X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <561D6A21.3010508@xs4all.nl>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:31:29 +0200
From: "Bert Timmerman (bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110429 Fedora/2.0.14-1.fc13 SeaMonkey/2.0.14
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Stop playing stupid political games with gEDA
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> <CAC4O8c_yDxKq5zwHtpAKz6XyCDsw_WFAhAOCzkGXE=oyOKH8ow AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4O8c_yDxKq5zwHtpAKz6XyCDsw_WFAhAOCzkGXE=oyOKH8ow@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com

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 ;-)