Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/10/13/16:32:15
Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Bert Timmerman
> (bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl <mailto:bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl>) [via
> geda-user AT delorie DOT com <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com>]
> <geda-user AT delorie DOT com <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com>> wrote:
>
> Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com
> <mailto:britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com>) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com
> <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com>] wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Bert Timmerman
> (bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl <mailto:bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl>
> <mailto:bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl
> <mailto:bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl>>) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com
> <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com> <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com
> <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com>>] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com
> <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com> <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com
> <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com>>> wrote:
>
> Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com
> <mailto:britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com>
> <mailto:britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com
> <mailto:britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com>>) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com
> <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
> <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com>>]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 6:48 AM, John Griessen
> <john AT ecosensory DOT com <mailto:john AT ecosensory DOT com>
> <mailto:john AT ecosensory DOT com <mailto:john AT ecosensory DOT com>>
> <mailto:john AT ecosensory DOT com <mailto:john AT ecosensory DOT com>
> <mailto:john AT ecosensory DOT com <mailto:john AT ecosensory DOT com>>>> wrote:
>
> On 10/11/2015 02:39 AM, Bert Timmerman
> (bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl
> <mailto:bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl>
> <mailto:bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl
> <mailto:bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl>>
> <mailto:bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl <mailto:bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl>
> <mailto:bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl
> <mailto:bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl>>>) [via
> geda-user AT delorie DOT com <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
> <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com>>
> <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
> <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com <mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com>>>]
>
> wrote:
>
> I just checked: I see no new applications in
> Launchpad.
>
> AFAICT, no bug team rejections either, just a
> total of
> three
> members who left (AndyM, PeterB and Traumflug).
>
>
> Any member of gEDAhead would want to have 1)
> as well.
>
>
> I don't see the additional value of gEDAhead.
>
>
> So, the low barrier of using gedahead also creates an
> extra site
> and login for the full admins to do
> as a chore. And the rigor of gedahead users seems
> lower
> with no
> bug team applications, so gedahead tracker might
> just create more sifting to do, maybe even attract
> spam.
>
> I've seen a lot of inertia in this project, (and
> other FOSS
> projects), and it seems natural to me,
> yet Markus seems impatient with it.
> His manners towards me are lacking. I'm not
> worried that
> he seems
> to have dropped gedahead.
>
>
> Given that he as doing really quite nice work as
> integrator,
> plus submitting lots of patches himself, I'm somewhat
> worried. I wish the stupid feud could end and Markus
> was most
> active at the moment at least so driving him off seems
> like a
> poor solution.
>
> Hi Britton,
>
> I do not fully agree with your last statement.
>
> I wish this stupid "feud" as you call it, could stop too.
>
> Calling it a "feud" gives it more credit than it deserves,
> IMHO
> it's single sided and "targeted" people just defend
> themselves.
>
> Everyone who has earned a place *somewhere* should be left in
> peace in that place, pushing and shoving of volunteers in
> FOSS is
> *not* acceptable.
>
> The way I see it is that Markus drove himself off being
> too impatient.
>
>
> He referred to lots of emails, and the other parties have
> never denied them. My understanding is he didn't get given
> some stupid blessing or sanctification or other and got
> angry. I don't know or care what it was exactly, but it was
> almost certainly a bad mistake not to just give it to him.
> What damage would it have done beyond what happened anyway?
>
> It's not as if gEDA has piles of eager volunteers. His claim
> to have been doing more than most seems accurate based on the
> repository. So what was the problem?
>
> Britton
>
> Hi Britton,
>
> Running the long liner below
>
> git log --format='%aN' | sort -u | while read name; do echo -en
> "$name\t"; git log --author="$name" --pretty=tformat: --numstat |
> awk '{ add += $1; subs += $2; loc += $1 - $2 } END { printf "added
> lines: %s, removed lines: %s, total lines: %s\n", add, subs, loc
> }' -; done
>
> |
> sums it up nicely ;-) although
>
> git shortlog -s -n
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean for these to demonstrate honestly (I mean
> maybe I'm missing it, not saying it's irrelevant). Looks like Markus
> has quite a lot of work there. What those commands don't capture so
> far as I can see is the recentness of his work.
>
> would have done too.
>
> For me this is not about the quality or quantity of commits, lines
> added or removed.
> |
> For me things revolve around stability, reliability.
>
>
> Please do not misunderstand this for keeping a status quo, or a
> code/feature freeze or regulating progress.
>
> It's just that I'm not comfortable with the "revolution" model,
> where the "evolution" model could give less turmoil and more
> stability for the future.
>
> It's the references to "the other parties" and similar addressing
> that is bothering me, there was never a truly "us" in the
> conversations stated from Markus his part, at least that's how I
> received it.
>
> I don't know exactly "who" denied "what" to "whom", and if it was
> a "confirmed denial" or "not reacting" to a "driven" statement.
>
> This one of those subjects where *everything* needs to be
> discussed in the open, otherwise discussion over hidden agendas
> will flare up in the future.
>
> And we all should know what it *exactly* was, as to prevent this
> from happening ever again.
>
>
> This would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.
>
> And sadly, not everything is open for discussion in public, the
> Personal Identfication Number of my bank account for one, or the
> geda-project.org <http://geda-project.org> root password, or ...
>
>
> True of course, but kind of extreme examples.
>
> I think you can come up with a scenario or two when vulnerable
> data gets out in the open.
>
> Give you a clue: one single gEDA administrator named ... <name of
> the first person who grabs it> and all others administrators expelled.
>
>
> DJ keeps backups. If someone did something really destructive it
> would be obvious to all and he could just restore and we all start
> from there minus that person. It's the idea that slowing people down
> on their way into the project can somehow prevent it taking wrong
> steps that I think is so misguided. Having looked inside pcb a good
> bit lately, I feel fairly safe saying that nobody is going to be
> taking it on any big detours in a hurry anyway. Markus in particular
> was all about the bug fixes.
>
> Now for the damage that has been done as I see it:
>
> 1) At least two driven and known developers lost for gEDA, maybe
> one of them turns around in a couple of years, or starts a fork to
> suit his ambitions.
>
> 2) A number of potential developers lost, probably scared off by
> this "feud", to be unknown to us for ever.
>
> 3) More care and energy needed in the future to embed new
> developers, we do not want to walk this line again.
>
>
> Well, I think the policy should be to give people the permissions they
> ask for *FAST*, if they have put in some contributions and asked for
> them. Debian has had this issue for years, they have this big
> elaborate process for new maintainers, they have some of the best old
> maintainers saying "wow, if it was like this when I started I'd never
> have bothered" and they still can't let go of the fun of dragging
> people through their process before letting them participate fully.
> Hubris. gEDA is not nearly as bad, but it's not nearly as big a
> project either. I fail to see the point of annoying contributors with
> barriers that aren't going to make them more competent, or align their
> interests more closely with anyone else's, or actually even weed
> anyone out at all. You're just selecting for people who will put up
> with the hassle, and that characteristic is probably not well
> correlated with the ones you want. If you actually do (effectively,
> one way or another) reject people, they may fork. So what do you
> actually get by being restrictive or demanding hoop-jumping?
>
> Britton
>
Hi Britton,
For contributors there should be no "hoop jumping" necessary from my
point of view: just click the "join this team" link in Launchpad and ask
DJ (by e-mail) for junior commit access rights and start squashing bugs
and adding code.
When I mention "more care and energy needed in the future to embed new
developers" I do mean that we, as an existing developer community, need
to communicate better with (but not overwhelm) the newly joined up
contributor and give him/her the feeling of being appreciated and taken
serious.
Add some "getting started" documentation for new contributors, add a
clear overview what and how the existing code is supposed to
function/perform, and what is required from the software by the user base.
Yeah, more energy needed to lower barriers.
Kind regards,
Bert Timmerman.
BTW: I have no objections to forking, every commit not pushed upstream
(into master) could be considered a fork, please use git when you do and
please tell us about it so we can "git cherry-pick" them ;-)
- Raw text -