[GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[abebeos]

(failed to join gcc, so posting here)

Is there any private email where one can file complaints re
project-maintainers (or "those who are supervising the maintainers") ?

Is there any information about the process for such complaints?

Related Issue: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100480

(please note that this complaint will most possibly escalate up to the
person(s) who are responsible for policies/rules)

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[Ian Lance Taylor]

On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 8:49 AM abebeos via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Is there any private email where one can file complaints re
> project-maintainers (or "those who are supervising the maintainers") ?
>
> Is there any information about the process for such complaints?
>
> Related Issue: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100480
>
> (please note that this complaint will most possibly escalate up to the
> person(s) who are responsible for policies/rules)

The GCC project does not have a code of conduct, and it does not have
a managing hierarchy.  Nobody supervises the maintainers.  GCC has a
minimum of non-technical policies/rules, and it has no enforcement
mechanism.  There really isn't any place to file a complaint.  You can
complain to the GCC steering committee if you like
(https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html; I am a member), but there are a
very limited number of actions that the steering committee could take,
and it is very unlikely that the committee would actually do anything.

Basically, GCC is a cooperative project.  It's not a company.  People
don't work for GCC.

I'm sorry you are having trouble, but I don't think there is much that
the GCC project can do to help.

Ian

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[abebeos]

Thank you for your quick response.

To me this sounds quite like an "disorganized mess, where bullies, abusers
and even IT-fascists can thrive".

It is clear to me that some gcc project maintainers, the steering committee
and bountysource are crossing ethical (if not legal) boundaries.

The Issue:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729

The Bounty (a bit higher than $7K)

https://www.bountysource.com/issues/84630749-avr-convert-the-backend-to-mode_cc-so-it-can-be-kept-in-future-releases

The Complaint re Voting Process:

https://github.com/bountysource/core/issues/1532

Bountysource may write whatever they want in their terms-of-service - the
relevant law is still above. And of course OSS-ethics, which are more that
a basic code-monkey-mentality of the kind "only code is work, only patch
authors are workers".

* there is a bounty
* I start work (working around a major gcc project deficit, which is a
missing CI, testing testing testing, concluding, "reviving" and existent
patch)
* I claim 50%
* a dispute starts, which is then aborted non-transparently by some
anonymous coward, without waiting for the major backers votes,  and all gcc
participants simply keep silence.

I am aware that the effort to fight for 50% of a $7K bounty is not worth it
- even the distraction for opening a discussion here is essentially not
worth the effort.

I cared more or less only on what Microchip ($5K contibution to the bounty)
had to say, and the other two top backers. And I'm still curious about this.

If they too say "research, analysis and integration work is no work" and
"effort to validate abandoned patches and reuse of them is no work" - well,
then I guess I'll rest my case.

But at least it gets "on file", so other people which struggle with gcc
(especially in combination with bountysource) have a point-of-reference.

Very disappointing all this.

I mean really? An OSS project which brute-force aborts a voting-procedure
(=IT-fascism)? Just to award a monetary value to an gcc-project insider?

And everyone keeps silence?

Shame on you people.

P.S.:

We all know that reproducing such things in order to have an informed
opinion/vote costs terribly high amounts of time. The simplified method
would be:

* enter the issues here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c9
* then, just try to validate the until then available patch
  * => you'll fail, as no stable environment is available (major failure of
the steering comitee, which should insist "all targets need to have an
functioning CI"
* => here you start integrating a dev/ci environment, try to find reference
points/versions etc., etc.

@ Steering Committee

A functioning CI across targets is a non-disputable must requirement in
todays IT landscape:

* https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98574

Or at least reference-repos, like e.g. this one:

* https://github.com/abebeos/avr-gnu

We would not have this topic here, if the gcc-project had a decent CI, or a
build-setup used by all developers.



On Sun, 9 May 2021 at 05:06, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 8:49 AM abebeos via Gcc-patches
> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > Is there any private email where one can file complaints re
> > project-maintainers (or "those who are supervising the maintainers") ?
> >
> > Is there any information about the process for such complaints?
> >
> > Related Issue: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100480
> >
> > (please note that this complaint will most possibly escalate up to the
> > person(s) who are responsible for policies/rules)
>
> The GCC project does not have a code of conduct, and it does not have
> a managing hierarchy.  Nobody supervises the maintainers.  GCC has a
> minimum of non-technical policies/rules, and it has no enforcement
> mechanism.  There really isn't any place to file a complaint.  You can
> complain to the GCC steering committee if you like
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html; I am a member), but there are a
> very limited number of actions that the steering committee could take,
> and it is very unlikely that the committee would actually do anything.
>
> Basically, GCC is a cooperative project.  It's not a company.  People
> don't work for GCC.
>
> I'm sorry you are having trouble, but I don't think there is much that
> the GCC project can do to help.
>
> Ian
>

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[Koning, Paul]

> On May 9, 2021, at 11:33 AM, abebeos via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> Thank you for your quick response.
> 
> ...
> The Issue:
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
> 
> The Bounty (a bit higher than $7K)
> 
> https://www.bountysource.com/issues/84630749-avr-convert-the-backend-to-mode_cc-so-it-can-be-kept-in-future-releases
> 
> The Complaint re Voting Process:
> 
> https://github.com/bountysource/core/issues/1532

I don't understand why you're coming to the GCC lists to debate this.  The issue you're talking about isn't a GCC issue at all.  You need to take it up with the group with which you have the dispute.

	paul

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[abebeos]

On Sun, 9 May 2021 at 20:32, Koning, Paul <Paul.Koning@dell.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On May 9, 2021, at 11:33 AM, abebeos via Gcc-patches <
> gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for your quick response.
> >
> > ...
> > The Issue:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
> >
> > The Bounty (a bit higher than $7K)
> >
> >
> https://www.bountysource.com/issues/84630749-avr-convert-the-backend-to-mode_cc-so-it-can-be-kept-in-future-releases
> >
> > The Complaint re Voting Process:
> >
> > https://github.com/bountysource/core/issues/1532
>
> I don't understand why you're coming to the GCC lists to debate this.  The
> issue you're talking about isn't a GCC issue at all.

[...]

It is a gcc issue, see the very first link you've quoted (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729).

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[Eric Botcazou]

> It is a gcc issue, see the very first link you've quoted (
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729).

IIUC you're complaining about the bounty process, not about the GCC PR, so 
this technical list is not the appropriate place to do it.  AFAICS you have 
already filed a complaint with Bountysource, so it's up to them to decide 
whether to accept or reject it.

-- 
Eric Botcazo

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[Ian Lance Taylor]

On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 8:33 AM abebeos <lazaridis.com+abebeos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To me this sounds quite like an "disorganized mess, where bullies, abusers and even IT-fascists can thrive".
>
> It is clear to me that some gcc project maintainers, the steering committee and bountysource are crossing ethical (if not legal) boundaries.

The GCC project maintainers and the steering committee are definitely
not crossing ethical or legal boundaries here.

I don't know anything about Bountysource.  Bountysource is completely
separate from GCC.  It appears from your link that John Paul Adrian
Glaubitz posted a bounty for some GCC work.  A number of people and
organizations supported the bounty, but the GCC project itself did
not.  Although the work is for GCC, the GCC project has nothing to do
with that bounty.  That is handled entirely by Bountysource.


> The Issue:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
>
> The Bounty (a bit higher than $7K)
>
> https://www.bountysource.com/issues/84630749-avr-convert-the-backend-to-mode_cc-so-it-can-be-kept-in-future-releases
>
> The Complaint re Voting Process:
>
> https://github.com/bountysource/core/issues/1532
>
> Bountysource may write whatever they want in their terms-of-service - the relevant law is still above. And of course OSS-ethics, which are more that a basic code-monkey-mentality of the kind "only code is work, only patch authors are workers".
>
> * there is a bounty
> * I start work (working around a major gcc project deficit, which is a missing CI, testing testing testing, concluding, "reviving" and existent patch)
> * I claim 50%
> * a dispute starts, which is then aborted non-transparently by some anonymous coward, without waiting for the major backers votes,  and all gcc participants simply keep silence.
>
> I am aware that the effort to fight for 50% of a $7K bounty is not worth it - even the distraction for opening a discussion here is essentially not worth the effort.
>
> I cared more or less only on what Microchip ($5K contibution to the bounty) had to say, and the other two top backers. And I'm still curious about this.
>
> If they too say "research, analysis and integration work is no work" and "effort to validate abandoned patches and reuse of them is no work" - well, then I guess I'll rest my case.
>
> But at least it gets "on file", so other people which struggle with gcc (especially in combination with bountysource) have a point-of-reference.
>
> Very disappointing all this.
>
> I mean really? An OSS project which brute-force aborts a voting-procedure (=IT-fascism)? Just to award a monetary value to an gcc-project insider?
>
> And everyone keeps silence?

If I'm reading the Bountysource page correctly, the bounty was awarded
to saaadhu, who I assume is Senthil Kumar Selvaraj.  Senthil has been
a GCC contributor for a while with some 70 committed patches.  But I
wouldn't describe them as a GCC project insider.  They are not a GCC
maintainer or reviewer.



> We all know that reproducing such things in order to have an informed opinion/vote costs terribly high amounts of time. The simplified method would be:
>
> * enter the issues here: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c9
> * then, just try to validate the until then available patch
>   * => you'll fail, as no stable environment is available (major failure of the steering comitee, which should insist "all targets need to have an functioning CI"
> * => here you start integrating a dev/ci environment, try to find reference points/versions etc., etc.
>
> @ Steering Committee
>
> A functioning CI across targets is a non-disputable must requirement in todays IT landscape:
>
> * https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98574
>
> Or at least reference-repos, like e.g. this one:
>
> * https://github.com/abebeos/avr-gnu
>
> We would not have this topic here, if the gcc-project had a decent CI, or a build-setup used by all developers.

I agree that having a good CI for GCC would be really great.  It's
also really hard.  GCC generates code for many different targets, and
the nature of GCC is such that running tests on a simulator rather
than real hardware, while helpful, is simply not good enough in
practice.  So a good CI for GCC requires supporting a large variety of
hardware.  That is very desirable.  It's also very hard and very
expensive.  The GCC project must rely on volunteers for this work.
You can see the available support at
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm and on the gcc-testresults
mailing list.  Should the project have better CI?  Yes, absolutely.
Who is going to put in the time, effort, and money to make that
happen?


In any case, this is not the right place to raise your concerns about
Bountysource.  That is not part of the GCC project.

Ian

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 07:48:50PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 8:33 AM abebeos <lazaridis.com+abebeos@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > To me this sounds quite like an "disorganized mess, where bullies, abusers and even IT-fascists can thrive".
> >
> > It is clear to me that some gcc project maintainers, the steering committee and bountysource are crossing ethical (if not legal) boundaries.
> 
> The GCC project maintainers and the steering committee are definitely
> not crossing ethical or legal boundaries here.
> 
> I don't know anything about Bountysource.  Bountysource is completely
> separate from GCC.  It appears from your link that John Paul Adrian
> Glaubitz posted a bounty for some GCC work.  A number of people and
> organizations supported the bounty, but the GCC project itself did
> not.  Although the work is for GCC, the GCC project has nothing to do
> with that bounty.  That is handled entirely by Bountysource.

Yeah, all that happened on the GCC project side is the agreement
to deprecate and eventually remove ports that still rely on internal
details that were obsolete 20 years ago, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01256.html
and then patch review of changes that were posted to gcc-patches.
The GCC reviewers review posted patches based on the technical
merits and whether copyright assignment for parts that require copyright
assignment is available, regardless of whether the people who submit their
work did the work in their spare time without being compensated for it,
whether their employers compensated them for it, whether they got contracted by
some company for that work or other means (e.g. bountysource).
All that is outside of the scope of the GCC project.
Bountysource AFAIK has its own terms and rules and I believe ultimately it
is the people who donated money for it that vote about that.

	Jakub

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[abebeos]

It is just fascinating to see how you don't realize that this affects
mainly gcc.

On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 01:42, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>
wrote:

> > It is a gcc issue, see the very first link you've quoted (
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729).
>
> IIUC you're complaining about the bounty process, not about the GCC PR, so
> this technical list is not the appropriate place to do it.  AFAICS you
> have
> already filed a complaint with Bountysource, so it's up to them to decide
> whether to accept or reject it.
>
> --
> Eric Botcazo
>
>
>

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[abebeos]

Again, just heavily fascinating to see how you ignore the overall essence
of this, which is of course directly related to gcc.

(bountysource is just a secondary disaster, it all starts here, at gcc.



On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 12:19, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 07:48:50PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 8:33 AM abebeos <lazaridis.com+abebeos@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > To me this sounds quite like an "disorganized mess, where bullies,
> abusers and even IT-fascists can thrive".
> > >
> > > It is clear to me that some gcc project maintainers, the steering
> committee and bountysource are crossing ethical (if not legal) boundaries.
> >
> > The GCC project maintainers and the steering committee are definitely
> > not crossing ethical or legal boundaries here.
> >
> > I don't know anything about Bountysource.  Bountysource is completely
> > separate from GCC.  It appears from your link that John Paul Adrian
> > Glaubitz posted a bounty for some GCC work.  A number of people and
> > organizations supported the bounty, but the GCC project itself did
> > not.  Although the work is for GCC, the GCC project has nothing to do
> > with that bounty.  That is handled entirely by Bountysource.
>
> Yeah, all that happened on the GCC project side is the agreement
> to deprecate and eventually remove ports that still rely on internal
> details that were obsolete 20 years ago, see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01256.html
> and then patch review of changes that were posted to gcc-patches.
> The GCC reviewers review posted patches based on the technical
> merits and whether copyright assignment for parts that require copyright
> assignment is available, regardless of whether the people who submit their
> work did the work in their spare time without being compensated for it,
> whether their employers compensated them for it, whether they got
> contracted by
> some company for that work or other means (e.g. bountysource).
> All that is outside of the scope of the GCC project.
> Bountysource AFAIK has its own terms and rules and I believe ultimately it
> is the people who donated money for it that vote about that.
>
>         Jakub
>
>

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[Ian Lance Taylor]

On Mon, May 10, 2021, 9:52 AM abebeos <lazaridis.com+abebeos@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Again, just heavily fascinating to see how you ignore the overall essence
> of this, which is of course directly related to gcc.
>
> (bountysource is just a secondary disaster, it all starts here, at gcc.
>

What do you think that the GCC project has done wrong for this specific
issue?  In answering please do not mention anything about bounties or
Bountysource, as those have nothing to do with the GCC project.

Ian

>

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[abebeos]

(unable to comment to this without loosing my temper. So... no comment)

On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 05:49, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 8:33 AM abebeos <lazaridis.com+abebeos@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > To me this sounds quite like an "disorganized mess, where bullies,
> abusers and even IT-fascists can thrive".
> >
> > It is clear to me that some gcc project maintainers, the steering
> committee and bountysource are crossing ethical (if not legal) boundaries.
>
> The GCC project maintainers and the steering committee are definitely
> not crossing ethical or legal boundaries here.
>
> I don't know anything about Bountysource.  Bountysource is completely
> separate from GCC.  It appears from your link that John Paul Adrian
> Glaubitz posted a bounty for some GCC work.  A number of people and
> organizations supported the bounty, but the GCC project itself did
> not.  Although the work is for GCC, the GCC project has nothing to do
> with that bounty.  That is handled entirely by Bountysource.
>
>
> > The Issue:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
> >
> > The Bounty (a bit higher than $7K)
> >
> >
> https://www.bountysource.com/issues/84630749-avr-convert-the-backend-to-mode_cc-so-it-can-be-kept-in-future-releases
> >
> > The Complaint re Voting Process:
> >
> > https://github.com/bountysource/core/issues/1532
> >
> > Bountysource may write whatever they want in their terms-of-service -
> the relevant law is still above. And of course OSS-ethics, which are more
> that a basic code-monkey-mentality of the kind "only code is work, only
> patch authors are workers".
> >
> > * there is a bounty
> > * I start work (working around a major gcc project deficit, which is a
> missing CI, testing testing testing, concluding, "reviving" and existent
> patch)
> > * I claim 50%
> > * a dispute starts, which is then aborted non-transparently by some
> anonymous coward, without waiting for the major backers votes,  and all gcc
> participants simply keep silence.
> >
> > I am aware that the effort to fight for 50% of a $7K bounty is not worth
> it - even the distraction for opening a discussion here is essentially not
> worth the effort.
> >
> > I cared more or less only on what Microchip ($5K contibution to the
> bounty) had to say, and the other two top backers. And I'm still curious
> about this.
> >
> > If they too say "research, analysis and integration work is no work" and
> "effort to validate abandoned patches and reuse of them is no work" - well,
> then I guess I'll rest my case.
> >
> > But at least it gets "on file", so other people which struggle with gcc
> (especially in combination with bountysource) have a point-of-reference.
> >
> > Very disappointing all this.
> >
> > I mean really? An OSS project which brute-force aborts a
> voting-procedure (=IT-fascism)? Just to award a monetary value to an
> gcc-project insider?
> >
> > And everyone keeps silence?
>
> If I'm reading the Bountysource page correctly, the bounty was awarded
> to saaadhu, who I assume is Senthil Kumar Selvaraj.  Senthil has been
> a GCC contributor for a while with some 70 committed patches.  But I
> wouldn't describe them as a GCC project insider.  They are not a GCC
> maintainer or reviewer.
>
>
>
> > We all know that reproducing such things in order to have an informed
> opinion/vote costs terribly high amounts of time. The simplified method
> would be:
> >
> > * enter the issues here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c9
> > * then, just try to validate the until then available patch
> >   * => you'll fail, as no stable environment is available (major failure
> of the steering comitee, which should insist "all targets need to have an
> functioning CI"
> > * => here you start integrating a dev/ci environment, try to find
> reference points/versions etc., etc.
> >
> > @ Steering Committee
> >
> > A functioning CI across targets is a non-disputable must requirement in
> todays IT landscape:
> >
> > * https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98574
> >
> > Or at least reference-repos, like e.g. this one:
> >
> > * https://github.com/abebeos/avr-gnu
> >
> > We would not have this topic here, if the gcc-project had a decent CI,
> or a build-setup used by all developers.
>
> I agree that having a good CI for GCC would be really great.  It's
> also really hard.  GCC generates code for many different targets, and
> the nature of GCC is such that running tests on a simulator rather
> than real hardware, while helpful, is simply not good enough in
> practice.  So a good CI for GCC requires supporting a large variety of
> hardware.  That is very desirable.  It's also very hard and very
> expensive.  The GCC project must rely on volunteers for this work.
> You can see the available support at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm and on the gcc-testresults
> mailing list.  Should the project have better CI?  Yes, absolutely.
> Who is going to put in the time, effort, and money to make that
> happen?
>
>
> In any case, this is not the right place to raise your concerns about
> Bountysource.  That is not part of the GCC project.
>
> Ian
>

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[abebeos]

On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 23:32, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 10, 2021, 9:52 AM abebeos <lazaridis.com+abebeos@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Again, just heavily fascinating to see how you ignore the overall essence
>> of this, which is of course directly related to gcc.
>>
>> (bountysource is just a secondary disaster, it all starts here, at gcc.
>>
>
> What do you think that the GCC project has done wrong for this specific
> issue?
>

I've described this in my message here:

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/569913.html

The summary is possibly
* I identified via necessary week-long work a (shelved) patch as valid for
(re)use.
* The gcc project(members) simply downplayed my week-long efforts to
essentially "nothing".
* Issue-author, patch-author and other gcc participants kept silence when
the voting-process was rigged.
* (and some other things, like e.g. missing complaint-addresses/procedures
which enable "wild-west" abuse of workers).

See, I do hard/soft/firmware, but before that, I setup stable reproducible
dev-environments (which gcc lacks, at least for avr).
Then I try to validate/reuse/extend existent results.
Only then, I go to implement own solutions.

This is a usual process, nothing special for professionals.

But here comes the bomb:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c55
"You have no claim in this whole effort. You just tried to copy someone
else's work."

What is this joke? Obviously zero understanding of basic dev-processes.

Why has this person the freedom to abuse contributors on the gcc project?

Is there no process within gcc to stop "circus-shows" and
"wild-west-behavior"?

To me it is clear that this person has no idea about higher-grade
development-work:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c40

-

And why can an anonymous coward (possibly the same person as above) rig
voting processes, based on such totally unfounded assessments of my work?

The very funny things is that when I started working, the patch wasn't even
visible, it was forgotten:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c21

I get at this point "zero attribution", which translates to "zero % of the
bounty".

Even just for the attribution:

Shame on you, gcc.

  In answering please do not mention anything about bounties or
> Bountysource, as those have nothing to do with the GCC project.
>

What?

The bounty is directly related to the issue.

The bounty was filed/advertised by the gcc project, so the gcc project
should have intervened immediately at the point where an anonymous coward
rigged the voting process (aborted the vote before end of the voting
period).

The fact that I need to explain this is quite a tragedy.




> Ian
>
>>

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[Ian Lance Taylor]

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 2:45 PM abebeos <lazaridis.com+abebeos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The bounty was filed/advertised by the gcc project, so the gcc project should have intervened immediately at the point where an anonymous coward rigged the voting process (aborted the vote before end of the voting period).
>
> The fact that I need to explain this is quite a tragedy.

I've already done my best to explain the distinction between GCC and
Bountysource.  You are blaming the wrong people here.  The bounty was
not filed by the GCC project.  It was not advertised by the GCC
project.  I know nothing about the Bountysource voting process because
it has nothing to do with GCC.  The fact that people associated in
some way with the bounty process commented on a GCC bug report does
not mean that the GCC project had anything to do with the bounty.

Ian

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[Jeff Law]

On 5/10/2021 3:45 PM, abebeos via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> I've described this in my message here:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/569913.html
>
> The summary is possibly
> * I identified via necessary week-long work a (shelved) patch as valid for
> (re)use.
> * The gcc project(members) simply downplayed my week-long efforts to
> essentially "nothing".
> * Issue-author, patch-author and other gcc participants kept silence when
> the voting-process was rigged.
> * (and some other things, like e.g. missing complaint-addresses/procedures
> which enable "wild-west" abuse of workers).
>
> See, I do hard/soft/firmware, but before that, I setup stable reproducible
> dev-environments (which gcc lacks, at least for avr).
> Then I try to validate/reuse/extend existent results.
> Only then, I go to implement own solutions.
>
> This is a usual process, nothing special for professionals.
>
> But here comes the bomb:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c55
> "You have no claim in this whole effort. You just tried to copy someone
> else's work."

This comment is from the person who set up the bounty.  Your issue is 
with him and/or bountysource.  The GCC project does not control or 
directly influence the bountysource program.


Jeff

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[abebeos]

On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 01:35, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 2:45 PM abebeos <lazaridis.com+abebeos@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The bounty was filed/advertised by the gcc project, so the gcc project
> should have intervened immediately at the point where an anonymous coward
> rigged the voting process (aborted the vote before end of the voting
> period).
> >
> > The fact that I need to explain this is quite a tragedy.
>
> I've already done my best to explain the distinction between GCC and
> Bountysource.


There is not distinction. GCC project-resources were used, GCC participants
everywhere, so this is a GCC matter.

I'll not comment further on your beyond ridiculous "line of defense".

I just hope that you are in no way related to the leadership of GCC/GNU.


>   You are blaming the wrong people here.  The bounty was
> not filed by the GCC project.  It was not advertised by the GCC
> project.  I know nothing about the Bountysource voting process because
> it has nothing to do with GCC.  The fact that people associated in
> some way with the bounty process commented on a GCC bug report does
> not mean that the GCC project had anything to do with the bounty.
>
> Ian
>

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[abebeos]

On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 01:43, Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 5/10/2021 3:45 PM, abebeos via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> > I've described this in my message here:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/569913.html
> >
> > The summary is possibly
> > * I identified via necessary week-long work a (shelved) patch as valid
> for
> > (re)use.
> > * The gcc project(members) simply downplayed my week-long efforts to
> > essentially "nothing".
> > * Issue-author, patch-author and other gcc participants kept silence when
> > the voting-process was rigged.
> > * (and some other things, like e.g. missing
> complaint-addresses/procedures
> > which enable "wild-west" abuse of workers).
> >
> > See, I do hard/soft/firmware, but before that, I setup stable
> reproducible
> > dev-environments (which gcc lacks, at least for avr).
> > Then I try to validate/reuse/extend existent results.
> > Only then, I go to implement own solutions.
> >
> > This is a usual process, nothing special for professionals.
> >
> > But here comes the bomb:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c55
> > "You have no claim in this whole effort. You just tried to copy someone
> > else's work."
>
> This comment is from the person who set up the bounty.  Your issue is
> with him and/or bountysource.  The GCC project does not control or
> directly influence the bountysource program.
>

This is ridiculous.

GCC issue, GCC resources(!), GCC committers, GCC participants.

Be aware that each and every person which noticed the non-attribution and
the rigged vote, without intervening, does this:

=> Supporting IT-fascism, in the name of GCC/GNU.

Including you - whoever you are.


>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[abebeos]

On Sat, 8 May 2021 at 18:49, abebeos <lazaridis.com+abebeos@gmail.com>
wrote:

> (failed to join gcc, so posting here)
>
> Is there any private email where one can file complaints re
> project-maintainers (or "those who are supervising the maintainers") ?
>
> Is there any information about the process for such complaints?
>
> Related Issue: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100480
>
> (please note that this complaint will most possibly escalate up to the
> person(s) who are responsible for policies/rules)
>

This topic is "closed" for me (for now).

"
Now, the headline would be:

"Physik FU-Berlin, Microchip, Google, RedHat, IBM and more to Support
Abuse, Discrimination and even 'IT-fascism' via/on GCC/GNU/FSF
Project-Resources".

See, nobody cares, until a valid(!) headline gets some visibility.

But for now I'll stop here, as I don't want to open/activate accounts in
order to publish. And in the end, I would analyze GCC/GNU/FSF weaknesses
and threads without getting payed.

Just one last thing:

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, you have attacked my professional reputation in
public, saying more or less that I claimed the bounty without having done
any work for it.

But the indisputable fact is that any person that declares "assessment,
validation, integration and general reuse of existent results" as "copying"
should simply stay away from OSS software.

And persons which abuse their (position of) power to brute-force violate
voting procedures (or to not intervene), are just some (more or less worse)
form  of IT-fascists.

People like you should be kicked out immediately from OSS projects.

Well, at least in a perfect world.

Cu around, clowns.
"
source: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c61

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[Georg-Johann Lay]

abebeos via Gcc-patches schrieb:
> Again, just heavily fascinating to see how you ignore the overall essence
> of this, which is of course directly related to gcc.
> 
> (bountysource is just a secondary disaster, it all starts here, at gcc.

* You postet a patch to gcc-patches@.

* You did not answer any questions re. that patch.

* You did not address any of the issues of the patch, not even coding rules.

* You wrote that you "not touch even whitespace".

* And then you PLONK-ed.

http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561762.html

* To concerns about future problems with the patch you basically replied 
"mess left behind by the patch is no issue, community folks will happily 
fix them."

Thus, refusing to integrate that patch was 100% correct from the 
technical point.

* You were told at several occasions by different people that 
substantial contributions > 10 LOC need a Copyright Assignment.

* You were told that GCC mailing list policy is to use real name. You 
refused that, asserting "me don't need that".

Thus, refusing to integrate that patch was 100% correct from the legal 
point.

* Getting you $$$ by integrating a patch (of which you did not 
understand a single line), or being rude and calling people bullies, 
abusers and fascists will get you nowhere.  You are spamming technical 
PRs and lists with your poisoned language, but you did not fool anyone.

Thus, refusing to integrate that patch was 100% correct from the moral 
point.

That bounty was awarded to 100% to Senthil, and 100% rightly so.  From 
the technical view, from the legal view, from the moral view. He wrote 
100% of the patch, he understands it, he knows how to address future issues.


Johann

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[abebeos]

Hi there IT-fascists, clowns, master-clowns,
totally-confused-incompetent-code-plumbers,
activity-trapped-silent-high-performers,
stay-out-of-trouble-silent-high-performers! (Guess where G.J. Lay fits in
the collection...).

Please be aware that I do not read any messages here (including the one I'm
replying to), in this unregulated circus-show ("The GCC Project"). I've
polluted my mind enough with your nonsense justifications, to be honest it
is becoming quite disgusting.

If any serious person from the FSF (as to my tiny research, the FSF is in
the end legally and ethically responsible for what happens on GCC) want to
comment on this, please send me additionally a copy of your message.

FSF:

Copyright: https://www.fsf.org/about/dmca-notice
Privacy: https://www.fsf.org/about/free-software-foundation-privacy-policy
IT-fascists, Bullying, discrimination, workers-abuse, rigged voting
processes: ???

.

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[Mike Stump]

This isn't a patch to gcc, please stop posting non-technical content to this list.  Please review what this list is for and the rules for this list before you post again, thanks.

> On May 14, 2021, at 7:47 AM, abebeos via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi there IT-fascists, clowns, master-clowns,
> totally-confused-incompetent-code-plumbers,
> activity-trapped-silent-high-performers,
> stay-out-of-trouble-silent-high-performers! (Guess where G.J. Lay fits in
> the collection...).
> 
> Please be aware that I do not read any messages here (including the one I'm
> replying to), in this unregulated circus-show ("The GCC Project"). I've
> polluted my mind enough with your nonsense justifications, to be honest it
> is becoming quite disgusting.
> 
> If any serious person from the FSF (as to my tiny research, the FSF is in
> the end legally and ethically responsible for what happens on GCC) want to
> comment on this, please send me additionally a copy of your message.
> 
> FSF:
> 
> Copyright: https://www.fsf.org/about/dmca-notice
> Privacy: https://www.fsf.org/about/free-software-foundation-privacy-policy
> IT-fascists, Bullying, discrimination, workers-abuse, rigged voting
> processes: ???

Re: [GOVERNANCE] Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?

[abebeos]

Please, get serious.

=> this topic is closed for me, so STOP CC''ing ME, it is not welcome.


On Sun, 23 May 2021 at 19:03, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:

> This isn't a patch to gcc, please stop posting non-technical content to
> this list.  Please review what this list is for and the rules for this list
> before you post again, thanks.
>
> > On May 14, 2021, at 7:47 AM, abebeos via Gcc-patches <
> gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi there IT-fascists, clowns, master-clowns,
> > totally-confused-incompetent-code-plumbers,
> > activity-trapped-silent-high-performers,
> > stay-out-of-trouble-silent-high-performers! (Guess where G.J. Lay fits in
> > the collection...).
> >
> > Please be aware that I do not read any messages here (including the one
> I'm
> > replying to), in this unregulated circus-show ("The GCC Project"). I've
> > polluted my mind enough with your nonsense justifications, to be honest
> it
> > is becoming quite disgusting.
> >
> > If any serious person from the FSF (as to my tiny research, the FSF is in
> > the end legally and ethically responsible for what happens on GCC) want
> to
> > comment on this, please send me additionally a copy of your message.
> >
> > FSF:
> >
> > Copyright: https://www.fsf.org/about/dmca-notice
> > Privacy:
> https://www.fsf.org/about/free-software-foundation-privacy-policy
> > IT-fascists, Bullying, discrimination, workers-abuse, rigged voting
> > processes: ???
>