From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7CE13888F for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:30:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D3327E07F0; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:29:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 252D3E0782 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:29:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from greysprite.dite (cpe-74-77-145-97.buffalo.res.rr.com [74.77.145.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: blueness) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D951D340702 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:29:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for Agenda Items -- Council Meeting 2015-10-11 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <1904237.nU16iSOlTl@kailua> <20150930204510.7e0bd29f.mgorny@gentoo.org> <20151008154237.c5b94b546444d7204ab91a98@gentoo.org> <56166864.2050204@gentoo.org> <9C591B75-DE0D-4AB6-8A6E-89FA178513BF@gentoo.org> <5616855D.8000106@gentoo.org> <20151009042132.662d0925458f8804abcee442@gentoo.org> From: "Anthony G. Basile" Message-ID: <5617971F.4050002@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:29:51 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: ec4ad091-e00a-4564-b23a-ec3f9fae3441 X-Archives-Hash: 9653f3379c02d452b92c451cbefb7086 On 10/9/15 5:44 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> When talking about Gentoo Social Contract violation by GitHub >> integration I apply to the following cause of the Social >> Contract [1]: >> >> However, Gentoo will never depend upon a piece of software or >> metadata unless it conforms to the GNU General Public License, the >> GNU Lesser General Public License, the Creative Commons - >> Attribution/Share Alike or some other license approved by the Open >> Source Initiative (OSI). >> >> If developer commits changes directly to git without bugzilla being >> used, this is OK, because out git repo is free and we control it. >> But when we start to depend on github pull requests or similar >> proprietary metadata, the Social Contract is violated. > I don't see how we're "depending" on github if we've already agreed > that you can do the same thing without using it in the first place. You become dependent in that discussions about a bug or patch are now on github and if that goes away you loose it. Therefore we depend on github to keep that history for us and that history is as important as the fix itself. Saying that you don't have to use github doesn't fix this unless that history is mirrored on our bugzilla. xkcd says it best https://xkcd.com/743/ Many gentoo devs get this and that's why they're unhappy about where we've come with this. I contribute to Gentoo under the assumption of the Social Contract. I expect it upheld and not watered down. You can say "I don't see" and put depend in quotes, but all this does is discourage me from contributing and remind me that the conditions under which I contributed can be just waved away by capriciousness. This is not an issue that you will make go away with redefining "depend". It strikes at the moral fiber of the open source community. As for rage quitting an issue, are you sure that watering down the Social Contract won't cause other kinds of quitting? This issue is above such theatrics. > > If I told you that I secretly push all my changes to github, then pull > them to another machine, then push them to gentoo, would that be some > kind of violation of the social contract. > > Nobody is required to even look at github to do their job, and I don't > believe that there is a proposal to require anybody to do so. If > there were I think we could consider that separately from having an > integration. > > People are using github TODAY to work on Gentoo. If it went away > tomorrow, it really wouldn't affect us much. It is just an optional > tool, and I don't see the proposal changing that. > >> IMO the best solution will be to deploy some free platform like >> Gogs for code review, pull request and all other fashionable >> features as was already suggested in this thread by Hasufell. > You're welcome to do that, and if you need permission to get infra to > host it you're welcome to ask us for it, assuming they're willing to > host it for you (and if that is really the limitation then that is > something we can try to tackle). Right now nobody is actually doing > the work on that, and I don't see the value in holding up the project > people are working on merely because they could be volunteering their > time on something else instead. By that argument we'd still be using > the 32-bit binary emul-* packages. > > Ultimately we're a bit of a do-acracy and you get further with an > implementation and an argument than you get with an argument alone. > -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail : blueness@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA