M. J. Everitt (veremitz on IRC) has used the dev ML to post general chatter which contributes zero to the discussion at hand and just lowers the signal-to-noise ratio. Previously, when the ML had a whitelist instead of a blacklist, I requested his removal already (bug 664688), and I'd like comrel to vote on blacklisting him posting to the gentoo-dev ML. Examples: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/786a4475d72b67937716c9624354ba17 https://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg87819.html (ml was down at the time) Reproducible: Always
I vote yes (for a permanent ban).
I warned him again. Once he steps again out of boundary I'd link both warnings and have him permabanned.
Previous warnings have been direct and were perhaps not considered to be official warnings from comrel. I am not pushing for an immediate ban and certainly not a permanent one but, Michael, following the creation of this report and the repeated warning you have just been given, you must now know we are serious. I'm not trying to suck the fun out of our communication channels but there are limits. We have gotten on very well in person but I don't know why you to continue to push the boundaries here as it doesn't benefit anybody, least of all yourself.
Knock yourselves out guys: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/4ef8f979acbcc695a9e0277c552705c2
(In reply to Michael 'veremitz' Everitt from comment #4) > Knock yourselves out guys: > > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/ > 4ef8f979acbcc695a9e0277c552705c2 Posting internal comrel deliberations to the public ML is considered unacceptable.
(In reply to David Seifert from comment #5) > (In reply to Michael 'veremitz' Everitt from comment #4) > > Knock yourselves out guys: > > > > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/ > > 4ef8f979acbcc695a9e0277c552705c2 > > Posting internal comrel deliberations to the public ML is considered > unacceptable. Sue me ...
Since I'm in the market for telling people how to do their jobs, you might want to ban me from all Gentoo mailing lists, before I post anything else potentially inflammatory, or otherwise not in your own personal interests...
I reluctantly support a ban after the events of today. I'll just quote myself: > Can you just please save everyone the headache of litigating this and act a little more professional and a little less silly on the mailing list? (And on IRC if I'm asking) Why could you not just do that?
I do not see positive changes towards this situation in general, therefore support the ban.
+1 for the ban. This is very childish behavior...
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/69d0485bcc2fccb1f06175fcfa08aad6 Indeed, it seems that warning is not leading to any change in the behavior, or just worsening it.
(In reply to Luca Barbato from comment #11) > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/ > 69d0485bcc2fccb1f06175fcfa08aad6 I'm not trying to change the decision here but what's wrong with that? He's ACK'd a patch. That is helpful. He referred to himself as the peanut gallery. So what? Maybe users are not supposed to ACK patches but I don't recall that being a rule. People have already been questioning our response to this so please make sound judgements.
Seriously guys, if you're gonna enact a ban, get on with it, otherwise it looks like you're taking the piss when you threaten actions and never follow through until weeks afterwards because $procedure $policy and general lag and incompetence and disinterest from the parties involved. As the great proverb once said (and I hear this translates adequately well into non-English) .. Shit or Get Off the Pot. OK? [and you wonder why this whole process/procedure thing looks so broken and stupid from the outside, or even from the inside.....] Yes, I'm actually advocating for my own ban. GET ON WITH IT.
(In reply to Michael 'veremitz' Everitt from comment #13) > Seriously guys, if you're gonna enact a ban, get on with it, otherwise it > looks like you're taking the piss when you threaten actions and never follow > through until weeks afterwards because $procedure $policy and general lag > and incompetence and disinterest from the parties involved. > > As the great proverb once said (and I hear this translates adequately well > into non-English) .. Shit or Get Off the Pot. > > OK? > > [and you wonder why this whole process/procedure thing looks so broken and > stupid from the outside, or even from the inside.....] > > > Yes, I'm actually advocating for my own ban. GET ON WITH IT. Please leave your hissy fit outside gentoo, nobody must read it here.
5/9 for permament 1 against 3 did not show up I took the liberty to consider David's voice valid (it did not face objection during last discussion). Enacted.
<hat type="infra-lead"> comrel: Can you please file followup tickets to this one stating what actions you need infra to take to implement the ban (e.g. where the user is banned, how long, what aliases etc). </hat>
