[haiku-development] Re: Banning Barrett
- From: "Alexander von Gluck IV" <kallisti5@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 02:12:38 +0000
March 14, 2019 4:09 PM, "Adrien Destugues" <pulkomandy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You were on IRC and the forums during the time where the vote was
occurring, I believe? So you had time to reply; you just did not
happen to notice it since you were not subscribed to this mailing
list. We aren't really responsible for making sure every developer
learns about every thread on this list; and we don't have any rules
that developers being voted on need to be "formally notified" as
usually they are just subscribed to this list and will notice in the
normal course of events. You did not; I'm not sure why we need to make
a different rule just because of this.
Further, 36 hours is a perfectly normal amount of time for our voting
process. I seem to recall commit access votes that lasted only about
this long, accumulating 10 or so +1s with nothing but positive
comments, and nobody could even imagine any negative comments, and so
the vote was just ended and access granted.
I don't agree here. Last time this was discussed IIRC, the delay for
granting commit access was 1 week with no -1 votes. And this is already
reduced from the previous 15 days and requiring an absolute majority of
the devs to vote +1 (this had become unmanageable as the team grown).
I could be wrong, it's been some time. Yet, 36 hours, and only two +1
votes and 2 undecided is clearly not enough. Let's admit it, please.
So, I'm not really sure what to say here. I personally was pushing
for removal of direct commit access while things cool off and to work
with Barrett via Gerrit. Everyone else was pushing "Banning" (you included)
I counted 5 +1 votes and documented them in my email.
Ban: Pulkomandy (starting the thread to ban him)
Rene "I think I'm going to have to agree with all this."
Axel "Banning is really a very aggressive way to deal with the problem,
but if there is a chance that we lose Adrien over this, I'd say give
him a railgun if that helps :-) "
Waddlesplash "+1"
Remove direct commit access:
kallisti5 "+1 to temporarily removing direct commit access for Barrett."
Re-reading this, Axel's response later goes on to say:
"However, can't we just reprimand him one last time, and, if it's possible,
put him on moderation in the forums? If that doesn't improve things, I'd be
ready to vote for the ban. "
So yes, it's not as strong as I originally read into. (-1 vote to ban)
Please keep in mind, you yourself started this whole thread. Why would
you start a thread on banning him if you didn't want him banned?
If threads like this start, it's unfair to Barrett (no matter what he did)
to drag him through the mud for days/weeks on end discussing if he is
"good enough" to continue working with us.
He either has commit access, or not.
He either has forum access, or not.
After all of this, i'm not even sure why Barrett would want to continue
working with us in a friendly way.
I'm removing myself from all of this at this point. I'm not the only
administrator for Gerrit / Forums / Etc.
You guys work it out.
-- Alex
Other related posts:
