Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 11, 2010, 14:49 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTimQsNj-3M=y7Dop4brB8U-8vVPqgD0+zBX5R6FG@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100811134640.GA10888@kytes>

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Michael J Gruber
>> <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
>> > +1 on Jakub and Ram because they showed restraint in the pertaining
>> > thread. We need moderators, not radiators ;)
>>
>> Ok, I was going to let go what happened, but you are calling me a
>> radiator. So here's what happened
> [...]
>
> Can I personally kneel down before you and *beg* you to let this go?

As I said, I had already let it go, but I wasn't going to let Michael Gruber call me a "radiator" unfairly.

Show 9 quoted lines

> I'm nobody- both you and Johannes have contributed far more to git.git
> than me. However, seeing you fight like this makes me sad. I don't see
> why I should be biased against either "Johannes", "Jakub", or "Felipe"
> - they're just random names to me. From what I've seen, using my best
> unbiased judgement, you're definitely over-reacting; to the extent
> that I'm almost convinced you have something against Johannes
> personally. Please, please stop- the list is no place for this. We can
> all write SO much good code and solve the world's hunger problems
> instead of squabbling like this.

I have nothing against Johannes, he has done much more for the community than I have, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to express my opinion when I think he is wrong.

> We're not ignoring anything. We have come to a solution together,
> voted for it, and are solving it now

IMO having more than one admin is only part o the solution, see: https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/WikiIdeas

Show 5 quoted lines

> - Jakub and I will work with (or
> "to check" if you prefer that) Johannes. Personally, I don't think you
> should work with Johannes, atleast in the state in which you're in
> right now. Please disagree only if you feel that Jakub or I will do a
> bad job.

It's not Johannes' wiki; it's the community's. And I'm certain that I can work just fine with Jakub as I've done it in the past.

> Can you please stop digging up old graves and let Johannes be now?

I have never seen Johannes said a word about why he unbanned Amir, what he will do the next time this happens, his opinion on the new admin proposal, or any of my list of suggestions. I don't see much resolved.

> Can you trust that we understand the full magnitude of the problem and
> will do our best to prevent it from happening again?

I will trust, once I see comments on https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/WikiIdeas.

Show 10 quoted lines

>> 7) At this point it was clear to me that Johannes had too much power
>> over the wiki, being the only admin, and that was specially worrying
>> since he had so low tolerance to accepting mistakes, therefore, on Aug
>> 10 I started a new thread asking for a new (as in extra) maintainer,
>> and one of the arguments was his misbehavior.
>>
>> Note: I consider raising a flag when there are problems to be a good thing.
>
> Yes, this is all very good. We got some suggestions, and we're working
> towards solving the problem. Are we not doing it fast enough?

Sure, but Michael made it look like a bad thing.

Show 12 quoted lines

>> 8) The same day Johannes accepted he made a mistake, and silently
>> unblocked Amir with the message "I overreacted and am sorry". He never
>> accepted any wrongdoing on the mailing list, nor expressed any desire
>> in doing anything to avoid these issues in the future.
>
> Remind me why *you* have a problem with Johannes not writing a public
> apology note? He did whatever was needed to be done to solve the
> issue. Amir is happy, Johannes is happy, and nobody is fighting
> anymore. Why are you pressing on the issue of whether Johannes
> realizes his mistake or not? Whether or not he does, we'll be working
> with him- so he won't have a chance to "misbehave" again. I don't
> understand what you want from him.

I am merely stating what happened.

> Johannes: If Felipe still keeps insisting on a public apology, please
> oblige and get it over with.

I am not insisting on an apology, I am more interested on what will happen the next time something like this happen. But I don't expect anything from Johannes.

Show 5 quoted lines

>> What we need is people that resolve the conflicts, not ignore them.
>
> How are we ignoring anything? We've called a vote. By virtue of having
> more votes than you, Jakub and I will step up if nobody has further
> objections. This matter is closed unless someone does.

I'm not saying you are ignoring anything. Read to what I replied:

>> > +1 on Jakub and Ram because they showed restraint in the pertaining
>> > thread. We need moderators, not radiators ;)

I think I've helped resolve the conflict, but Michael makes it look as if I aggravated it. Also, according to Michael, Jakub has points because he didn't make a single comment on the thread, thus implying that ignoring conflicts is a good thing.

Note: in order to avoid confusion; I do think Jakub is a good
candidate, not because he didn't comment on the issue, but because of
his argumentation skills and other reasons.

Besides, this is not a competition; there's nothing wrong with having more admins. However, notice that this voting doesn't even have a day open.

Anyway, although I would like to help administering the wiki, just having a second admin I think is huge progress. I just didn't like Michael hurting my chances.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras