X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 10:15:09 +0200 (CEST)
X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv
To: "Bert Timmerman (bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
X-Debug: to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From: gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Stop playing stupid political games with gEDA
In-Reply-To: <561C9FBA.9020005@xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1510131006480.7137@igor2priv>
References: <0788cca443ca40a88d6e21f1a216a759 AT net2air DOT co> <560D81CE DOT 1010800 AT jump-ing DOT de> <201510012211 DOT t91MBXPI025587 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <560DB972 DOT 30203 AT jump-ing DOT de> <201510012306 DOT t91N6MXc027775 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <560DCC35 DOT 9010505 AT jump-ing DOT de>
 <201510020041 DOT t920fM6o031268 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <560DE183 DOT 4060305 AT jump-ing DOT de> <5BF9C4DF-32C7-4C06-9F96-8F82C935254E AT sbcglobal DOT net> <mvcn1j$t88$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> <561A121F DOT 90803 AT xs4all DOT nl> <561A76B9 DOT 20006 AT ecosensory DOT com> <CAC4O8c_v0Uhj9SYJZGL0obVLN1iOjsDmy1dO+FqR=fMY=Lp_Aw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <561BC108 DOT 9010706 AT xs4all DOT nl> <CAC4O8c9hArQT2H7P=B=yr7Y5LQ1zKWmswOMM7RsGR4XCGcAn5Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <561C9FBA DOT 9020005 AT xs4all DOT nl>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Note-from-DJ: This may be spam
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk



On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, Bert Timmerman (bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:

> 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
>
> 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.
>
> 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 root 
> password, or ...
>
> 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.
>
> Same for my bank account.
>
> 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.
>
> 4) Bad "reputation" for developers in the user base, more suspicion of "hidden 
> agendas" (I think there are none, but then again some users have strong 
> agendas too).
>
> 5) ... you may find more damages if you think hard enough.
>
> Resume: infights are *very* counter-productive.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Bert Timmerman.
>
> BTW: it takes two or more to have an infight.
>
> BTW2: you can't infight yourself alone.
>

It probably doesn't matter much, but I agree with most of these 
considerations. While privacy should be respected, as much as possible 
should be done in public. But please note: this alone doesn't solve the 
communication problem, we often have intentional misinterpretations and 
deaf conversations on the list. It may happen that we all see the same 
initial message but there will be two or more groups forming around 
different interpretations who then start big infights in which nobody 
convinces anybody else. But still better if everyone can read the original 
message than if the same thing happens about a hidden/assumed/implied 
message.

Meanwhile I failed to follow where things progressed. I've read all 
mail on the list but either there was info shared on other medium 
or I failed to decode them all, so I'm a bit confused. What's the current 
status? Is gedahead active? Or did everyone/everything move back under the 
original admin team? Who are the two developers you refer to? Will the 
next code sprint happen with gedahead or the original infrastructure?

Regards,

Igor2