From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id OM9/N1mdimBnYgEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 13:49:45 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id yHNPM1mdimDWdQAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 11:49:45 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F9EA24ED0 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 13:49:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:53814 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lc5Au-0004Zz-Od for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 07:49:44 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34176) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lc57u-0002aZ-5C for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 07:46:38 -0400 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at ([129.27.2.202]:35151) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lc57p-00053j-CZ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 07:46:37 -0400 Received: from [10.0.0.4] (91-114-247-246.adsl.highway.telekom.at [91.114.247.246]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FWDH7186hz1LXsR; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 13:46:27 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailrelay.tugraz.at 4FWDH7186hz1LXsR DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1619696787; bh=i/6rn3KCYu89Z7YYFOubTRCmR4MyIBO/seYl8LF67nE=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=dM8zOrc7nK/c5n2zBOLoirMVY8QPQLbpGCV1XNpUey1aEr8AoypU7f3y6THBgwGvv SJYR8wZ+SUo9jpukYfWVjdtxxJdktlBrO3vo6C8F3CEQyk2syn/Ik3ShFImTLi79FS vMtmewAR5nnjtweviDREWVs2dZsbORO2wQsQIQdw= Message-ID: <5625b10bbae00a3ad57b09c374f56aada62fe465.camel@student.tugraz.at> Subject: Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes From: Leo Prikler To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?L=E9o?= Le Bouter , Marius Bakke Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 13:46:06 +0200 In-Reply-To: <98b3fbcb1b5b88be5ace3c6ddbbe9308bb5de952.camel@zaclys.net> References: <87tunz11mf.fsf@netris.org> <87r1j30xmo.fsf@netris.org> <87czumypz3.fsf@netris.org> <87o8e4zy5k.fsf@gmail.com> <5cbbfa9b258fb28beb9288685ccc85b4d015cd8a.camel@zaclys.net> <8735vgkttf.fsf@netris.org> <475c152f2e4bf0b566324223f2f5e3598279b87f.camel@zaclys.net> <87eeext6h4.fsf@nckx> <87lf92h0ei.fsf@gnu.org> <98b3fbcb1b5b88be5ace3c6ddbbe9308bb5de952.camel@zaclys.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TUG-Backscatter-control: bt4lQm5Tva3SBgCuw0EnZw X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001 X-Spam-Score-relay: -1.9 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 129.27.10.117 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=129.27.2.202; envelope-from=leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at; helo=mailrelay.tugraz.at X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1619696985; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=i/6rn3KCYu89Z7YYFOubTRCmR4MyIBO/seYl8LF67nE=; b=ajLEQT7wu+EyJ+w0JkEzqhTu+YThT1T5/lrzGv3NcLa71EOzzv62tGVGveSzb7ERZekuPg RvGVoc/0DyiXacGrlkx810Qr6M2V8vxf8AC1GxpKity6Vx2FBCw+FTxprbBsksMa937AFF qgQlflAiWPa+nfLKC/ho2ur/8Mw+N+nQO6YqKouK2HFK/RtzqPCIyoQt5FAzWYIZJeKqyk pXm4efEbCodV2T7fVgIPkAcG40zh8Y0+ESxC4WmyvPyG28dMTLGAhK1LaMgh8SAU5lqDLj 5Zr+KNoXYeR4GNWLLQItIeFUc36zWUE9CCY6s718YkoRiAZaAzKI8yVhrwRJ0A== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1619696985; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=lsGKLFhJ0FmJ3mz+Dl8gc2AB1tSn9aPglq0SYHgEmIre/kpT8/SOzzUB6t4MDxvy7UBnWY QWLm2ID6dsvdlH3srG3GDyzycHDGo2JyoYblmbFR8fzhMGa/mDMhbEMsMmj3DlVySXN9lB tngwN2lxu/6XpCTKRc7vVeblYda+PPyllA6uQ1txfRTbEy0lb2lph/Lch9h516K53p+7Zz WvpRgrHDIzCDpi99evjrVTqIFKLDTIL9lxp2KGXDAe5hDO2T+oAzkbcP3J9FpT5Q+qSg9i LcFfrXRypDHeRHz885MTOr2MDQILjSx6GitIX++IK0bUha35YyiN5Op7sKX+Gg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=dM8zOrc7; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -3.16 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=dM8zOrc7; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=student.tugraz.at; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 8F9EA24ED0 X-Spam-Score: -3.16 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: sdzbXnMA59Ve Am Donnerstag, den 29.04.2021, 11:13 +0200 schrieb Léo Le Bouter: > On Wed, 2021-04-28 at 17:52 +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: > > Léo, > > > > We maintainers have been disappointed by Marks harsh tone which do > > not > > meet the project's communication standards, but also by your > > apparent > > lack of will to reply constructively to legitimate criticism. > > > > This is the next in a series of incidents. The incidents are okay > > --we > > we all make mistakes and that's how we learn--but we interpreted > > your > > responses all too often as dismissive and defensive, rather than > > understanding and forward-looking. This has been causing > > unnecessary > > friction and stress, and is not how we envision peaceful > > collaboration. > > > > I'm sorry to say your commit privileges have been temporarily > > suspended. After one month, you are invited to get in touch with > > the > > maintainers collective and discuss next steps. > > > > You have done terrific work in Guix in the short time you've been > > around: from the POWER9 port, to the many security fixes, > > to tracking and reporting issues, and suggesting improvements to > > the > > tools. I hope you'll eventually rejoin to collaborate in the > > peaceful > > and empathetic fashion that this project encourages. > > > > Hello! > > To make a statement about this on the public mailing list also, I > think > such suspension is largely unfair and unjustified. I personally disagree. While their tone may have been questionable, I find it important that both committers and non-committers are able to call changes into question, everything else would not be democratic. Ideally, that would happen during review, but this thread has clearly indicated that the review process failed in this instance. Perhaps informing you privately first is more fair, but pointless assignments of guilt aside it is an issue that we should all be aware of and learn from, so as to not repeat it. > It seems I am expected to do peaceful collaboration with people who > are > not writing messages in a non-violent manner, and I refuse to engage > further in that context. I do not want to answer Mark or anyone else > who does not write in a friendly way. If that means I cannot be a GNU > Guix contributor then I will not be any longer. It means for me that > GNU Guix is not a safe place for me to contribute to. Even if unfriendly, we are not attacking you on any non-technical grounds, but instead asking you to do self-criticism and to learn from your mistake. You can (and should) call the tone in which this is done into question, but this does not absolve you from your duty to ensure package quality standards. > I think if anyone expects me to not answer in a dismissive or > defensive > way then also they must think of the message they're writing if it is > encouraging a confrontational response or peaceful collaboration. I > don't feel like I have been hindering peaceful collaboration at any > time, since everything I've done in GNU Guix was collaborative work. > With many people in the GNU Guix community everything goes well and > is > very peaceful, when there's problems it's with specific people who > also > happen to write messages in a way that generates confrontation. I > cannot and I refuse to collaborate with people who are not being > friendly and do not care about the emotions of the humans they're > communicating with, it's the reason I come to GNU Guix in the first > place, but to me it appears it's not the right place for that either > now. The criticisms pointed at you comes not just from Mark, but others as well. Others, who I would argue, potentially phrase them in a less confrontational manner. Leaving them unanswered just because Mark's tone was inadequate is in my opinion not justified. Regards, Leo