Revert "maintainer-list: drop gm6k" #275396
Conversation
|
I don't really think it's cool to waste people's time by threatening legal action and then complain when you get removed from the repo as a consequence. |
|
I'm not aware of legal action. This seems to be part of @Mic92's smear campaign. To my knowledge, he hasn't been able to provide evidence for his claim. |
|
|
|
What should this screenshot show? I see the message where I suggested to clear the topic in question up by the help of an authority that is responsible for assessing GDPR conformance. I also explicitly asked whether @zimbatm agrees. I still think it would be an advantage for us all if we ensured that the way how we process personal data confirms to the GDPR because it can get really expensive if it turns out we did't some years later. But I fail to understand why you would call this suggestion to get more confidence for us all a "threat". That is, unless you were confident that the current way of processing personal data doesn't conform to the GDPR (but in this case, it's not on me). That being said, maybe we can focus on the actual PR. I suggest contacting me privately if you have questions that are off-topic with respect to the PR in question (here: fixing an obvious deviation from our known community guidelines). |
|
@zeuner Since the beginning of this entire story, you are aggressive in tone and make everything personal. While I acknowledge that other people made mistakes, I also feel like most of the verbal escalation is coming from your side. Calling Mic's PR "unprompted doctoring of maintainer data" for example is uncalled for IMHO. There are other ways to express your personal dissatisfaction without implicitly throwing accusations and strong language around. (Normally I would just go ahead and simply fix the PR title without making a fuzz about it, but I fear that you would view this as a personal aggression, therefore I won't.) I am equally at a loss about which of Mic's interactions with you would fit the description of a "smear campaign". Again, that's some unnecessarily strong words for what could have been caused by a misunderstanding. And that's just the two most recent examples. I kindly ask you to stop publicly stating anything which contains assumptions about the inner motives of other people's actions, and to keep any speculations for yourself. P.S.: You seem to be paranoid about everybody being personally against you, and I fear that through your current interactions you are slowly turning this into a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you act like everybody is acting in bad faith towards you, this is exactly what will happen. |
|
Closing as per #275328 (comment) |
|
I apologize for accusing you of making legal threats then. The whole GDPR angle and the way you're framing this entire thing just seems overly disproportional to the actual issue and confrontative to me, which contributed to why I interpreted your comment as that. I hope you can at least see why. (Don't get me wrong, I heavily dislike GitHub and would love for the project to move away from it or at least have a reasonable alternative for maintainers, but I think this whole ordeal is counterproductive. I appreciate your efforts on NixOS/ofborg#663 and NixOS/ofborg#665 though!) Anyway, I will not get involved further in this, I'm just some random schmuck. I wanted to write something else but GitHub has cleared the comment I was writing twice now and I've forgotten what I wanted to say. Amazing. |
|
|
|
I had no idea that Mic had blocked you, nor could I have known that. Feel free to continue the discussion here though. Also, just as a clarification, I meant "calmly" as in "not under pressure of action", and not as in "tone policing". I shall note though that calling this a "proclamation" is yet another example of the same problematic communication patterns which I described not even half an hour ago. |
I'll let this sit for a moment before I get back to hopefully resolving this incident. Still, I'd like to raise awareness about how I'm not the only one who might want to think before assuming something about other people. My PR headlines were often edited as it felt appropriate, so there was no reason to assume I would even object. So, I don't know why you decided to leave the headline as it is. But publicly asking someone to refrain from a behaviour you employ yourself (openly speculating about other people) could be considered as verbal agression. I don't wish to take it as an offense, just saying that a calm and constructive discussion can't work this way. And this would be a pity considering your valuable contributions to several recent threads. |
piegamesde
changed the title
|
@piegamesde, what's the justification for not reopening and merging this PR without further discussion? Assuming the most generous interpretation of #275328, removing zeuner seems to have been a misunderstanding of their intent, and from this PR it seems blatantly clear that they didn't intend to be scrubbed entirely from Nixpkgs. Why delay the restitution? (The only reasons I can imagine for needing time to consider this would be if #275328 was a disciplinary action or if zeuner was failing to meet the community standards for maintainers, but nobody has made either claim publicly and it would contradict what Mic92 offered as their justification in the PR.) |
|
I am tired of fast shots, and think that things just need more time. I want to avoid needless and stressful back-and-forth. To be honest, if I had caught Mic's PR earlier, I'd have closed that too for the same reason. (And I've drafted the backport of said PR btw) I've heard the Foundation Board has been contacted on this, and there is even an RFC now (sigh). These things will all have effects on the overall situation, but they will need some time. If you really think that this revert should be merged now regardless of these ongoing discussions, I won't stop you. |
|
I'm not a committer, but if I were I would merge at this time, and I'd like to urge an actual committer to do so. The policy-level discussions might not resolve for some time, and in the meantime, the optics on this are really bad (it looks like sneaky retaliatory action toward someone who was being disagreeable and hyperbolic but not, in my judgment, harassing or offensive), and I don't see any practical downside to taking one more ‘fast shot’ in this context. Being a maintainer is all but purely symbolic, and zeuner's intent to remain a maintainer while any disputes about what is required of maintainers are in flight could not be more clear here. In the event that a PR authored by zeuner doesn't constitute adequate consent to have the content of zeuner's PR included in the Git repository under some reading of the GDPR or similar law, merging this PR doesn't make us any worse off than we currently are (i.e., either reverting the revert is an adequate remedy, or we're doing an enormous Git history rewrite either way). |
Um sorry, what? Fix in #50105 (comment) |
|
I would not merge a PR with this branch name. |
|
Superseded by #275605 |
|
@2xsaiko Thank you for your openness which I appreciate.
To some extent, yes. However, I must say I was quite surprised about the seemingly trivializing stance by various community members when it comes to the GDPR issue. And it seems like I'm not the only member who is aware of the seriousness of that matter (@pbsds seemingly came to the same conclusion here #273220 (comment)). The thing is that I already experienced a project (which I enjoyed working on) dying because data protection issues were not taken seriously. I had pointed the issues out (and no, not by "threatening" as some like to put it, but merely saying: "hey, this looks problematic"), but when those with a steering responsibility disregarded the concerns, I kept silent. At some point they told me we couldn't proceed because the product had been banned due to data protection violations. Now, Nixpkgs is a project I feel passionate about, so this is exactly what I would not want to see happening. This is why, beyond the violation of the purpose limitation I was subject to personally, but which was quickly addressed by @infinisil, I do think it's appropriate to raise awareness and work together on a solution that won't raise any GDPR-related doubts at all. And I don't think it does help Nixpkgs in any way to apply a "shoot the messenger" style strategy here, thinking that the problem just disappears when making contributions for me as hard as possible. For me as someone who likes to get involved with Nixpkgs and to be able to use it for work-related and personal setups, it would not make any sense to damage the project. But when at some point someone doesn't care about whether Nixpkgs will survive and actually attempts all these steps some like to accuse me of attempting, that person probably won't be scared by seeing "hey, back then they publicly spreaded wrong accusations about @zeuner and blocked his contributions". So, I hope that at that point (which will happen if Nix* becomes more important, because at some point the competition gets fiercer) the project will be prepared with real solutions. I am available to help planning and implementing such solutions. This seems appropriate due to both practical and academic background in these matters. But it would really be nice if bringing in a different perspective wouldn't be seen as an occasion to employ a "we against you" attitude. Please not that this does not go against you. It seems fairly likely that the accusations against me actually came from other community members who published them before.
Well, some say that also from those who got involved here on GitHub there are more who would appreciate a change or at least a choice. Even more on Discourse. If these efforts are appreciated, why not show it in the respective threads/issues/pulls?
Well, Nix* is supposed to be community-driven (at least the web site says so). Therefore, I appreciate your involvement. |
I'm not aware of a possibility to rename branches, so I opened a new PR (#275605). Still, I agree that this could have been easily avoided by the committer using the GitHub UI. Therefore, QoS regarding fixing wrongful commits should be measured by the time when the first PR was opened (29 hours ago - although nothing prevented committers from creating a revert commit even before that, as seen here: #273332). It seems notable that merging a commit that circumvented guidelines carefully designed a few months ago to prevent situations like this took no more than 5,5 hours, while fixing that failed for 29 hours by now. Reverting the wrongful commit should not take any meaningful reviewing effort considering that the situation before the commit had already been created by going through our sophisticated review processes and can therefore be assumed to be desirable. The wrongful commit (71d5050) however broke various PRs and therefore is highly damaging because it invalidates work put into nixpkgs. |
Description of changes
#275328 by @Mic92 violated community guidelines (https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/maintainers/README.md?plain=1#L45 ff.) and should be reverted ASAP to prevent further damage.
Things done
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxedsandbox = truenix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.