not immediately getting offended by the mere suggestion. Apparently > others differ. If an asshole doesn't smell like an asshole to you, that doesn't mean that it smells like roses to everyone else. ("you" figuratively, not so much "you" spb) If someone wants to be rash and offensive to someone else who doesn't care about it in private that's fine.. But it is not appropriate behaviour in public forums ("public" in this case includes areas private to gentoo but public for devs), or in front of other people. End of story. No bickering and arguing about who is technically correct on what here, if there is an issue of technical correctness it can be discussed without being assholes. If that is not the case, then we need to get rid of the problem devs. I don't care how technically competent and valuable they are (as we all agree Ciaran is), it is not worth the bad image that Gentoo gets. I still have yet to see any responsability taken for actions here (see Comment #67). For that matter, I never saw him take responsability for the actions that led him to his original suspension from development. He had a chance, some things never change, so get rid of him.
(In reply to comment #102) > The issues with ciaran come down to either > outright harassment, or hiding behind "constructive advice" that just happens > to lack anything constructive, until you pull it out of him- > demonstration in point, http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36053 I don't see your point there -- he came out right off the bat with a perfectly valid objection to the email in question. Everyone I talked to at the time saw the same problem, so as far as I can see his only mistake was assuming that everyone involved possesses some degree of deductive ability, and the inclination to apply it.
(In reply to comment #104) > (In reply to comment #102) > > The issues with ciaran come down to either > > outright harassment, or hiding behind "constructive advice" that just happens > > to lack anything constructive, until you pull it out of him- > > demonstration in point, http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36053 > > I don't see your point there -- he came out right off the bat with a perfectly > valid objection to the email in question. Everyone I talked to at the time saw > the same problem, so as far as I can see his only mistake was assuming that > everyone involved possesses some degree of deductive ability, and the > inclination to apply it. I believe he's referring to the fact that ciaran didn't exactly point out what the issue was, and assumed that the other party knew. So instead of stating "this is wrong because of X, Y, and Z", he just said "this is wrong". Then after a few times (some of which included some jabs at him) he started making some comments that were uncalled for. Which of course made the other party annoyed and thus started an unneeded flamewar on a public mailing list. All of this crud could have been avoided if Ciaran had just clearly stated what was wrong instead of assuming the other party could read his mind. Sometimes people don't follow conversations very well, that doesn't mean they don't have common sense or are stupid.
(In reply to comment #104) > (In reply to comment #102) > > The issues with ciaran come down to either > > outright harassment, or hiding behind "constructive advice" that just happens > > to lack anything constructive, until you pull it out of him- > > demonstration in point, http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36053 > > I don't see your point there -- he came out right off the bat with a perfectly > valid objection to the email in question. Everyone I talked to at the time saw > the same problem, so as far as I can see his only mistake was assuming that > everyone involved possesses some degree of deductive ability, and the > inclination to apply it. Ah... so you're using ciaran's justification; y'all think he's an idiot, thus it's alright to jerk him around. Again, doesn't matter what _you_ or _ciaran_ think/know on that particular issue- obviously jakub wasn't seeing this "mistake that everyone you talked to" saw, thus ciaran *should* have just stated it instead of dragging it out. Or, he can drag it out and call him incompetent a couple of times for kicks. Realistically, what do you think the case here is? That ciaran is incompetent at communicating, or that he's just needling someone for kicks? Doesn't matter if his point is valid, there's no justification for the extra bullshit that goes with- and that's the core issue both you and ciaran are skirting.
(In reply to comment #106) He said that last rites mails should only be sent out by someone who had masked and was going to remove the package. Last we heard, jakub wasn't an ebuild dev and shouldn't be doing either of the above, yet is sending out these emails. The problem seems fairly obvious to me, and shouldn't need to be stated explicitly. If someone is going to say that it should, things will just get ridiculous very quickly.
(In reply to comment #107) > (In reply to comment #106) > He said that last rites mails should only be sent out by someone who had masked > and was going to remove the package. Last we heard, jakub wasn't an ebuild dev > and shouldn't be doing either of the above, yet is sending out these emails. > The problem seems fairly obvious to me, and shouldn't need to be stated > explicitly. you're telling me that nice little explanation you gave is equivalent to- http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36056 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36058 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36060 Expanding into a repeat of it and "bbapm is only part of the problem"... http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36063 Curious, where's the definition of ciaran's "proper last rites" email? Further, why didn't he just state it rather then restating repeatedly while jabbing at jakub? Why waste *everyones* time with stupid back and forth emails because ciaran is unwilling to state things clearly, instead falling back to insulting? It's a waste of peoples time. > and shouldn't need to be stated explicitly. If someone is going to say > that it should, things will just get ridiculous very quickly. Frankly, if you think communicating clearly without insulting people is ridiculous, stay the hell away from our users and devs.
(In reply to comment #108) > you're telling me that nice little explanation you gave is equivalent to- > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36056 > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36058 > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36060 > Expanding into a repeat of it and "bbapm is only part of the problem"... > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36063 One can assume that jakub knows his status in the project, and knows that he's not going to follow through and remove the package in question. The rest should be fairly obvious and shouldn't need to be stated explicitly. Clear communication isn't ridiculous; explicitly stating what everyone ought to know already is.
(In reply to comment #109) > (In reply to comment #108) > > you're telling me that nice little explanation you gave is equivalent to- > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36056 > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36058 > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36060 > > Expanding into a repeat of it and "bbapm is only part of the problem"... > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36063 > > One can assume that jakub knows his status in the project, and knows that he's > not going to follow through and remove the package in question. The rest should > be fairly obvious and shouldn't need to be stated explicitly. Clear > communication isn't ridiculous; explicitly stating what everyone ought to know > already is. Wow, this is particularly retarded in light of ciaran's own request- http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20201#c11 So... doing what ciaran told him to do, then kicked in the shins because he's not an ebuild dev. Round and round, either ciaran's being an idiot, or he's screwing with jakub because he doesn't want to deal with bbapm, regardless it's shitty behaviour. Spb- the stupid thing of your commentary here is that just like ciaran's own responses, your only commenting on the catalyst for ciaran to comment on something, not on his _COMMENTS_ which is what the damn bug is about. The closest you come to commenting on his actual statements is the parroting of ciaran's justification for his behaviour, namely "it's alright to be a jerk to them if I think they're being an idiot". It's not acceptable and has been the source of complaints against ciaran, and is what this bug is about. It doesn't matter if the person you're talking to is an inbred moron or an elitist jack ass, if you're a gentoo developer speaking in any forum of gentoo, you treat people with at least basic civility. There are no exceptions- something both of you seem to have a problem groking.
(In reply to comment #110) > Spb- the stupid thing of your commentary here is that just like ciaran's own > responses, your only commenting on the catalyst for ciaran to comment on > something, not on his _COMMENTS_ which is what the damn bug is about. No, I was pointing out that the example you gave of him throwing out a vague insult and needing four emails back and forth to get some useful info actually contained all the needed information in the first email.
(In reply to comment #111) > No, I was pointing out that the example you gave of him throwing out a vague > insult and needing four emails back and forth to get some useful info actually > contained all the needed information in the first email. Stephen, the first email was in reference to gnotepad, the 4 back and forth were over bbapm; the kicking in the shin is in relation to bbapm (iow, gnotepad is just the catalyst). The "useful info" you're referencing for bbapm was stated by others, namely ciaran being fluxbox maintainer only (despite telling jakub to do exactly what he did, then kicking at him). You're also dodging the comments about how he responds, instead attempting to talk only about the underlying issue- don't. Bug's regarding his method of responding/interaction, not whatever catalyst/excuse given for him to start in on folks again. Not sure how many times I'm going to have to repeat that until you two get it through your heads.
(In reply to comment #112) > Stephen, the first email was in reference to gnotepad, the 4 back and forth > were over bbapm; the kicking in the shin is in relation to bbapm (iow, gnotepad > is just the catalyst). What you linked to with your comment was the first email, so I responded to that. Even in the rest of the thread, though, I don't see what's wrong with pointing somebody who needs information directly at the source of said information. Then again, it's already blatantly obvious that my view on that isn't shared by some devs, so I won't bother arguing the point any further.
I'd like to add myself to the list of people complaining about Ciaran. I've had no problem at all with him until this evening, but I'm not happy about him spreading FUD and attacking my personal reputation on the -dev mailing list like this [1]. Specifically, I'm complaining about him stating that I'm refusing to co-operate over bug #123926. He's stated that in a reply to my earlier email [2] where I explicitly state that this is not the case. [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36180 [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36179 Best regards, Stu
(In reply to comment #114) > Specifically, I'm complaining about him stating that I'm refusing to co-operate > over bug #123926. He's stated that in a reply to my earlier email [2] where I > explicitly state that this is not the case. You closed the bug five times. That's most definitely not cooperating. Quit abusing the devrel process to try to avoid having to fix your packages.
(In reply to comment #114) > I'd like to add myself to the list of people complaining about Ciaran. > > I've had no problem at all with him until this evening, but I'm not happy about > him spreading FUD and attacking my personal reputation on the -dev mailing list > like this [1]. > > Specifically, I'm complaining about him stating that I'm refusing to co-operate > over bug #123926. He's stated that in a reply to my earlier email [2] where I > explicitly state that this is not the case. This is really quite silly. You closed the bug several times and didn't leave it open for any discussion. To me, that looks like you weren't cooperating to address the issue.
Sigh. What am I supposed to do? His behaviour has obviously become very belligerent, and I'm failing to see how this can possibly have anything to do with our users any more. I've stated my case. I'd rather not get into a further slanging match with him here. I don't think it would help. If you need anything more from me, could you please contact me directly? Ta, Stu
(In reply to comment #117) > Sigh. What am I supposed to do? His behaviour has obviously become very > belligerent, and I'm failing to see how this can possibly have anything to do > with our users any more. I'm failing to see how you can possibly say something like this. Ciaran has filed 59 bugs as a direct result of qualudis error checks (and about twice that many issues have been fixed outside of bugzilla), with the sole intent of improving the quality of the portage tree, which trickles directly down to our users. On top of that, approximately twice that number of issues have been fixed outside of bugzilla. Knowing your history of disputes with Ciaran, I can't help but be completely unsurprised that you responded to the NX QA bug or commented in this bug in the way that you have. In fact, I understand that you are the only person who has responded to one of these QA bugs in this manner. Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth...
Apparently, noone CCed me here wrt that ridiculous last rites thread on -dev ml, so doing it myself and adding two notes: Wrt Comment #100 and following: Dear ciaranm, your way of "communication" with others can just piss me off. Please, be so kind and keep that "you are an incompetent ass, doing things improperly and you are not an ebuild dev anyway, so just shut up and go away" kind of comments out of public. Filing QA bugs is nice, it would be equally nice to fix your own/your herd's crap at the same time. Why on earth can't you just do that, instead of giving me "lessons" on a public ML? Some pervert pleasure in that? So yeah, I'm well aware of my dev status, I have stated exactly that on that bug as well (Bug 20201, Comment #12) - yet you've asked me to do exactly what I did, apparently only so that you could just wipe your ass with me in a public ML later on. What the heck are you after? Wrt Comment #114 and following: It would be nice if ciaranm (and the rest of Gentoo QA) started to focus on serious issues such as Bug 76141, rather than screaming about things that noone has ever complained about and that are essentially upstream one (a.k.a. as non-issue) - like Bug 123926 - instead of getting things wastly out common sense bounds, suggesting solutions that are clearly out of proportion and offending other devs on the way. Fixing minor things meanwhile is just fine and dandy, but again - why are you making a pissing match out of that? I just don't get this attitude, sorry.
> Apparently, noone CCed me here wrt that ridiculous last rites thread on -dev > ml, so doing it myself and adding two notes: i thought ciaranm was correct in the last rites thread you started ... only devs who have access to actually remove a package can do last rites threads
This one should be really easy: Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:58:35 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role Message-ID: <20060226225835.643c9c5d@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20060226222217.GB17257@aerie.halcy0n.com> References: <20060226222217.GB17257@aerie.halcy0n.com> | Yes, Gentoo is supposed to be fun, but we also have a responsibility | to our users to ensure we are providing them with the best possible | distro we can. What, you mean the tree isn't someone's personal playground? This comment is directed towards me, on a public mailing list for purposes of development only. While I don't have logs for it (my system had harddisk issues because of a faulty Western Digital), I do know that it was on the same day as: Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:28:54 -0500 in #gentoo-x86.
(In reply to comment #120) > i thought ciaranm was correct in the last rites thread you started ... only > devs who have access to actually remove a package can do last rites threads This is not at all about whether he's been correct or not, but very much about the fact that he behaves like an asshole to other devs on public mailing lists, IRC etc. etc. I'm kinda fed up with that already; from his very first reply on that thread that was clear that it's bound to degenerate into pointless trolling, notwithstanding how much I tried to stick to the facts. I'd really a straight prefer a "lick my swamp, I won't fix that" answer to the bullshit ciaranm has shown both on Bug 20201 and on dev ML.
(In reply to comment #121) > This one should be really easy: I'm sorry, what's your complaint? Or are you just whining on a devrel bug to avoid addressing the issue at hand?
(In reply to comment #122) > I'm kinda fed up with that already; from his very first reply on that thread > that was clear that it's bound to degenerate into pointless trolling, > notwithstanding how much I tried to stick to the facts. All I see on that thread is you repeatedly attempting to abuse the last rites process, and refusing to carry out simple tasks like reading herds.xml before complaining to the wrong people. You've wasted enough people's time by mishandling that bug already. Quit wasting even more time on it over here. If you're not going to handle the issue properly, drop it entirely.
> I'm kinda fed up with that already; from his very first reply on that thread > that was clear that it's bound to degenerate into pointless trolling, > notwithstanding how much I tried to stick to the facts. lets see his first two replies along with yours: > -- ciaranm: > Uh, it's not a last rites unless someone actually does the masking > pending removal. > -- jakub: > Uh, was this reply really needed? > BTW, x11-misc/bbapm is about one month > overdue (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20201) > -- ciaranm: > It's not overdue. It hasn't had a proper last rites email sent out yet > and probably won't get one either, given the flamefest that occurred > last time someone tried to tidy up commonbox... > -- jakub: > Uhm... you need to refresh your memory, it seems: ... from my point of view, you were the source of the degeneration of the thread as ciaranm, while terse in his replies, was pointing out the fact that only people who have the ability to actually kill a package can send out last rites emails
(In reply to comment #124) > All I see on that thread is you repeatedly attempting to abuse the last rites > process, and refusing to carry out simple tasks like reading herds.xml before > complaining to the wrong people. You've wasted enough people's time by > mishandling that bug already. Quit wasting even more time on it over here. If > you're not going to handle the issue properly, drop it entirely. Like, no?! It was *you* who has wasted lots of other people's time because of one stupid ebuild that should just have been punted from the tree, stop this already, enough of it on the mailing list. You *still* haven't defined what's "proper" handling, despite repeated requests here, you asked me to do it and then just behaved the way you did. So, kindly stop blaming me for what you should have done yourself but opted to ask me to do instead and what you have mishandled. But - that's not the point here. The point here is that you deliberately did that all to make an asshole out of me on a public ML. I won't play these games of yours, it's not about that damned bug, it's about the way you are communicating with people. If you feel the urge to tell me that I'm an illiterate asshole, /query me on IRC, I'm hanging there all the time. Wasting other devs' time to play those harassing games you like so much is not something appreciated by the people who are complaining here. I wonder if this message will eventually make it thru your brain, but very much doubt so. You are trying to move this discussion away from what it's really about - over and over again. It's *not* about *technical* points, it's about your attitude to other people, about you communication "skills" - which plain suck, big time. As already stated, if people keep "misunderstanding" you again and again, it's not those people's fault, it's yours. If you can't express yourself in a civil and clear manner repeatedly, then perhaps just shut up and keep the conversation private, I won't have an issue with that. You are deliberately antagonizing people and you actually *enjoy* it, I'm pretty sure that you do - Lance summarized that nicely in Comment #92. The problem is - while you are enjoying it, other people don't. They actually keep leaving the project because of your silly games and because of your pissing contests. :=(
(In reply to comment #126) > Like, no?! It was *you* who has wasted lots of other people's time because of > one stupid ebuild that should just have been punted from the tree, stop this > already, enough of it on the mailing list. You *still* haven't defined what's > "proper" handling, despite repeated requests here, you asked me to do it and > then just behaved the way you did. So, kindly stop blaming me for what you > should have done yourself but opted to ask me to do instead and what you have > mishandled. It was defined on the original bug. It's been defined on -dev. If you have trouble understanding, ask for clarification. In the mean time, stop wasting everyone's time by obsessing over a single bug rather than addressing the actual issue. > But - that's not the point here. The point here is that you deliberately did > that all to make an asshole out of me on a public ML. I won't play these games > of yours, it's not about that damned bug, it's about the way you are > communicating with people. If you feel the urge to tell me that I'm an > illiterate asshole, /query me on IRC, I'm hanging there all the time. Wasting > other devs' time to play those harassing games you like so much is not > something appreciated by the people who are complaining here. No. You made an asshole out of yourself on a public ML. That's entirely your own doing, and you should take responsibility for that rather than trying to blame someone. > I wonder if this message will eventually make it thru your brain, but very much > doubt so. You are trying to move this discussion away from what it's really > about - over and over again. It's *not* about *technical* points, it's about > your attitude to other people, about you communication "skills" - which plain > suck, big time. As already stated, if people keep "misunderstanding" you again > and again, it's not those people's fault, it's yours. If you can't express > yourself in a civil and clear manner repeatedly, then perhaps just shut up and > keep the conversation private, I won't have an issue with that. You know, this argument is more usually phrased as "If you weren't doing something wrong, your husband wouldn't have to beat you all the time".
Apparently, 3 directly offended devs in a single day wasn't even remotely enough by ciaranm's standards, so here we go again with unsubstantiated claims about webapp-config brokeness: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36246 <snip> | It's not silly. What do you have to fear about having your proposed | QA standards backed by key teams? If your arguments have merit, they | will be supported. Abuse from people like you whenever someone finally gets brave enough to document all the ways in which webapp-config is broken. </snip> Apparently a shot wide; the new python rewrite (which is a huge improvement) is mostly wrobel's child, not Stuart's as you have thought. So, well done, counter +2, you can put wrobel and rl03 on your list. Will someone stop this finally??? :/
We established in the last bug on this topic that filing complaints saying that someone other than yourself might have been offended achieves nothing. If it was a comment aimed at you and you were offended by it, you might have grounds to say something. In this case, as far as I can see, it wasn't.
(In reply to comment #97) > (In reply to comment #96) > > nobody gives a damn about your opinions > > Many people do, including me. > I have to say after so many other devs have messaged me with a comment about this I am doubting if this is truely the case. This is in reference to many private messages ciaranm has sent out to other devs and it includes word for word, "21:06 <ciaranm> if you want to do something reallllllyyyyy funny... https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114944 comment #96, quote just the part about "nobody gives a damn about your opinions" and reply with just "I do." If this is how he gets around his actions then there is no guidelines or process that is untainted by his actions.
(In reply to comment #129) > We established in the last bug on this topic that filing complaints saying that > someone other than yourself might have been offended achieves nothing. If it > was a comment aimed at you and you were offended by it, you might have grounds > to say something. In this case, as far as I can see, it wasn't. Comment #128 is just documenting what this bug is all about (and what the previous ciaranm's bug was about) and what won't apparently change as long as ciaranm remains a dev. You can CC wrobel and rl03, if you'd like to hear from them directly how happy their are. Obviously such claims, followed by a pathetic attempt to skew the discussion somewhere else and then just by silence must make everyone involved happy, help to make Gentoo a better place, are encouraging the involved devs to spend their free time improving Gentoo - and overall are just a great contribution to the project on ciaranm's part. Also, these claims document the professionalism and unbiased conduct of ciaranm as a member of QA project. So, well done, lets let the list started in Comment #55 grow?
> This is in reference to many private messages ciaranm has sent out to other > devs and it includes word for word, > > "21:06 <ciaranm> if you want to do something reallllllyyyyy funny... > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114944 comment #96, quote just the part > about "nobody gives a damn about your opinions" and reply with just "I do." it was a private message, so what ? you cant really expect to censor non-public channels of communication, especially since just about every dev utilizes them to get things off their chest i've said plenty of things that would be completely inappropriate if they were in public channels of communication
(In reply to comment #130) > I have to say after so many other devs have messaged me with a comment about > this I am doubting if this is truely the case. If I am reading this sentence correctly, it looks as though you are insinuating that my previous statement was a deliberate lie. Is this the case?
> I'm sorry, what's your complaint? Or are you just whining on a devrel bug to > avoid addressing the issue at hand? It's really not that hard read the entire comment field? Insulting others on a bug that's showing people think you're insulting them, I don't quite understand your logic ciaranm, but ok!
(In reply to comment #133) > (In reply to comment #130) > > I have to say after so many other devs have messaged me with a comment about > > this I am doubting if this is truely the case. > > If I am reading this sentence correctly, it looks as though you are insinuating > that my previous statement was a deliberate lie. Is this the case? > This is not the case it just casts shadows on who is defending him based on what he has asked them to do.
(In reply to comment #135) > This is not the case it just casts shadows on who is defending him based on > what he has asked them to do. In that case I'm not seeing your point with that comment, unless you're trying to suggest that the opinions I've expressed aren't my own and that I'm merely acting as a mouthpiece for someone else. Surely you can do better than that.
(In reply to comment #136) > (In reply to comment #135) > > This is not the case it just casts shadows on who is defending him based on > > what he has asked them to do. > > In that case I'm not seeing your point with that comment, unless you're trying > to suggest that the opinions I've expressed aren't my own and that I'm merely > acting as a mouthpiece for someone else. Surely you can do better than that. The claimed quote/posting of ciaran, assuming it's true is intended to cause further chaos on the bug distracting from actually addressing the issue that ciaran is an asshole to people. Frankly, your comments thus far have done the exact same thing- regardless, they're OT, so desist the bug spamming.
(In reply to comment #131) > You can CC wrobel and rl03, if you'd like to hear from them directly how happy > their are. I quote from wrobel: > Concerning the fact that devrel has been included I just want to state > that I have not been offended by any of ciaran's statements. After all > it is just a piece of software. Yet *another* repeat of comment #58.
(In reply to comment #138) > (In reply to comment #131) > > You can CC wrobel and rl03, if you'd like to hear from them directly how happy > > their are. > > I quote from wrobel: > > > Concerning the fact that devrel has been included I just want to state > > that I have not been offended by any of ciaran's statements. After all > > it is just a piece of software. > > Yet *another* repeat of comment #58. Yet *another* repeat of comment #86. You capable of responding to the folks who have actually leveled a complaint at you (the 4, of which klieber isn't) or is your intention to continue the deflection attempts?
Per my email to devrel - I believe you expressed your personal issues with Stuart in the form of attacking the webapp-config project. You have done so for a long time (at least a year), without doing as little as filing a bug. Only after much prodding from multiple people did you take constructive action, which, to emphasize, came months later after you voiced your attitude. It's fine by me if you: - file a bug about an issue and _then_ talk about how much we suck on -dev - don't bother reporting and keep your opinions to yourself Devrel will decide whether being offensive _way_ before you report the issue is acceptable.
(In reply to comment #138) > I quote from wrobel: You've screamed at us for quoting people without them doing it themselves and now its ok for you to? Dare I say its hypocritical for you do be quoting other people without having them do it themselves? If its that important, let them do it. You've said it yourself many times.
(In reply to comment #141) > You've screamed at us for quoting people without them doing it themselves and > now its ok for you to? Dare I say its hypocritical for you do be quoting other > people without having them do it themselves? If its that important, let them do > it. You've said it yourself many times. Considering it was from an email he sent to devrel@, I'd say it's utterly appropriate.
(In reply to comment #142) > (In reply to comment #141) > > You've screamed at us for quoting people without them doing it themselves and > > now its ok for you to? Dare I say its hypocritical for you do be quoting other > > people without having them do it themselves? If its that important, let them do > > it. You've said it yourself many times. > > Considering it was from an email he sent to devrel@, I'd say it's utterly > appropriate. Considering you never mentioned any reference from whence it came, I don't think its appropriate. If you quote, you *need* to specify exactly where it came from so we can verify that. ... But then, this whole bug is about your inability to properly communicate with people.
I'll reiterate for those 3 of you who are trying to review at this bug objectively. ciaranm can be seen as an ahole to other devs who don't seem to get along with him. that's mostly fine. overall he can be a valuable asset to our distribution. In some ways he hurts it as well. A lot of how we perceive his behavior to be is simply how his culture is. I don't want to see him attacked for that. Nor do I think his culture upbringing is an excuse him to mistreat people. Pretty much he is a lot like a lawyer where he will fight for what he thinks is right tooth and nail till the finish. That can be a good and bad thing for us. Sometimes he was valid from the original topic that was posted. Sometimes he can get hung up on small irrelevant details. And yeah sometimes he can be wrong. Pretty much here our options as I see them. 1) boot him 2) embrace him 3) pussy foot around and do nothing Option one can lead all of us into an ulgy mess of maybe trouble cuz we know that wont be silent. Lose a technical asset. Option two. recognize he is a (self proclaimed?) distribution guru and attempt to follow his suggestions even if we don't always like the tone. Option three is probably what the reporter of this bugs thinks is happening. I have no comment. So as it stands. I respect you as a developer ciaranm but your people person skills kinda suck. If we could fine a way to perhaps meet in the middle of allowing you to be who you are without having to lose other developers in the process that would be ideal. But.. We don't want another OpenBSD where people avoid a distro simply based on the actions of a vocal minority. Please evalutate all the options. Try to find solutions. Make the choice you know to be the right one for "Gentoo Linux" in the end guys.
Oh, didn't know that I got quoted here. While I definitely did not get offended I did not make this statement in order to support Ciarans position. Quoting me here in this way might give a false impression. It is absolutely clear that Ciaran has a strong tendency to provoke people and does not always choose his words in a fashion that could be called 'wise' :) And while and I don't find this in any way offending it is at best completely inappropriate. The final result of the recent webapp-config discussion -dev was that we got two bugs that the webapps herd will certainly deal with and fix. To me it was really important to have these bugs in bugzilla since I joined the team recently and did not have a complete overview about the webapp-config history. So undocumented problems are hard to handle and I think everyone agrees that bugzilla is the right way to handle bugs. The way this result was achieved is in no way proportional to the actual problem. And I feel that this has largely been due to Ciaran's unwillingness or inability to use his social skills. I don't have any opinion on whether there is action required concerning Ciaran or not. I have been on the team for a short time only. I just had to correct being quoted in that way.
I would just like to note that in all my interactions with ciaranm he has been helpful. He has responded promptly and usefully when I've asked advice. On the couple occasions when I've needed changes to eclasses he did it pretty much straight away and without fuss. I'd welcome a QA review from ciaranm any time he felt he didn't already have enough on his TODO list. :-)
Created attachment 81121 [details] gentoo-devrel discussion Add me to the list of people offended by his behaviour. He said some not very nice things about the forums in a discussion on the gentoo-devrel list (see attachment for context). I am especially offended by the following points: > The first is that finding anything relevant amongst all the noise is > extremely difficult. The search function utterly sucks (try searching > for 'vim', 'fluxbox' or 'ciaranm'), so mostly I only go to threads > when someone points me to them via another medium. While he surely has a point about it in general, there is a big thread on the forums that the search function sucks and we are currently working on an improved one. Even the old one can be used properly if you know how to use it and having spent a lot of time on the forums he most certainly is aware of that. Still all he does is bash it. > The second is that the amount of nonsense up with which I have to put > from forums users is surpassed only by the amount of nonsense that > comes from forum mods... He's bashing both our users and the people running the forums here. > (perfect example: the eventual introduction of the > unsupported software forum after months and months of refusals and > complaints to devrel whenever such a forum was suggested). Ciaranm, please provide evidence that you a) suggested such a forum before Wed Mar 16, 2005 (at which the idea was posted to the mods forum by someone else than you) and b) evidence that we refused and complained to devrel. There may be a chance you suggested it, but i seriously doubt anyone complained to devrel about it, unless it was brought in the form of "uuuuh, forums ricers suck!" Otherwise i consider this slander. > Compare the > average thread on the -user list with the average thread on the forums, > for example. The -user list very much conveys the impression that it's > there for technical discussion. The forums, on the other hand, is often > much more oriented towards getting a high postcount, ricing and seeing > who can make the best "Gentoo developers are elitist" comments. Again, random FUD against the forum that goes way beyond opinion and has nothing to do on a public mailing list.
When will our developers grow up and stop being offended by the tone of the comments (many of which are not directed towards said developers, but rather against specific ideas actions)? When will gentoo developers become mature enough to look at ideas, instead of the form expressing them? When our developers going to stop being so "politically correct"? Sure, nice tone is a good thing. Sure, _user_ interraction standards should be different. But we are supposed to be technical people here, and should be able to read through the tone. Oh, and don't forget that if often it takes some really arousing (sp?) remark to draw one's attention to some important issue, which would otherwise go unnoticed.
If you're not offended by poor attitudes, fine -- meanwhile some of us are and the apparent drop in acceptable standards of behavior at Gentoo lately is driving away developers.
When will some gentoo developers learn to deal with people? A disruptive environment does not help at all to bring Gentoo to a new level. Although I agree that sometimes there is no good way to say something, it can't be that it's always the case. If you read some books about managing (large) projects, you'll learn that technical quality is not everything. Try to keep a job with this kind of behavior... If he is such a technical asset, a possible solution is to take away his voice and keep him only fixing ebuilds. The way I see things right now, we are risking losing developers and users because of a single developer. And yes, I'm not feeling very happy about his comments on forum mods.
(In reply to comment #147) > Created an attachment (id=81121) [edit] > gentoo-devrel discussion > > Add me to the list of people offended by his behaviour. He said some not very > nice things about the forums in a discussion on the gentoo-devrel list (see > attachment for context). > While he surely has a point about it in general, there is a big thread on the > forums that the search function sucks and we are currently working on an > improved one. Even the old one can be used properly if you know how to use it > and having spent a lot of time on the forums he most certainly is aware of > that. Still all he does is bash it. I hope you'll also be filing a complaint about anyone who agrees with me on that thread... > > (perfect example: the eventual introduction of the > > unsupported software forum after months and months of refusals and > > complaints to devrel whenever such a forum was suggested). > > Ciaranm, please provide evidence that you a) suggested such a forum before Wed > Mar 16, 2005 (at which the idea was posted to the mods forum by someone else > than you) and b) evidence that we refused and complained to devrel. Take a look through the old Love Sources threads. I suggested it several times and got told "no" in extremely strong terms by various mods. I'd find you a link, but unfortunately the forums search is unusable. > There may be a chance you suggested it, but i seriously doubt anyone complained > to devrel about it, unless it was brought in the form of "uuuuh, forums ricers > suck!" Oh look, you're doing it again. Instead of accepting that there may be problems with the forums that could be fixed, you're bringing stuff to devrel. > > Compare the > > average thread on the -user list with the average thread on the forums, > > for example. The -user list very much conveys the impression that it's > > there for technical discussion. The forums, on the other hand, is often > > much more oriented towards getting a high postcount, ricing and seeing > > who can make the best "Gentoo developers are elitist" comments. > > Again, random FUD against the forum that goes way beyond opinion and has > nothing to do on a public mailing list. Not in the slightest. It's entirely relevant to the thread and illustrates another way in which the forums may be able to be improved.
Created attachment 81127 [details] log for #gentoo-dev Another example of ciaranm spreading FUD about the forums: He posted in http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-2859870.html#2859870 > 1. Sometimes we paste GPLed or public domain code in forum posts. Think GLEPs > in particular, which are supposedly supposed to be posted to the forums as > well as gentoo-dev (hah). He said pretty much the same thing on irc in #gentoo-dev (see attached log for context): 22:42 <+antarus|work> ciaranm, do you really think that itself requires a glep? :) 22:42 <@seemant> oh 22:42 <@ciaranm> antarus|work: changes to the GLEP process need a GLEP themselves 22:43 * ciaranm goes to reread GLEP 1 22:43 -!- windzor [i=windzor@82.143.229.52] has quit [Client Quit] 22:44 <@ciaranm> heh. we're supposed to post GLEPs to the forums? oh well 22:44 <@dragonheart> welcome thoand 22:45 <@solar> -mmm- is dumb ;/ 22:45 <@ciaranm> solar: indeed it is 22:45 <@solar> cant use numerical expressions is what I'm thinking 22:46 <@ciaranm> someone go write GLEP 44: Less stupid date formats 22:46 <@bonsaikitten_> unix timestamp? In both cases he says gleps need to be posted to the forums and makes fun of it. Apart from that being not exactly friendly behaviour in the first place, this is simply untrue. As posted in my reply in http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-2859897.html#2859897 > The author of the GLEP is then responsible for posting the GLEP to the > gentoo-dev mailing list and to the Gentoo Linux forums [7], and marshaling > community support for it. > [..] > A GLEP that has not been discussed on gentoo-dev@gentoo.org and/or the Gentoo > Linux forums [7] will not be accepted. This implies posting to the forums is one of the options to gather community support. Once could expect a misunderstanding here, but in ciaranm's case i seriously doubt that. He is aware of the details of the GLEP process, such as changes to the process need a glep (see thing about the date formats discussed on irc which resulted in glep 45. Even if in error, the tone of his comments indicate for me he used it as another chance to bash the forums.
(In reply to comment #149) > If you're not offended by poor attitudes, fine -- meanwhile some of us are and > the apparent drop in acceptable standards of behavior at Gentoo lately is > driving away developers. Very well put. I'm extremely upset at what some developers consider acceptable material to be added to the tree, which is the most user-visible part of the project. It's driving away developers who no longer want to waste time tidying up after other people's carelessness, and it's driving away users who end up with broken systems. Really, I think Linus has said it best in http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/9/8/179: "Mistakes happen, and the way you fix them is not to pull a tantrum, but tell people that they are idiots and they broke something, and get them to fix it instead."
(In reply to comment #152) > In both cases he says gleps need to be posted to the forums and makes fun of > it. I've tried posting a GLEP to the forums. Absolutely nothing useful came of it. In fact, absolutely nothing at all came of it. http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-213225-highlight-glep.html See? > Apart from that being not exactly friendly behaviour in the first place, > This implies posting to the forums is one of the options to gather community > support. Note the and/or. This means that if it has not been posted to both then it will not be accepted. In effect, it says "If it has not been posted to the forums and the lists, it will not be accepted. If it has not been posted to the forums or the lists, it will not be accepted.".
(In reply to comment #150) > If you read some books about managing (large) projects, you'll learn that > technical quality is not everything. Try to keep a job with this kind of > behavior... I am currently working with a person like that in commercial environment. He already saved couple of projects from complete utter failure exactly by behaving the way he does. The person in question does not fear saying "idea is idiotic because of..." literally to any of the team members or bosses. Then it gets fixed. Projects move on. I do have to admit, that since he came on board, I feel a great relief - I don't have to take responsibility for telling other people their ideas are idiotic any more. Some people have this skill naturaly, some have to force it. We are lucky to have one Ciaran on our team.
(In reply to comment #153) > Really, I think Linus has said it best in http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/9/8/179: > > "Mistakes happen, and the way you fix them is not to pull a tantrum, but > tell people that they are idiots and they broke something, and get them to > fix it instead." Look, what Linus thinks is completely immaterial here. The developers that are complaining here think that being an asshole to others is not a productive way to get things done - and in fact there are people that have already left Gentoo because they got really sick of this.
(In reply to comment #149) > If you're not offended by poor attitudes, fine -- meanwhile some of us are and > the apparent drop in acceptable standards of behavior at Gentoo lately is > driving away developers. > That highly depends on what you define by "poor attitude". And what it is directed towards. If we are talking about the tone of someone talking to me on technical fora - I couldn't care less - these people aren't my friends, aren't my enemies, aren't my family. They are my peers. We discuss ideas. That's what I like to deal with. If we are talking about ignoring ideas, disregarding technical/logical arguments, or plain being lazy - then I get really offended by that sort of thing.
(In reply to comment #151) > I hope you'll also be filing a complaint about anyone who agrees with me on > that thread... As i already said in comment #147: > While he surely has a point about it in general [..] Still all he does is > bash it. Yes, the search function sucks, that's a fact. The way you present your opinion sucks. If someone agrees it sucks, fine. If he agrees in the way you say things, i'll be offended. If he does it as often as you do i may file a complaint to devrel. > Take a look through the old Love Sources threads. I suggested it several times > and got told "no" in extremely strong terms by various mods. Love sources haven't been around for ages. Times change, opinions change. > I'd find you a link, but unfortunately the forums search is unusable. Another pointless rant. I took the time to copy the mails and irc logs over to bugzilla, i won't do your homework if you want to prove something. > > There may be a chance you suggested it, but i seriously doubt anyone complained > > to devrel about it, unless it was brought in the form of "uuuuh, forums ricers > > suck!" > > Oh look, you're doing it again. Instead of accepting that there may be problems > with the forums that could be fixed, you're bringing stuff to devrel. Again, we are working on improving the search function. I'm bringing the way you act against other people to devrel. > > > Compare the > > > average thread on the -user list with the average thread on the forums, > > > for example. The -user list very much conveys the impression that it's > > > there for technical discussion. The forums, on the other hand, is often > > > much more oriented towards getting a high postcount, ricing and seeing > > > who can make the best "Gentoo developers are elitist" comments. > > > > Again, random FUD against the forum that goes way beyond opinion and has > > nothing to do on a public mailing list. > > Not in the slightest. It's entirely relevant to the thread and illustrates > another way in which the forums may be able to be improved. Look at the stuff quoted above. You compare the forums to the -user list and bash the forums users. I don't see any relevancy to the thread (which was about gentoo userrel). Neither do i see anything on how to improve the forums in this paragraph.
(In reply to comment #156) > (In reply to comment #153) > > Really, I think Linus has said it best in http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/9/8/179: > > > > "Mistakes happen, and the way you fix them is not to pull a tantrum, but > > tell people that they are idiots and they broke something, and get them to > > fix it instead." > > Look, what Linus thinks is completely immaterial here. The developers that are > complaining here think that being an asshole to others is not a productive way > to get things done - and in fact there are people that have already left Gentoo > because they got really sick of this. I do see the point of this comment from Linus, and I agree *sometimes* you have to use that type of a behavior as a *last resort* to get a point across. I deal with idiotic people at work and you can only take so much until you break and tell them they're an idiot. I believe what most of think is going on here is the frequency at which Ciaran does this to people. If you *always* use the idiot comments to get your point across, thats a problem in my mind. I get the feeling that Ciaran tends to use this method more than others because he probably thinks its the only way to get his point across. This constant use for idiotic comments is wearing on a lot of developers thus why people are commenting in this bug.
(In reply to comment #154) > I've tried posting a GLEP to the forums. Absolutely nothing useful came of it. > In fact, absolutely nothing at all came of it. > > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-213225-highlight-glep.html > > See? See what? You posted a glep to the forums in August 2004 because you thought it was a good idea and it failed. Your comments about posting the gleps to the forums were made over a year later. This has nothing to do with the issue. > Note the and/or. This means that if it has not been posted to both then it will > not be accepted. In effect, it says "If it has not been posted to the forums > and the lists, it will not be accepted. If it has not been posted to the forums > or the lists, it will not be accepted.". Apart from the fact that your interpretation makes no sense, you're putting the letters of the glep above the spirit of the glep, so no need to discuss this further. In any way, you carefully avoided to address the issue i actually complained about: You using some excuse (GLEP 1 in this case) for bashing the forums. Same goes for the stuff you posted on the gentoo-devrel list. You only reply to irrelevant stuff and try to get people into technical discussions instead of addressing the issue at hand: Your behaviour against other people is offensive and not acceptable. As far i'm concerned i may add further stuff for review, but i'm done discussing it with you.
(In reply to comment #159) > I believe what most of think is going on here is the frequency at which Ciaran > does this to people. If you *always* use the idiot comments to get your point > across, thats a problem in my mind. I get the feeling that Ciaran tends to use > this method more than others because he probably thinks its the only way to get > his point across. This constant use for idiotic comments is wearing on a lot of > developers thus why people are commenting in this bug. > As you know Ciaran does not always use this method. If you see Ciaran resorting to this more often then others, it's because he is less susceptible to "I'll take idiocy because it's too hard to fight with it" approach.
(In reply to comment #159) > I believe what most of think is going on here is the frequency at which Ciaran > does this to people. If you *always* use the idiot comments to get your point > across, thats a problem in my mind. Perhaps sometime you should take a look through, say, all the QA issues I've been working on at some point. I'll give you a sample of recent responses here: bug #12250: > Thanks for your comments Ciaran, I'll make the changes as soon as I'm able to and: > Thanks a lot Ciaran, I appreciate your help! 5:) bug #124330: > thanks for your QA work. bug #124210: > Fixed in CVS. Thanks for reporting. bug #124321: > Fixed this one as well, thanks again! bug #124323: > Fixed, thanks! bug #123965: > fixed in CVS. Thanks! bug #124216: > Fixed, thanks! bug #123961: > Fixed in CVS. Thanks for reporting Want me to go back another page and paste some more? Somehow your *always* doesn't exactly look right...
(In reply to comment #159) > I do see the point of this comment from Linus, and I agree *sometimes* you have > to use that type of a behavior as a *last resort* to get a point across. I deal > with idiotic people at work and you can only take so much until you break and > tell them they're an idiot. I disagree with you here, Lance.. Well, I agree to the extent that *sometimes* we should just kill off accounts like ciaranm's to end this debacle as a *last resort*, but yet that doesn't make it right does it? ;) -C
(In reply to comment #162) > (In reply to comment #159) > > I believe what most of think is going on here is the frequency at which Ciaran > > does this to people. If you *always* use the idiot comments to get your point > > across, thats a problem in my mind. > > Perhaps sometime you should take a look through, say, all the QA issues I've > been working on at some point. I'll give you a sample of recent responses here: <snip> Ok, so maybe I chose the wrong phrase for explaining this. You have done things where it was said in the right manner. I know I have even said thanks for the report you found for a package I maintain. I guess what I meant to say was, I've seen in the past when topics you were dicussing weren't going the way you wanted. I'd say 7 out of 10 times, you would reply to those claims in the manner I described previously. Usually those circumstances are the conditions in which most of the problems seem to occur. You generally stay on topic in a technical manner until something goes a different way than you hoped. > Want me to go back another page and paste some more? > > Somehow your *always* doesn't exactly look right... Yup, I was incorrect with that exact detail.
(In reply to comment #157) > (In reply to comment #149) > > If you're not offended by poor attitudes, fine -- meanwhile some of us are and > > the apparent drop in acceptable standards of behavior at Gentoo lately is > > driving away developers. > > > I will only speak for myself here of course, but I feel I do need to clarify. I have 0 issues with people not having social skills. I am not easily offended. Words don't hurt, getting punched in the teeth does. I do have issues with people starting wars, fights, arguments, holding grudges, and what appears to be deliberate sabotage of people/projects to the detriment of the community. Candor is not only healthy, it is a necessity for a productive work environment and to cut down on communication overhead(pussyfooting). However, there is a time and a place. #-dev, -dev@, forums, etc are all public forums. Stating opinion as fact, throwing around broad terms like 'its broken', 'its vapourware', personal attacks, etc. etc. in public communication forums is just bad practice. No successful business airs their dirty laundry and internal disputes for the world to see. That would be detrimental. It would scare away customers, potential employees, investors, etc. In fact, I would go so far as to say its even more important to maintain a somewhat professional public image in an all volunteer organization. I would be a lot more willing to put up with some random guys bullshit every day if I was being paid, but when doing something for the sheer enjoyment/passion/interest/whateverthefuckyourmotivationis it quickly becomes a question of 'Why the hell am I putting up with this?' . Yes, this is opensource and it is expected to have a greater degree of transparency than a privately owned company may exhibit, but I would posit that the elements that need to be in place for success are quite similar. > That highly depends on what you define by "poor attitude". And what it is > directed towards. > > If we are talking about ignoring ideas, disregarding technical/logical > arguments, or plain being lazy - then I get really offended by that sort of > thing. > I agree 100%, however If I throw a pile of shit with a cookie in the middle right at your face and you don't feel like eating all that shit just for a cookie, I could see how the cookie might be ignored as you would be way too occupied with cleaning the shit off of your face. The fact is, for every 1 person that chimes in that says 'I have never been bothered by ciarans behavior' there are 3 others that a) have already left b) are planning to leave if nothing is done c) are completely unmotivated to take an active role.
(In reply to comment #163) > (In reply to comment #159) > > I do see the point of this comment from Linus, and I agree *sometimes* you have > > to use that type of a behavior as a *last resort* to get a point across. I deal > > with idiotic people at work and you can only take so much until you break and > > tell them they're an idiot. > > I disagree with you here, Lance.. Well, I agree to the extent that *sometimes* > we should just kill off accounts like ciaranm's to end this debacle as a *last > resort*, but yet that doesn't make it right does it? ;) I should clarify here. I don't think it makes it right that you can/could act that way. I just see the reasons for why one would want to do that sometimes.
(In reply to comment #165) > I agree 100%, however If I throw a pile of shit with a cookie in the middle > right at your face Kito, you have already thrown a shit cookie at every single developer on the project with this: http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/sys-apps/bootstrap_cmds/bootstrap_cmds-44.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup This is far more offensive and has done far more damage to the project than anything I could ever possibly come up with.
(In reply to comment #167) > Kito, you have already thrown a shit cookie at every single developer on the > project with this: What is your point actually?
(In reply to comment #167) > (In reply to comment #165) > > I agree 100%, however If I throw a pile of shit with a cookie in the middle > > right at your face > > Kito, you have already thrown a shit cookie at every single developer on the > project with this: > > http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/sys-apps/bootstrap_cmds/bootstrap_cmds-44.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup > > This is far more offensive and has done far more damage to the project than > anything I could ever possibly come up with. > Ok, I'll bite. Even though I feel a little of this was the result of a haphazard recruitment/mentorship, I gladly take 100% responsibility. I have apologized to no end about that. If it is still an issue for you, please file a devrel bug(perhaps you already have) and if they want to boot me, fine. But I will ask, how many users and devs have left the project as a result of that bad commit? I can no longer count the existing and potential devs and users we've lost as a result of you on my fingers and toes. Several of the recruits we've lost were employees of 'very large software and hardware companies' who would have been paid to work full time on extending Gentoo/Portage. Of course this is of no consequence to you, because it doesn't further your personal cause or make your soapbox any taller.
(In reply to comment #168) > (In reply to comment #167) > > Kito, you have already thrown a shit cookie at every single developer on the > > project with this: > > What is your point actually? That certain people need to gain some perspective. According to comments from a developer in #-dev at the time, we lost a university install because of that one commit.
(In reply to comment #170) > (In reply to comment #168) > > What is your point actually? > > That certain people need to gain some perspective. According to comments from a > developer in #-dev at the time, we lost a university install because of that > one commit. Well... that's sad, but sounds like a bit off-topic on this bug, as it goes into the expectations of that particular university for what they could get for free or something. Completely off-topic. I can't really see what this has to do with acting a bit normal towards others or not.
(In reply to comment #151) > (In reply to comment #147) [snip] > > > (perfect example: the eventual introduction of the > > > unsupported software forum after months and months of refusals and > > > complaints to devrel whenever such a forum was suggested). > > > > Ciaranm, please provide evidence that you a) suggested such a forum before Wed > > Mar 16, 2005 (at which the idea was posted to the mods forum by someone else > > than you) and b) evidence that we refused and complained to devrel. > > Take a look through the old Love Sources threads. I suggested it several times > and got told "no" in extremely strong terms by various mods. I'd find you a > link, but unfortunately the forums search is unusable. Or maybe you just didn't suggest it several times and wasn't told no by various moderators. I've searched with the current search engine, the new one and directly in the database and haven't found a single post by you suggesting it. So unless you provide some evidence I have to assume this is just more FUD that you're spreading against the forums. About telling people that they're idiots for making mistakes is fine in the several private channels that exist to do so. Doing so in public and bringing up the same stuff over and over *years* after it happened just makes you and the whole Gentoo project look unprofessional and is driving people away.
(In reply to comment #170) > That certain people need to gain some perspective. According to comments from a > developer in #-dev at the time, we lost a university install because of that > one commit. Yet what about the installs we have lost due to your lack of professionalism? These nit-picking arguments are getting old..
(In reply to comment #167) > (In reply to comment #165) > > I agree 100%, however If I throw a pile of shit with a cookie in the middle > > right at your face > > Kito, you have already thrown a shit cookie at every single developer on the > project with this: > > http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/sys-apps/bootstrap_cmds/bootstrap_cmds-44.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup > > This is far more offensive and has done far more damage to the project than > anything I could ever possibly come up with. > Ok, I'll bite. Even though I feel this was partly the result of a rushed/haphazard recruitment/mentorship that was beyond my control, I gladly take 100% responsibility and have apologized to no end about it. If it is still an issue for you, please file a devrel bug(perhaps you already have) and if they want to boot me thats fine, but it is still a separate issue from what this bug has attempted(in vain) to address. The circle continues..... I can no longer count the existing/potential devs/users we've lost as a result of your public bashing on my fingers and toes. Several of the recruits we've lost were people who would have been paid to work full time on extending Gentoo/Portage with the complete support of their employer(Apple, Frog Design, Rockstar Games, and Sun to name a few). This type of support is IMHO the brass ring of any opensource project, as it can drastically increase manpower, project visibility, etc. etc. Of course this is of no consequence to you, because it doesn't further your personal cause or make your soapbox any taller.
Ciaran you want to play the numbers game regarding how much damage kito did once upon a time? Ok, lets play a hand or two. Kito, 17 months ago as a horribly trained new recruit (not even commenting on the fact the tools pvdabeel handed them were broke and corrupted the tree) made a mistake, resulting in aparently a loss of a university install. What was it, full uni install? Or just a dept? Ciaran's actions are directly credited with driving away portaris folk. One university install vs opening up a whole new arch with the initial developers for it funded; said arch/distro in fairly desperate need of a good from src pkg management; said arch/distro also being fairly common in server rooms. Kito made an honest mistake- accident in effect. Ciaran actively harassed those folks (not an accident) thus driving them away. One was intentional, the other was not. Shall we keep playing the numbers game? The portaris developers were after prefix, and apparently pulled it off. So... nuked it once. Drove haubi away, nuked those pushing for it twice. And the complaints in this bug were filed due to you attempting it a third time. Want to keep playing the numbers game ciaran? Ok, lets lay out all of the cards. In terms of devs, *I* left because of his bullshit. So additionally there is a loss of 2+ years of knowledge of portage, the _current_ package manager that gentoo needs to have quite a few features added into (use/slot, repoman rewrite). Additionally, the person who has been maintaining your distfiles mirroring, your tree generation for rsync, *and* the snapshot generation. Oh yeah, also did snapshot deltas, plus was doing QA long before ciaran started making noise about it (dealing with actual problems like the gnome eclasses, stale src_uri, unfetchable srcs)... and recruiting. Think that about sums up my work/responsibilities. Further, iggy left once already directly due to ciaran's bullshit. Iow, kernel maintainer went bye bye due to the fact the vim maintainer decided iggy was a good target to attack. Just to be fair, lets add up ciaran's contributions. Vim. Fluxbox (and just fluxbox as the berating of jakub demonstrated). Couple of gleps that are effectively documentation of existing standard (tree file names, utf8, date standard). News glep (unfinished, although the wars getting to it was rather nice). Wrote a dev manual, but also tried destroying that dev manual when you were suspended. Eselect, but also aparently did some fun things to said repo during suspension. Started your own replacement to portage (kudos), but the derived result (qualudis) have also resulted in a mondo flamewar on -dev, and damage to embryonic QA's credibility, specifically getting threatened to be chucked by the QA lead- just so we're clear, qualudis isn't the issue, the manner ciaran interacted with others resulted in the flamewar. And to head off the "it's not a replacement", look through the logs I attached earlier, you've contradicted that multiple times (one wonders why you lie and state otherwise in this bug). And while we're on the question of honesty; I find it ironic the only reason comment #130 doesn't have any proof attached to it is that folks don't want to violate netiquete by posting pm logs. Iow, protected by the fact folks having better scruples, even when they know you're full of it. What else am I missing? Could comment on the fact every time a devrel complaint is started up against you, devrel/those involved get flamebait sent to them via throw away email accounts (michelle flaherty for the current one, nice american pie reference, last one's name I don't recall). Ironic the webmail provider choosen never seems to include the actual originating ip address, but the timing certainly is an odd coincidence, no? Yes you do work, but your delivery of said work is calculated (not unintentional iow) to trigger a boatload of flaming, thus one must question how useful they are (compare the cost of getting it done, including lost work from infighting to the gain). If it's not clear, you're detrimental in your actions, and frankly if gentoo wants to keep hurting themselves by having you around, hey, their choice. Keeping you around explicitly makes the social environment head towards asshattery and powergames, and it's gentoo's choice if they want that crap. Personally I'm done wasting my minimal non-work hours being on the receiving end of your bullshit, *especially* when I don't even have to be involved in gentoo to work on my own code. You may have the time and inclination to play these games, most of us don't. One question out of all of this- what does all of your antisocial bullshit have to do with making a distro? What actual gain does gentoo derive from you being an asshole, besides two confirmed devs leaving due to you, a whole _funded_ arch plus portage monkeys (effectively) forking due to you, pissed off users, and more devs leaving if you aren't dealt with? I'm not after denigrating ciaran's contributions; I'm after spelling out the consequences to gentoo for keeping you as a dev just for those contributions. Frankly the retarded thing about all of this is that there is no reason to be an asshole to people- you choose to do it and cause wasteful mayhem like this.
Finally, for those who haven't read it, I'd suggest reading drobbins stated reasons for _starting_ gentoo originally. The 'freaks' described behave quite similar to ciaran (I'd posit ciaran is slightly more direct however). http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/articles/making-the-distro-p1.xml Effectively, gentoo has come full circle to the original reason for the fork.
(In reply to comment #175) > In terms of devs, *I* left because of his bullshit. No, you are pulling a publicity stunt in the same way that the original filer of this bug did. > of gleps that are effectively documentation of existing standard (tree file > names, utf8, date standard). Huh? The first and third weren't me. The second was one of the largest tree changes we've ever had, in terms of commits. > News glep (unfinished, although the wars getting to it was rather nice) Which, were it not for those wars, could not have gotten anywhere. Well, some of the wars with you, where you repeatedly tried to use the GLEP to shove through an agenda of your own utterly unrelated to news. > Wrote a dev manual, but also tried destroying that dev manual when you > were suspended. Nice conspiracy theory. The truth, however, is far less interesting. The domain on which it was hosted expired because the hosting company wouldn't take my credit card. When plasmaroo asked, I gave him the sources and full build system behind it. So, uh, hardly destroyed. > but the derived result (qualudis) have also resulted in a mondo > flamewar on -dev Nope. The flamewar in question was to do with breakage that had utterly nothing to do with anything qualudis-related. That was all manual checks. But hey, don't let the facts interfere with anything. > the manner ciaran interacted with others resulted in the flamewar. Look through that thread carefully. You'll find that, as with everything else, I am not the one doing the flaming or acting unprofessionally. > And to head off the "it's not a replacement", look through the logs I attached > earlier, you've contradicted that multiple times (one wonders why you lie and > state otherwise in this bug). Why on earth would I want to replace Portage? The paludis code does substantially different things. The entire paradigm is different. > What else am I missing? Could comment on the fact every time a devrel > complaint is started up against you, devrel/those involved get flamebait sent > to them via throw away email accounts (michelle flaherty for the current one, > nice american pie reference, last one's name I don't recall). Huh? You're pulling stuff out of your ass again. > Yes you do work, but your delivery of said work is calculated (not > unintentional iow) to trigger a boatload of flaming, thus one must question how > useful they are (compare the cost of getting it done, including lost work from > infighting to the gain). How would you know? The huge list of omissions and inaccuracies in what you consider to be stuff I do is a pretty good indication that you don't have a clue. > Personally I'm done wasting my minimal non-work hours being on the receiving > end of your bullshit, *especially* when I don't even have to be involved in > gentoo to work on my own code. You may have the time and inclination to play > these games, most of us don't. I am not the one playing games. I am not the one using devrel as their toy to get their way elsewhere. > Frankly the retarded thing about all of this is that there is no reason to be > an asshole to people- you choose to do it and cause wasteful mayhem like this. I am not the cause of this. The cause of this bug is, so far as anyone can tell, a lack of understanding of basic English by the reporter, followed by massive abuse of the devrel process by people with outside interests.
(In reply to comment #177) > (In reply to comment #175) > Nice conspiracy theory. The truth, however, is far less interesting. The domain > on which it was hosted expired because the hosting company wouldn't take my > credit card. When plasmaroo asked, I gave him the sources and full build system > behind it. So, uh, hardly destroyed. *cough* devspace? http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-344544.html Sad thing is you're full of shit on this one- firedrop disappearing resulted in your 'observations' attack going offline (nice timing, disappeared before the question of reinstatement came back up), you nuked the devmanual from your devspace blaming devrel as soon as you sent the "deedra you're a bitch". Read the forum, backs up my statements. Can also pull the emails from -core if you would like. Realistically, how long do you think you can keep lieing? We're going to keep calling bullshit whenever we spot it, and your attempts to spin the truth are becoming rather transparent. > > but the derived result (qualudis) have also resulted in a mondo > > flamewar on -dev > > Nope. The flamewar in question was to do with breakage that had utterly nothing > to do with anything qualudis-related. That was all manual checks. But hey, > don't let the facts interfere with anything. > > > the manner ciaran interacted with others resulted in the flamewar. > > Look through that thread carefully. You'll find that, as with everything else, > I am not the one doing the flaming or acting unprofessionally. Mighty fine line you draw, one demonstrated in this bug. One might question it also considering your own QA lead tactfully distances QA from your behaviour (which must be professional because it lacks swearing, of course). http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/36401 > > And to head off the "it's not a replacement", look through the logs I attached > > earlier, you've contradicted that multiple times (one wonders why you lie and > > state otherwise in this bug). > > Why on earth would I want to replace Portage? The paludis code does > substantially different things. The entire paradigm is different. Read the logs I attached. Your own statements cast an interesting light on the blurb above, as does the devrel meeting log from when they were deciding how to reinstate your trollish ass. > > What else am I missing? Could comment on the fact every time a devrel > > complaint is started up against you, devrel/those involved get flamebait sent > > to them via throw away email accounts (michelle flaherty for the current one, > > nice american pie reference, last one's name I don't recall). > > Huh? You're pulling stuff out of your ass again. Like I said, ironic that the webmail providers choosen don't bundle the IP of the http client. > > Yes you do work, but your delivery of said work is calculated (not > > unintentional iow) to trigger a boatload of flaming, thus one must question how > > useful they are (compare the cost of getting it done, including lost work from > > infighting to the gain). > > How would you know? The huge list of omissions and inaccuracies in what you > consider to be stuff I do is a pretty good indication that you don't have a > clue. And you don't know the worth of those you attack, yet it doesn't stop you now does it? Want me to post your cvs logs? I've still got them. You do work, yes, but you're fundamentally no different a contributor then any other contributor we have from a work contributed standpoint. Ironic thing here is that the original point was over your behaviour, not how much you contribute. Frankly I doubt your efforts exceed 2 devs own work, let alone the work 3 paid developers would've put forth. You pushed this into the "I contribute a lot, so you should ignore my behaviour" debate, the consequences of it are stating your actual work. > > Personally I'm done wasting my minimal non-work hours being on the receiving > > end of your bullshit, *especially* when I don't even have to be involved in > > gentoo to work on my own code. You may have the time and inclination to play > > these games, most of us don't. > > I am not the one playing games. I am not the one using devrel as their toy to > get their way elsewhere. Get my way? I got my way via my own actions- I stepped down from gentoo so I would have a civil development environment. Holding you accountable for your behaviour is a whole different mess- I filed the complaint with the intention of getting you to behave civilly, that intention is still there (same for the other 3 complaintees). > > Frankly the retarded thing about all of this is that there is no reason to be > > an asshole to people- you choose to do it and cause wasteful mayhem like this. > > I am not the cause of this. The cause of this bug is, so far as anyone can > tell, a lack of understanding of basic English by the reporter, followed by > massive abuse of the devrel process by people with outside interests. Ah, so we're all out to get you. We all aparently decided that the goal for this month was "lets fuck with ciaran". Reminds me- kito, grobian, solar, klieber, cshields, jstubbs, bonsaikitten, chriswhite, and anarchy, any suggestions for who we should target next month? Which is more plausable? You claim your actions to be miscontrued, well apply occams razor. Which is more likely, some mythical cabal is after you and you're not guilty of an assholish behaviour, or you're just plain an asshole who has brought the roof down on himself?
(In reply to comment #178) > (In reply to comment #177) > > (In reply to comment #175) > > > Frankly the retarded thing about all of this is that there is no reason to be > > > an asshole to people- you choose to do it and cause wasteful mayhem like this. > > > > I am not the cause of this. The cause of this bug is, so far as anyone can > > tell, a lack of understanding of basic English by the reporter, followed by > > massive abuse of the devrel process by people with outside interests. > > Ah, so we're all out to get you. We all aparently decided that the goal for > this month was "lets fuck with ciaran". > > Reminds me- kito, grobian, solar, klieber, cshields, jstubbs, bonsaikitten, > chriswhite, and anarchy, any suggestions for who we should target next month? Thinking about, why don't we go after the pope next? Never liked that hat of his anyways...
(In reply to comment #178) > *cough* devspace? > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-344544.html Was moved off my devspace because I couldn't update it there. > Sad thing is you're full of shit on this one- firedrop disappearing resulted in > your 'observations' attack going offline (nice timing, disappeared before the > question of reinstatement came back up), you nuked the devmanual from your > devspace blaming devrel as soon as you sent the "deedra you're a bitch". I moved it off devspace after I got word from two people in devrel that devrel was planning to hold a secret meeting without inviting me. Which, incidentally, was before any emails to -core. > Read the logs I attached. Your own statements cast an interesting light on the > blurb above, as does the devrel meeting log from when they were deciding how to > reinstate your trollish ass. "Your trollish ass"? > Like I said, ironic that the webmail providers choosen don't bundle the IP of > the http client. Ironic? In what way could that possibly be considered ironic? Useful to you, perhaps, but not ironic. > Ironic thing here is that the original point was over your behaviour, not how > much you contribute. Frankly I doubt your efforts exceed 2 devs own work, let > alone the work 3 paid developers would've put forth. No, the original point was over someone not understanding some basic English. > You pushed this into the "I contribute a lot, so you should ignore my > behaviour" debate, the consequences of it are stating your actual work. Uh, no. I'm not the one pushing that agenda at all. > Holding you accountable for your behaviour is a whole different mess- I filed > the complaint with the intention of getting you to behave civilly, that > intention is still there (same for the other 3 complaintees). Look through this bug. I am not the one showing the lack of civility. So far, the only lack of civility has come from the complainers, some of whom have resorted to name calling. Look at comment #90, for example, or if you'd prefer some of your own lack of civility, try comment #44 or comment #53. > Which is more plausable? You claim your actions to be miscontrued, well apply > occams razor. > > Which is more likely, some mythical cabal is after you and you're not guilty of > an assholish behaviour, or you're just plain an asshole who has brought the > roof down on himself? No, more like it's a bandwagon that you're all jumping on without providing any actual evidence. (In reply to comment #179) > Thinking about, why don't we go after the pope next? > > Never liked that hat of his anyways... I'm glad you're taking this whole issue seriously, and aren't just in this to take random pot shots and cause trouble.
(In reply to comment #180) > No, more like it's a bandwagon that you're all jumping on without providing any > actual evidence. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that you're right and that we're all jumping on the bandwagon. To what end? If you look at the complainers, they represent a very diverse cross section of Gentoo. They aren't part of one particular clique or group -- they come from all over. The only thing they all have in common is they feel you're detrimental to the project. You've never actually addressed the issue at hand, Ciaran. It's not about your contributions, it's not about your technical skills and it's not about your ideas. It's about your presentation and interaction with other people. There are enough different people speaking out (finally) against you that I hope you'll take it as a wake-up call that you really do have issues that you need to address. Even if you won't admit it here, at least admit it to yourself.
(In reply to comment #180) > (In reply to comment #178) > > *cough* devspace? > > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-344544.html > > Was moved off my devspace because I couldn't update it there. > > > Sad thing is you're full of shit on this one- firedrop disappearing resulted in > > your 'observations' attack going offline (nice timing, disappeared before the > > question of reinstatement came back up), you nuked the devmanual from your > > devspace blaming devrel as soon as you sent the "deedra you're a bitch". > > I moved it off devspace after I got word from two people in devrel that devrel > was planning to hold a secret meeting without inviting me. Which, incidentally, > was before any emails to -core. Interesting spin. You removed the devmanual (thus triggering that forums thread) because you got wind that a secret meeting was occuring. And just to show them 'evil devrel bastards', you blamed the removal of the devmanual on them. Regardless if it's true that you moved the manual so you could maintain it, and just happened to forget to renew the domain, the charge still stands- you yanked the manual from d.g.o and blamed it on devrel. Hardly decent behaviour, and rather inline with the other charges against you one might think. Again, spin isn't going to work here, folks are sick of it. > > Read the logs I attached. Your own statements cast an interesting light on the > > blurb above, as does the devrel meeting log from when they were deciding how to > > reinstate your trollish ass. > > "Your trollish ass"? Best you can do in regards to my comment about your intentions for portage is respond to a mild insult of mine? Please, that's not deflection of your caliber- you were doing much better 100 comments back. Going to respond to the point, or keep trying to weasel out of it? > > Like I said, ironic that the webmail providers choosen don't bundle the IP of > > the http client. > > Ironic? In what way could that possibly be considered ironic? Useful to you, > perhaps, but not ironic. Uh huh. So... equivalent analogy. "Gee officer, it's ironic that you're investigating the mob, and suddenly a bunch of your officers wind up dead, and it was done in a manner that can't be linked back to the mob." Even if you didn't send the email _yourself_, one has to wonder how it is that a devrel investigation of you results in taunting emails sent to devrel/those filing the complaints. Totally coincidence I'm sure, and of course since it's a coincidence, no gentoo dev of good standing bound by etiquette rules would be behind it. No sir. > > Ironic thing here is that the original point was over your behaviour, not how > > much you contribute. Frankly I doubt your efforts exceed 2 devs own work, let > > alone the work 3 paid developers would've put forth. > > No, the original point was over someone not understanding some basic English. Wee bit literal, aren't we? Totally ignoring the other 170 some comments on this bug about your behaviour, now aren't ya? > > You pushed this into the "I contribute a lot, so you should ignore my > > behaviour" debate, the consequences of it are stating your actual work. > > Uh, no. I'm not the one pushing that agenda at all. True. Geoman and spb seem to be. You're just dodging the accusation of shit behaviour. > > Holding you accountable for your behaviour is a whole different mess- I filed > > the complaint with the intention of getting you to behave civilly, that > > intention is still there (same for the other 3 complaintees). > > Look through this bug. I am not the one showing the lack of civility. So far, > the only lack of civility has come from the complainers, some of whom have > resorted to name calling. Look at comment #90, for example, or if you'd prefer > some of your own lack of civility, try comment #44 or comment #53. Yep, in a 170 comments, one suspension, multiple complaints, everyone who was complaining about you _must_ have been the ones guilty of being uncivilized heathens. That arguement works only until the complaints start piling up; they've piled up. > > Which is more plausable? You claim your actions to be miscontrued, well apply > > occams razor. > > > > Which is more likely, some mythical cabal is after you and you're not guilty of > > an assholish behaviour, or you're just plain an asshole who has brought the > > roof down on himself? > > No, more like it's a bandwagon that you're all jumping on without providing any > actual evidence. Lets do a little figuring here. There are 100 or so devs I'd define as active; ml and irc. We've got about 10 devs here who are fed up with your behaviour. So... 10% of the dev active population seems to have an issue with you. Or, lets use the figure of 250 for total dev population. 4% have an issue. Should we dig into the user population for folks who have an issue with you? Evidence is attached, and littered throughout this bug; your destructionist/obstructionistic tendencies you even so kindly demonstrated on the bug. Odd thing is you've not responded to the evidence you keep stating doesn't exist. If you did, this bug would be come much saner- and no, your previous attempt to respond to just klieber's comments and comments <=12 doesn't count (as per the norm, you ignored the actual complaints). > (In reply to comment #179) > > Thinking about, why don't we go after the pope next? > > > > Never liked that hat of his anyways... > > I'm glad you're taking this whole issue seriously, and aren't just in this to > take random pot shots and cause trouble. Coming from the guy who wanted to vote on whether pink elephants exist when asked if he would prefer investigation to start, I find that highly hypocritical. Fun thing about all of this? Watch how the point of discussion keeps wandering away from addressing ciaran's crap behaviour, instead focusing on those who are leveling the complaints. Like I said 100 comments back, this is why we have a neutral group judge the charges- you can attempt to dilute the piss out of this bug so reading through it is hard, but the charges still stand. I've pushed you to respond to the allegations of shit behaviour, frankly I suggest you do so; none of those leveling the complaints are backing down, nor is it likely they will. Either draw it out until devrel investigation is turned in, or become constructive for a change and address the actual issue at hand- your behaviour.
(In reply to comment #182) > Interesting spin. You removed the devmanual (thus triggering that forums > thread) because you got wind that a secret meeting was occuring. No, I moved it. > And just to show them 'evil devrel bastards', you blamed the removal of the > devmanual on them. No, I moved it so that it could remain maintained. Your wild conspiracies don't seem to hold water when you note that I gave plasmaroo all the sources and the build scripts for the thing. Now why would I have done that were I out to cause trouble? > Even if you didn't send the email _yourself_, one has to wonder how it is that > a devrel investigation of you results in taunting emails sent to devrel/those > filing the complaints. Your version of events seems to have little to no resemblance to anything of which I am aware that actually happened. > > > You pushed this into the "I contribute a lot, so you should ignore my > > > behaviour" debate, the consequences of it are stating your actual work. > > > > Uh, no. I'm not the one pushing that agenda at all. > > True. Geoman and spb seem to be. You're just dodging the accusation of shit > behaviour. Look through this bug. The only shit behaviour that we've seen here is from those filing the complaints. > Yep, in a 170 comments, one suspension, multiple complaints, everyone who was > complaining about you _must_ have been the ones guilty of being uncivilized > heathens. Take a look through this bug for evidence of name calling, swearing and ad hominem attacks. My name isn't the one that will stand out. > That arguement works only until the complaints start piling up; they've piled > up. No no, most of the people commenting on this bug are taking the view "I'm upset that other people are upset". Which kinda loses its potency when you start to look for why the original people are actually upset... > Evidence is attached, and littered throughout this bug; your > destructionist/obstructionistic tendencies you even so kindly demonstrated on > the bug. The evidence attached to this bug shows you repeatedly being uncivil and abusive . > Fun thing about all of this? Watch how the point of discussion keeps wandering > away from addressing ciaran's crap behaviour, instead focusing on those who are > leveling the complaints. I'm sorry, but if you're trying to get anywhere with this, you need to cut the hyperbole and start coming up with some addressable criticisms. If, somewhere in all of this, someone has legitimate cause for complaint with my behaviour, then I'd be more than happy to redress that -- *if* I get assurances that when I attempt to address any misunderstandings, it isn't dismissed as "ooh, you're just picking at the details". For so long as you carry on posting logs of you misbehaving and posting wild rhetoric, however, there's nothing I can do to be of help -- so far as I can see so far, the only crap behaviour in this bug has been from those doing the complaining.
(In reply to comment #183) > I'm sorry, but if you're trying to get anywhere with this, you need to cut the > hyperbole and start coming up with some addressable criticisms. If, somewhere > in all of this, someone has legitimate cause for complaint with my behaviour, > then I'd be more than happy to redress that -- *if* I get assurances that when > I attempt to address any misunderstandings, it isn't dismissed as "ooh, you're > just picking at the details". Ah... so on your terms, we can discuss your misbehaviour, sorry, misunderstandings. Why does that reek of bullshit to me? Lets try it either way. Here's a legitimate complaint. You've attacked prefix from day one without offering actual constructive advice; either stating it's too much work to do, or stating we're doing it wrong (spec it first). You've repeated this behaviour, and when a spec was generated to at least open the subject up to general community input (haubi's glep), you attacked it as trying to sidestep your concerns. Damned if you do, damned if you don't being the view there. You're incapable of getting straight to the point without unecessarily needling en route; QA thread is a demonstration of this, jakub thread is a demonstration of it. Miscommunication? Perhaps. That doesn't give you the right to be an asshole to the person on the other end however; rest of us behave, thus so should you. You take no responsibility for your own actions; when called on your attacks, even just "please play nice" it's not your fault, it's the fault of those complaining. That's akin to "it's the womans fault for getting herself raped"; one can put themselves in an at risk situation, but the person commiting the act is still at guilty of the act. Realistically, your responses to this bug (namely folks documenting your behaviour they have issues with) have been dismissed and brushed off as "they're out to get me" or we're idiots. If you really want to address this issue, I suggest you start listening to the folks who are telling you that you have a behaviour problem. If you're after more complaints, read the bug from the beginning. Above is a synopsis of it, there is far more complaints levelled in the bug then just in this posting. Did what you asked, even on your own terms- willing to discuss the issue of your behaviour now?
Expanding a bit, you've specifically stated in -core and other mediums that prefix is vapourware despite knowing the repository exists. As demonstrated in the bug above, when stated it works (it does), you've implied the definition of "it works" for the person stating it is loose. We call that slander, although perhaps it's just rampant miscommunication. Why do you comment on it's state when you don't use it nor (seemingly) have you looked at it? Why call it vapourware when it's known to exist (hosted on gentoo hardware even) ? Note also I'm merely reiterating points from this bug that got lost in the signal to noise- can continue in this fashion as long as you're responding to the concerns/issues.
Further questions since you stated you address the issues if it's 'devoid of hyperbole and is civil' (presumably by your definition, so feel free to define it clearer). Why, in response to http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/35652 did you respond with http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/35653 questioning on a public ml the origin of a fellow dev? Perhaps we're miscontruing it, but questioning how one became a dev for most is equivalent to stating "who screwed up and made you a dev". If it's an actual question of yours (how did grobian become a dev), why was it done on a public ml, and why did you choose to got OT in the tch/sh thread to ask it? Presuming you have no issues with it, we'll just walk through the complaints on this bug in the order they were leveled- sequentially.
(In reply to comment #182) > True. Geoman and spb seem to be. You're just dodging the accusation of shit > behaviour. Err, what?
(In reply to comment #187) > (In reply to comment #182) > > True. Geoman and spb seem to be. You're just dodging the accusation of shit > > behaviour. > > Err, what? Read it in context- you're comments on this bug are regarding ciaran's _technical_ opinions, which are totally unrelated to the meat of this bug- his behaviour. Geoman's comments have been about his qa _contributions_, again unrelated.
(In reply to comment #186) > Why, in response to > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/35652 > did you respond with > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/35653 > questioning on a public ml the origin of a fellow dev? You know, to those of us not trying to see such attacks in everything Ciaran says, that has a perfectly reasonable interpretation: the ebuild environment is bash, so being a Gentoo developer requires that you not only have bash around, but know how to use it and do so on a regular basis.
(In reply to comment #189) > (In reply to comment #186) > > Why, in response to > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/35652 > > did you respond with > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/35653 > > questioning on a public ml the origin of a fellow dev? > > You know, to those of us not trying to see such attacks in everything Ciaran > says, that has a perfectly reasonable interpretation: the ebuild environment is > bash, so being a Gentoo developer requires that you not only have bash around, > but know how to use it and do so on a regular basis. I asked ciaran, not you- the bug is about _his_ statements and _his_ justifications for it, not yours. (see a trend in my responses?) If that's ciaran's point, then _ciaran_ should answer the question of why he phrased it in such a manner- commenting about preference for shell, why question grobian's origin in a derogatry manner?
(In reply to comment #188) > Read it in context- you're comments on this bug are regarding ciaran's > _technical_ opinions, which are totally unrelated to the meat of this bug- his > behaviour. Geoman's comments have been about his qa _contributions_, again > unrelated. Reading back over my comments, I think it's pretty clear that what I've been trying to say is that I, and many others, have no problem with the way he expresses his opinions. I think that's entirely related. And for what it's worth, I at least interpreted geoman's comment to mean that of the 59 bugs filed, only one person decided to take issue and escalate the bug into an argument. Again, fairly relevant, since if the incident in question were entirely ciaran's fault one would expect more than one person, given more or less the same bug, would have taken offence rather than thank him for noticing the problem.
(In reply to comment #191) > (In reply to comment #188) > > Read it in context- you're comments on this bug are regarding ciaran's > > _technical_ opinions, which are totally unrelated to the meat of this bug- his > > behaviour. Geoman's comments have been about his qa _contributions_, again > > unrelated. > > Reading back over my comments, I think it's pretty clear that what I've been > trying to say is that I, and many others, have no problem with the way he > expresses his opinions. I think that's entirely related. That's fine, although the way these bugs work is that the person who _has_ a problem levels the complaints, and the accused and the complaintee works through it. Essentially, your testimony of "he's nice to me and a few others" is irrevelant in the context of this bug- we're leveling a complaint over how he treats _us_, not you. Stated so in this bug, and stating it again. So... kindly pipe down spb and let let ciaran respond to the questions he asked to ask.
(In reply to comment #188) > Read it in context- you're comments on this bug are regarding ciaran's > _technical_ opinions, which are totally unrelated to the meat of this bug- his > behaviour. Geoman's comments have been about his qa _contributions_, again > unrelated. > To play devil's advocate, I feel that it is related. Someone (devrel I sure hope) will need to decide whether his technical contributions outweigh those of the people he is driving away. (not to mention the scar he is leaving all over our public ml's as an official dev) -C
(In reply to comment #183) > (In reply to comment #182) > > Interesting spin. You removed the devmanual (thus triggering that forums > > thread) because you got wind that a secret meeting was occuring. > > No, I moved it. No, you didn't. You've wiped it from devspace, I remember the forums thread quite well. > > And just to show them 'evil devrel bastards', you blamed the removal of the > > devmanual on them. > > No, I moved it so that it could remain maintained. No, you didn't. You've wiped it b/c you were suspended. You even admitted that in public in some of your blogposts. You've said something around "why Gentoo should benefit from my hard work on that manual now that that they've kicked me". So, you intentionally killed it. Those blogposts now are of course gone by pure coincidence. :P Well, I won't dig web archives for those, people do remember it.
(In reply to comment #178) > Want me to post your cvs logs? I've still got them. You do work, yes, but > you're fundamentally no different a contributor then any other contributor we > have from a work contributed standpoint. 28th of February Modified Files: 4 files in 2 dirs (gentoo-x86/app-editors/vim-core/) Log Message: New vim7 snapshot, with tabs that don't segfault. (Portage version: 2.1_pre5-r1 you hoser) URL: http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/ciaranm/.message/6e8e8 Nice portage version thinghy.
(In reply to comment #195) > (In reply to comment #178) > > Want me to post your cvs logs? I've still got them. You do work, yes, but > > you're fundamentally no different a contributor then any other contributor we > > have from a work contributed standpoint. > > 28th of February > > Modified Files: > 4 files in 2 dirs (gentoo-x86/app-editors/vim-core/) > > Log Message: > New vim7 snapshot, with tabs that don't segfault. > (Portage version: 2.1_pre5-r1 you hoser) > > URL: http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/ciaranm/.message/6e8e8 > > Nice portage version thinghy. Crappy joke, not something that particular matters imo- I'll take that gladly over hisusual brand of entertainment.
> > That's fine, although the way these bugs work is that the person who _has_ a > problem levels the complaints, and the accused and the complaintee works > through it. > > Essentially, your testimony of "he's nice to me and a few others" is irrevelant > in the context of this bug- we're leveling a complaint over how he treats _us_, > not you. Stated so in this bug, and stating it again. > > So... kindly pipe down spb and let let ciaran respond to the questions he asked > to ask. > This might have been the intent of the bug, but if the bug were on topic, there might be 40 entries on it on the outside. This bug has turned into an unpleasant foodfight about who did what when. I believe everyone is probably telling the truth, which means everyone is working from incomplete or incorrect information. Example: This bug has nothing at all to do with the devmanual. Assuming ciaranm's account to be correct, people disputing it just do not have the facts correct. If you wish to determine what is correct, there is enough here for you (collectively) to sit down with each other like the prefessionals you are supposed to be and work it out like civilized people. So, ciaranm, ferringb, jakub: sit down with plasmaroo and resolve the devmanual timeline if you care about it --- don't call each other names on this bug. "Yes I did"; "No you didn't" contributes a lot of noise but no useful data. If you are frustrated with each other, talk to each other directly and work it out. Based on this bug alone, I'd conclude that no one is letting facts getting in the way of sensible discourse. So please stop it. Stay on topic (although clearly it was exhausted long ago) and find another forum to fight with each other. You might even resolve the technical issues, time line of irrelevent events, and other junk polluting my mailbox. (Yes, I know I'm contributing to the noise, but there is nothing left of the topic of the bug anyway.)
(In reply to comment #197) > This might have been the intent of the bug, but if the bug were on topic, there > might be 40 entries on it on the outside. > If you are frustrated with each other, talk to each other directly and work it > out. <snip> > Based on this bug alone, I'd conclude that no one is letting facts > getting in the way of sensible discourse. Fmccor, your entire statement is based upon _both_ parties willing to discuss the issues and try to reach an agreement. Wise advice exempting when one party is unwilling to discuss the issues at hand, specifically in this bug "stop being a jerk to others". Ciaran's only comments on this whole thing is that of dismissal and attacking those bringing the bug; you ask us to step back and work through this with him yet he's unwilling to even address it? Frankly I'm a bit disgusted the only devrel comment on this is "play nice you three" after a _serious_ attempt to level complaints and discuss them resulted in idiot pink elephant comments and flat out dissmissal from ciaran, and y'all started up a fricking investigation. Read the damn bug before you deign to tell folks to behave- you want folk to play nice? Comment 50 is the point where the bug went beyond trying to work out the issues via the bug- namely because while we _were_ willing to work it out (and repeatedly have started up discussion of the complaints to have them ignored), ciaran isn't willing to even acknowledge their might be a problem with his behaviour. Just plain idiotic.
(In reply to comment #197) There's no topic to stay on any more since one of the parties to this dispute just ignores what this bug is all about. So, you are asking us to let ciaranm tell people whatever he invents and other people should just let this bullshit go? - You deleted the devmanual... - Oh, I didn't delete anything - Yes, you did wipe the devmanual - No, the domain just expired and I didn't have a card to pay renewal with - No, it was in your devspace - I didn't delete it anyway, I just moved it to be maintained - No, you didn't, you deliberately wiped it (plus a link to forums etc.) The above is just one of *many* examples here. So - please *act* *now*. This is *not* going anywhere. You can't talk to a deaf person. Ciaranm does not acknowledge the complaints this bug is about, he's bringing the whole discussion off-topic, there won't be any solution between the parties reached here. Not doing anything with this bug just lets ciaranm attack more and more people. Meanwhile, you can hardly expect that concerned people will just shut up and watch as is ciaranm spreading nonsense here.
> And for what it's worth, I at least interpreted geoman's comment to mean that > of the 59 bugs filed, only one person decided to take issue and escalate the > bug into an argument. Again, fairly relevant, since if the incident in question > were entirely ciaran's fault one would expect more than one person, given more > or less the same bug, would have taken offence rather than thank him for > noticing the problem. This is precisely what I meant, and it is completely relevant to this bug, since said "one person" brought the issue to this bug to further the complaints against Ciaran. I found it interesting that this "one person" was the only target of a Ciaran QA bug who had problems with Ciaran in the past, and perhaps that played a factor in his initial negative reaction to the filing of said QA bug. Now, don't get me wrong, I actually agree with a good majority of the complaints in this thread. I think we all agree that Ciaran knows his stuff, but that he can be really hard on people who don't "get it" the first time. The problem is that he resorts to elaborate and precise trolls to get the opponent in the argument to lose their cool. A wonderful example is Jakub, who might be the most easily trolled individual in the entire dev team at this point in time. If you are reading this Jakub, you need to chill, because you are every bit as guilty of fanning the recent flames as Ciaran. I recently had a rather lengthy discussion with Ciaran about this behavior, and if you ask him, he'll tell you I gave him a pretty good tongue lashing, but that he completely disagrees with everything I said. I can't say I didn't try though... Anyway, I think this whole thing has gotten way out of control. This thread has degenerated to the point that everybody who has ever been even slightly annoyed at anything Ciaran has ever said is resorting to piling on the complaints and comments simply because he is who he is. I don't think any more of these sorts of comments will help the situation, because they will just result in the thread growing longer and longer with more bitching. I'm looking at Brian and Wernfried here.
I just thought I'd add that infra lost a good dev because of ciaranm. Andrew Fant (jfmuggs) told me he left gentoo because of ciaranm's behaviour. I probably have it in my logs somewhere if you need that evidence, just let me know. I can also say that I heard several folks at LWE in San Franciso last summer commenting on ciaranm's behaviour and how it was detriemental to the distribution. Some felt they were afraid to even send a post on the dev mailing list because they thought he would flame them for some stupid idea. If other devs that were at LWE want to back me up, they can. Its pretty bad when people talk about your developers' actions/attitudes at an open source conference.
(In reply to comment #200) > > And for what it's worth, I at least interpreted geoman's comment to mean that > > of the 59 bugs filed > This is precisely what I meant, and it is completely relevant to this bug, > since said "one person" brought the issue to this bug to further the complaints > against Ciaran. Erm, may I note that you are quoting and replying to your *own* Comment #191? That nice that you've meant what you've meant and you still mean it, but this doesn't get us anywhere. :P > If you are reading this Jakub, you need to chill, because you > are every bit as guilty of fanning the recent flames as Ciaran. Hmmm. Sorry, I don't remember I'd jump on webapp-config guys. Please, don't ask people to just sit there and let ciaranm spread whatever FUD he choses to. > I recently had > a rather lengthy discussion with Ciaran about this behavior, and if you ask > him, he'll tell you I gave him a pretty good tongue lashing, but that he > completely disagrees with everything I said. I can't say I didn't try > though... Yeah, it won't change apparently, and it didn't change since he returned to devship after being suspended for exactly the same thing which is bug is about (so one might ask why was he even allowed to return). > Anyway, I think this whole thing has gotten way out of control. This thread > has degenerated to the point that everybody who has ever been even slightly > annoyed at anything Ciaran has ever said is resorting to piling on the > complaints and comments simply because he is who he is. I don't think any more > of these sorts of comments will help the situation, because they will just > result in the thread growing longer and longer with more bitching. devrel has been asked to act on Comment #49. It's been almost exactly one month ago, since that time this bug hasn't moved an inch further, and not acting just brought more complaining devs here as ciaranm continued his attacks all over the places. So, devrel - what's going on? This bug started to go in circles about 100 comments ago, and now someone comes to intervene in Comment #197?
(In reply to comment #192) > Essentially, your testimony of "he's nice to me and a few others" is irrevelant > in the context of this bug- we're leveling a complaint over how he treats _us_, > not you. Stated so in this bug, and stating it again. Err, that's not what I said. What I said was that he acts in much the same way towards me on occasions, and frankly I don't see the problem with it. > > So... kindly pipe down spb and let let ciaran respond to the questions he asked > to ask. I would have done so a long time ago were it not for the repeated misrepresentations of what I said at first.
(In reply to comment #199) > - You deleted the devmanual... > - Oh, I didn't delete anything > - Yes, you did wipe the devmanual > - No, the domain just expired and I didn't have a card to pay renewal with > - No, it was in your devspace > - I didn't delete it anyway, I just moved it to be maintained > - No, you didn't, you deliberately wiped it (plus a link to forums etc.) More or less. Originally devmanual was hosted on firedrop. Ciaran *then* posted to -core and infra (I think Ramereth/klieber) approved it getting hosted on dev.gentoo.org. Then the whole suspension thing. Round about that time (and as far as I can remember, you did delete it before you were officially suspended & etc.) devmanual was nuked from devspace. It wasn't moved to another server. No link was ever available or published that I know of. I then took Google Cache dumps of what I could find and dumped it in my devspace. A little while later Ciaran then kindly offered to give me the full sources once his suspension was in effect.
(In reply to comment #202) > It's been almost exactly one month ago, since that time this bug hasn't moved > an inch further, and not acting just > brought more complaining devs here as ciaranm continued his attacks all over > the places. So, devrel - what's going on? This bug started to go in circles > about 100 comments ago, and now someone comes to intervene in Comment #197? Subject: Complaint and Notice of Formal Devrel Inquiry --- Investigation (reference https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114944) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:58:37 +0000 (14:58 EST) Said inquiry is to take no more than 30 days, so relax jakub. Let them do the work and reach a devrel desision. If no desision is reached within the timeframe as outlined in the mail of those who devrel mailed. Then back to comment #81 imo.
Okay, to clarify for those who are unaware, the investigation notice went out on Valentine's day (14 February), with a one day wait period. Add on 30 days and, by my reckoning, it'll finish on the 17 March. Extra time may be requested by the investigators, or the investigation may be concluded early. At the moment however I'd say neither of those are likely -- expect the investigation to be concluded on time.
(In reply to comment #180) > Look through this bug. I am not the one showing the lack of civility. So far, > the only lack of civility has come from the complainers, some of whom have > resorted to name calling. Look at comment #90, for example, or if you'd prefer > some of your own lack of civility, try comment #44 or comment #53. I was civil but never got a reply...
(In reply to comment #184) > Here's a legitimate complaint. You've attacked prefix from day one without > offering actual constructive advice; either stating it's too much work to do, > or stating we're doing it wrong (spec it first). Untrue. I've pointed out reasons why it won't work in its current form. Rather than acknowledging these issues and attempting to resolve them, those involved have ignored the issues and resorted to using any means available to avoid having a technical discussion. > You've repeated this behaviour, and when a spec was generated to at least open > the subject up to general community input (haubi's glep), you attacked it as > trying to sidestep your concerns. That was no more a decent GLEP than ChrisWhite's "we need a news thing" (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-dev&m=113080258714565&w=2) was. > You're incapable of getting straight to the point without unecessarily needling > en route; QA thread is a demonstration of this, jakub thread is a demonstration > of it. Given how Jakub explodes at random anyway (see, for example, "0day bugs - about time to stop them" on -core, where he does it to vapier, or "QA Roles v2" where he does it to g2boojum), that hardly holds water. There is no strong correlation between post content and Jakub throwing hissy fits. > That's akin to "it's the womans fault for getting herself raped"; one can put > themselves in an at risk situation, but the person commiting the act is still > at guilty of the act. That analogy would be better suited as a demonstration of why blaming me for Jakub's temper tantrums is inappropriate. (In reply to comment #185) > Expanding a bit, you've specifically stated in -core and other mediums that > prefix is vapourware despite knowing the repository exists. That's like claiming you have a flying car because you have a gear stick that has a 'fly' position. (In reply to comment #194) > No, you didn't. You've wiped it b/c you were suspended. You even admitted that > in public in some of your blogposts. You've said something around "why Gentoo > should benefit from my hard work on that manual now that that they've kicked > me". So, you intentionally killed it. Those blogposts now are of course gone by > pure coincidence. :P Well, I won't dig web archives for those, people do > remember it. Uh, the only thing I've ever had that remotely resembles a blog was hosted on dev.gentoo.org, in the same place as the devmanual, and it was taken down at the same time. Your claims are thus ludicrous. (In reply to comment #195) > (Portage version: 2.1_pre5-r1 you hoser) > > Nice portage version thinghy. That one, as with a fair number of my other Portage version strings, is an inside joke that you're probably missing. It's related to a comment (now removed) that was left in the installer used on the 2006.0 release that attracted some amusing feedback in various places. You can see a screenshot of the comment in question at: http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=588&slide=19 Again, this looks a lot like people going out of their way to deliberately take anything they can find as evidence. Sort of like going into a kitchen cupboard, seeing some white powder in a tub marked "baking powder" and accusing the chef of using cocaine... (In reply to comment #207) > I was civil but never got a reply... All you did was post some rhetoric which is approximately equivalent to "why do your husband and his friends beat you up if you aren't doing anything wrong?".
> (In reply to comment #207) > > I was civil but never got a reply... > > All you did was post some rhetoric which is approximately equivalent to "why > do your husband and his friends beat you up if you aren't doing anything > wrong?". You've still not answered my question and have instead implicitly labelled it as being unworthy of answering, implicityly labelling my viewpoint as unimportant/irrelevant by extension. This single comment shows the entire problem in a nutshell.
(In reply to comment #209) > You've still not answered my question and have instead implicitly labelled it > as being unworthy of answering, implicityly labelling my viewpoint as > unimportant/irrelevant by extension. This single comment shows the entire > problem in a nutshell. Indeed it does. You ask loaded questions based upon logically unsound reasoning, and then expect me to answer the question anyway. What is the correct answer to "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"?
(In reply to comment #210) > (In reply to comment #209) > > You've still not answered my question and have instead implicitly labelled it > > as being unworthy of answering, implicityly labelling my viewpoint as > > unimportant/irrelevant by extension. This single comment shows the entire > > problem in a nutshell. > > Indeed it does. You ask loaded questions based upon logically unsound > reasoning, and then expect me to answer the question anyway. What is the > correct answer to "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"? I believe that it would be more adequately phrased into the wife-beater analogy as "why does your wife think you are beating her?" For reference, here's the original: > So, Ciaran. I just have one small question. Please read through this bug and > cut out any comments that are from or to Brian. Why do all the other > commenters feel the way they do? Where's the loaded question?
Shouldn't your opinion not take precedence over all else? When somebody asks a direct clear question, would it not be better to answer it directly? Those are loaded questions. See the difference?
(In reply to comment #206) > Okay, to clarify for those who are unaware, the investigation notice went out > on Valentine's day (14 February), with a one day wait period. Add on 30 days > and, by my reckoning, it'll finish on the 17 March. Extra time may be requested > by the investigators, or the investigation may be concluded early. At the > moment however I'd say neither of those are likely -- expect the investigation > to be concluded on time. > It's 17 March and there has been nothing more regarding the issue from devrel's point of view..? I would rather not see devrel drop this, pussy-foot it, or heaven forbid overengineer the response like last time (since it led to a debate from the accused anyway).. He broke the rules, he was suspended. He came back without a clue, and continued breaking the etiquette policy. Kick him off the team. It does not take a month to do this, I just figured it out in a few minutes time. -C
(In reply to comment #213) > (In reply to comment #206) > > Okay, to clarify for those who are unaware, the investigation notice went out > > on Valentine's day (14 February), with a one day wait period. Add on 30 days > > and, by my reckoning, it'll finish on the 17 March. Extra time may be requested > > by the investigators, or the investigation may be concluded early. At the > > moment however I'd say neither of those are likely -- expect the investigation > > to be concluded on time. > > > > It's 17 March and there has been nothing more regarding the issue from devrel's > point of view..? I would rather not see devrel drop this, pussy-foot it, or > heaven forbid overengineer the response like last time (since it led to a > debate from the accused anyway).. > > He broke the rules, he was suspended. He came back without a clue, and > continued breaking the etiquette policy. Kick him off the team. It does not > take a month to do this, I just figured it out in a few minutes time. > > -C > Investigation is complete; devrel is processing as per policy. Policy says that devrel will determine next step based on the recommendations of the investigators. It does not say the developer community will determine the next step. Nor does it say that devrel will publish the investigators' recommendations before devrel itself has acted on them. Devrel and the parties to the complaint have the report. You are not a party to the complaint, and you do not have a copy of the report at this moment.
That is the biggest crock of BS I've ever heard. The people who have commented on this bug are clearly involved. devrel is now obsolete in my eyes.
Please be consistent. You sent a copy of the report to ferringb, grobian and kito, none of which were "original" complainants on this bug. Yet you did not send a copy of the report to myself, Corey, Lance, Jason, etc, even though we voiced complaints/concerns/whatever you'd like to call it. You want to live by your policy, fine. Be consistent with it. I'm amazed by the levels and levels of bureaucracy that devrel has denegrated into.
I shouldn't say anything, but I'm going to. For the record, solar has a CC of the investigators' report, even though he officially opted out of the complaint. So I do not understand his comment at all. Klieber said that ciaranm had pissed him off, cited a very misleading one-line snippet from a log as evidence of misbehavior, said ciaran was being ciaran, and later made a comment on Ciaran's "people skills". He never asked (to my knowledge) to be a party to the complaint. Commenting on the bug does not make you a party to this. If there is a hearing, it will be open to the developer community, and the hearing board may talk to anyone they wish. But commenting on the bug does not earn you influence on what policy spells out as a devrel decision, beyond the fact that your comments are on record. There could well be privacy reasons why the investigators' report is not available officially to the developer community at this time. Devrel will decide by Monday 20 March 1700UTC how to proceed. The reason for the three day decision period is practical: Report came out early Friday afternoon, so people might well be hard to find because of weekend activities.
Ferris, I said for the record I never was apart of the offical complaint but wished to be on the CC: of the remaining proceedings which I was not. But that in in no way means that I find ciaranms behavior productive or acceptable for Gentoo as the whole. This bug will be reassigned and delt with if an official decision w/ actions comes any later than given date UTC.
Without even needing to read this whole bug comments the mere fact that it's 130 pages long and it concerns the handling of one single developer conduct, clearly shows that there's something very wrong going on here (and I mean other than what ciaranm actions). Everyone is wasting their time on something that could be handled without all these procedures and talks but as effective as this process could ever be. This comment is *not* about what the outcome of this should be against ciaranm according to my personal opinion, it's a general rant about the fact that the inappropriateness of what prompted this process in the first place now applies to the handling as well imho. my 2 eurocent
(In reply to comment #219) > Without even needing to read this whole bug And this is why the bug is so long. The peanut gallery.
(In reply to comment #220) > > And this is why the bug is so long. The peanut gallery. > And this attitude is why there is an issue in the first place. Ciaran, follow these simple tips and you'll get along a lot better in your next venture where you need to deal with others: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_a_dick http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/fsckhead.html
- Everyone whinged last time devrel took 'quick' action - Everyone decided that devrel needed new policy - Everyone (i.e. all devs) were able to contribute to forming the new policy - Complaint against ciaranm - Policy goes into effect - Some devrel members refuse/don't respond to calls to help with investigation or provide any input. - Nonetheless, a few people put some effort in to make it stick the timeline, which was agreed upon when the policy was written. - Everyone whinges again This is so bloody annoying it makes me want to quit
DRAMA! So we've all reached the point where it's fairly obvious how well political structures work for volunteer groups :D. Basically take: 324 devs and mix Trying to find the "Right way to do things" and you get: complete and utter chaos, w00t! So no slarti, no matter what you do someone/some people are gonna be like "wtf do it this way instead"! Quit if you want, it's volunteer but, hmm, I've gotten the chance to meet most of the devs, and I think it's just crappy to walk away now, too many friends! Annnnyways: ciaranm, be realistic.. you know your attitude to others sucks, this bug proves it by a snide remark to about every comment. If you can't see that, then oh damn boy, no scons for you! You expect things to be given to you in a point to point business type structure that makes baby jesus cry. As far as being positive, I've seen a couple of times where I've had useful conversations with ciaranm, but then I've had him walk into a channel, have me say a few lines, and he goes trip of nuts on me like where'd that come from! But oh well, I've dealt with it by ignoring it lately! Alright I'm outs! Let me know when season 3 DVD BOX set hits the stores!
(In reply to comment #213) > (In reply to comment #206) > > Okay, to clarify for those who are unaware, the investigation notice went out > > on Valentine's day (14 February), with a one day wait period. Add on 30 days > > and, by my reckoning, it'll finish on the 17 March. Extra time may be requested > > by the investigators, or the investigation may be concluded early. At the > > moment however I'd say neither of those are likely -- expect the investigation > > to be concluded on time. > > > > It's 17 March and there has been nothing more regarding the issue from devrel's > point of view..? I would rather not see devrel drop this, pussy-foot it, or > heaven forbid overengineer the response like last time (since it led to a > debate from the accused anyway).. Fmccor sent an e-mail to the remainder of devrel asking for a general sign-off of the investigators' report by 20 March, 1700 UTC. Reading through the devrel policy doc, exactly what happens between the report and the hearing (if the investigators decide that one is warranted) seems a bit ambiguous to me, since it explicitly mentions that the whole of devrel needs to agree if the investigators suggest a dismissal, but at the same time it seems to suggest that a hearing is automatic (from my reading of it, anyway) if the investigators recommend a hearing. In any event, it appears that things are mainly on track. > He broke the rules, he was suspended. He came back without a clue, and > continued breaking the etiquette policy. Kick him off the team. It does not > take a month to do this, I just figured it out in a few minutes time. Oddly enough, devrel doesn't presume your infallibility in these realms. *Grin* To be more serious, the policy from last July does, indeed, require a month (well, 30 days) of investigation. It may be a valid argument that the policy should be changed, but it hasn't been yet, so 30 days it is.
> Investigation is complete; devrel is processing as per policy. Policy says > that devrel will determine next step based on the recommendations of the > investigators. It does not say the developer community will determine the next > step. Nor does it say that devrel will publish the investigators' > recommendations before devrel itself has acted on them. Devrel and the parties > to the complaint have the report. You are not a party to the complaint, and > you do not have a copy of the report at this moment. Okay, calm down, please. Although it is extremely difficult (i.e., nearly impossible), a high priority of devrel in cases such as these is to be so calm, rational, and reasonable that it makes most of those around you who are responding emotionally feel that perhaps they are being just a tad silly, and that the world is not coming to an end. One way to do that is to answer questions as directly and thoroughly as possible under the circumstances, keeping in mind that many people have probably never read the policy in question. In this case, something like the following probably would have worked better: "Devrel has certainly not dropped this issue. The investigative report came in on the 17th, as expected. The next step is to have devrel as a whole sign off on the report, which will be concluded by 1700UTC on 20 March. (The seemingly lengthy delay is because the report came in the afternoon before a weekend, and many folks aren't available on weekends.) The next step is likely an official hearing, and you can find details about that process at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/policy.xml." That said, devrel people are human too. It would be nice if people would occasionally provide them with the benefit of the doubt until they have actually provided proof that such benefit is unwarranted.
(In reply to comment #215) > That is the biggest crock of BS I've ever heard. The people who have commented > on this bug are clearly involved. > devrel is now obsolete in my eyes. That's quite a reach (not to mention being overly bombastic). What fmccor said is that cshields was not a "party to the complaint", not that he wasn't involved. There are four devs (including ciaranm) whose complaints are being investigated, snd those are the "parties" to the complaint. As they are the people most affected by the process (since any one or all of them could, at least in principle, be subject to some sort of discipline by devrel), they got to see the report first.
(In reply to comment #216) > Please be consistent. You sent a copy of the report to ferringb, grobian and > kito, none of which were "original" complainants on this bug. Yet you did not > send a copy of the report to myself, Corey, Lance, Jason, etc, even though we > voiced complaints/concerns/whatever you'd like to call it. There's a quite good reason for who was sent copies of the report. Think about it for a moment, and it will come to you. (Here's a hint: there was one other name on that CC list, too.) > You want to live by your policy, fine. Be consistent with it. As far as I can tell from reading the devrel policy doc, fmccor is being perfectly consistent, although the policy doc itself is rather ambiguous in this area. The policy doc states that the investigators make their report available to all of devrel, but it does not state when it is made available to the rest of the community, although presumably it would need to be made available for any hearing, which would be open to the entire dev community. Incidentally, would it really be better if he chose _not_ to abide by the current policy? > I'm amazed by the levels and levels of bureaucracy that devrel has denegrated > into. Fair enough, although it's pretty easy to follow through the mailing lists precisely how the policy came to be what it currently is. If you feel that the current situation is just awful, feel free to create and drum up support for a better alternative.
(In reply to comment #222) > - Everyone whinged last time devrel took 'quick' action > - Everyone decided that devrel needed new policy > - Everyone (i.e. all devs) were able to contribute to forming the new policy > - Complaint against ciaranm > - Policy goes into effect > - Some devrel members refuse/don't respond to calls to help with investigation > or provide any input. > - Nonetheless, a few people put some effort in to make it stick the timeline, > which was agreed upon when the policy was written. > - Everyone whinges again > > This is so bloody annoying it makes me want to quit I would argue that suggesting that "Everyone" agreed on anything is a bit of a stretch, although I agree with the general sentiment. Devrel is a very hard job, and you have to be very thick-skinned (and probably masochistic) to take it on. I'm quite grateful to those who do, and I urge you to consider staying on. That would mean having to come to grips, though, with the fact that devrel will always take a great deal of grief both when it doesn't do its job well, and also when it does. It's just the nature of the job.
From #gentoo-infra just now: 23:16 < ciaranm> any known issues with cvs. not authing? or is it just me? 23:16 <@cshields> just you 23:17 < ciaranm> Permission denied (publickey). ssh -v -v -v is decidedly unhelpful too 23:17 < ciaranm> i can get onto toucan fine 23:17 <@cshields> yeah. cvs access has been suspended pending the devrel "hearing" 23:18 < ciaranm> oh? so who decided that? 23:18 <@cshields> about half a dozen of us in here 23:18 < ciaranm> do those half dozen have names? 23:19 <@cshields> not that concern you, no. 23:19 < ciaranm> and did any of those people care to consider telling me about this? 23:20 < spb> nice to see infra keeping up the standards of professionalism and openness that we've come to expect from all developers 23:20 <@cshields> spb: if all you want to do is bitch I'll ask you to leave now.. 23:21 < spb> i'm not bitching. merely commenting. 23:22 <@klieber> ciaranm: it was a decision we made based on past actions. we aren't comfortable with you having commit access to the tree right now. you're right -- we should have told you and I apologize for not doing that. 23:23 < ciaranm> what, you seriously think i'd break the tree? you know fine well that i'm the last person that'd do that 23:23 <@cshields> no we don't... 23:23 <@cshields> it's a matter of mistrust 23:23 < spb> so you don't have any reason to believe he'll abuse access, but still don't trust him to have it ? 23:24 < spb> that doesn't quite compute 23:24 <@cshields> spb: Kurt already said "based on past actions", so yes 23:24 <@klieber> ciaranm: I honestly believe that you pulled that stuff out of your devspace last time around out of spite or malice. Based on that belief, I don't feel comfortable with you having write access to our most critical resource. 23:24 < ciaranm> when have i ever broken anything in gentoo cvs/svn? 23:24 <@cshields> spb: let me rephrase my earlier statement. If you are here to argue I'll ask you to leave. It is not a debatable thing right now 23:25 < spb> judge, jury, and excutioner. lovely. 23:25 < ciaranm> ok, if it's not debatable then i'll stop wasting your time 23:25 < spb> ok, i'll stop now. 23:25 <@klieber> this is only temporary 23:25 <@klieber> pending outcome of the trial 23:25 <@cshields> spb: yes. we call it "root" 23:25 <@cshields> and thanks :) 23:25 <@klieber> and it's not done to judge, it's done to protect our assets given past actions. 23:25 < spb> hah
As Ciaran posted, we have temporarily removed his access to CVS pending outcome of his trial. This was not done in judgement of him -- it was done because of his past actions which could (reasonably|arguably) be construed as spiteful or malicious. CVS is our most precious asset and we will protect it accordingly. If anyone has any questions about this, please let either myself or Lance know. Also, I apologize for not informing folks (including Ciaran) sooner. We were reacting to the note posted to -core, so we didn't have a lot of opportunity to plan.
(In reply to comment #230) > As Ciaran posted, we have temporarily removed his access to CVS pending outcome > of his trial. This was not done in judgement of him -- it was done because of > his past actions which could (reasonably|arguably) be construed as spiteful or > malicious. CVS is our most precious asset and we will protect it accordingly. > > If anyone has any questions about this, please let either myself or Lance know. > > Also, I apologize for not informing folks (including Ciaran) sooner. We were > reacting to the note posted to -core, so we didn't have a lot of opportunity to > plan. > Oh please...this is total bullshit. Given certain the comments on this bug from certain members of infra, it is hard for me to believe that removing Ciaran's cvs access isn't a malicious act itself.
(In reply to comment #230) > As Ciaran posted, we have temporarily removed his access to CVS pending outcome > of his trial. This was not done in judgement of him -- it was done because of > his past actions which could (reasonably|arguably) be construed as spiteful or > malicious. CVS is our most precious asset and we will protect it accordingly. > > If anyone has any questions about this, please let either myself or Lance know. > > Also, I apologize for not informing folks (including Ciaran) sooner. We were > reacting to the note posted to -core, so we didn't have a lot of opportunity to > plan. > Good grief. Was devrel consulted? If not, and if I were part of devrel, I would be furious right now, and justifiably so, I would think. (We'll just take it as a given that ciaranm has every right to be furious.) I have to admit that I don't see how the urgency of this action outweighs common courtesy. For one thing, ciaranm has had (I assume) a pretty good idea what was going to happen today since Friday, since his name was one of the four on the CC list of the investigation report e-mail that was sent to devrel. For another, causing lasting damage to a CVS repo is _hard_ without having direct (non-CVS) access to the repository, since any changes can always be reverted. I bet solar could modify his cia bot (or perform similar magic) to watch for any unexpected behavior.
Created attachment 83749 [details] #gentoo-osx 20-03-2006 On request of ribosome, a relevant log snipped that indicates, users feel uncomfortable with Ciaran's behaviour as well.
(In reply to comment #233) > On request of ribosome, a relevant log snipped that indicates, users feel > uncomfortable with Ciaran's behaviour as well. Looks rather like a user being flippant, to me. Of course, we'll never know since the guy hasn't spoken to anyone about what he really meant...
Created attachment 84159 [details] Devrel's resolution of this complaint. This bug is resolved as explained in the attachment.
Closing as per previous comment. Bugzilla won't let me do both at once.
