path: root/users/1042.yml
diff options
authorDenis 'GNUtoo' Carikli <>2022-08-05 09:28:07 +0200
committerDenis 'GNUtoo' Carikli <>2022-08-05 09:30:08 +0200
commit0259f4dcef6c1095c97cf84548e944789122d4ff (patch)
treed080f73d21caf4cc26f6f46396fae181274f96d3 /users/1042.yml
parent1755cf38e81ab58de3a63f850380983f060518a0 (diff)
GNUtoo: I'm backHEADmaster
In commit 71059ce4e93cb772baec40be7d90852b95e709f7 ("GNUtoo: resign from Parabola"), I resigned. I'm now back. What happened (mostly) in the bug #1035 [1] and a bit on #parabola on liberachat is that me and bill-auger had many missunderstandings on top of missunderstandings in this bug. The question that triggered missunderstandings was if we would need to keep Guix or not on the rationale that, according to bill-auger, Guix was not FSDG compliant. My point of view was that whatever decision we take, we need to stay consistent in Parabola and with the wider community of FSDG compliant distritions and also have a rationale for taking each decision. So for me we cannot have at the same time Guix being listed in the free-distro page[2] and have a downstream distribution decide that Guix is not FSDG compliant. For me, if it's not FSDG compliant, it should be fixed upstream somehow and then used as a rationale in FSDG compliant distributions if upstream decides that Guix is not compliant. Though Parabola could take decisions to exclude Guix on other grounds (for instance it could decide for some reasons to remove all third party package managers for some good reasons yet to be found). To explain my position on that, I wrote very long messages that were not read by bill-auger because they were too long and so we starting having missunderstanding on top of missunderstandings. Part of it could also be due to me not having taken into account that he would not have read or in mind all the previous messages. And after that I also missinterpretated text he wrote (that could be interpretated in multiple ways) and I assumed he was pushing me on purpose to demonstrate a point because the text could also be interpretated in this way. And since pushing people is dangerous, because contributors often are overworked, I wanted to at least get the point accross that pushing people like that was not something to be done, and that was something very important to me to get accross because the health of contributors and the community in general is extremely important. But then he didn't listen because that issue already took too much time and I really needed to get that point accross. That explains why I wrote that: This community has become toxic because there is no reguard for contributors health. I didn't add much details though because I was extremely nerovous. Right after that, the most important missunderstandings were solved on IRC after I resigned, so since they are now solved, I can come back. References: ----------- [1] [2] Signed-off-by: Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli <>
Diffstat (limited to 'users/1042.yml')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions