From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17CC6138334 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 07:42:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EE610E0837; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 07:42:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8CACE0833 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 07:42:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1B23346C5B; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 07:42:24 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Questions for Gentoo Council nominees: GLEP 76 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 09:42:20 +0200 In-Reply-To: <79783d8a-105e-7583-f319-f3c89a84eccc@gentoo.org> References: <20190615124220.fcf0c08b22481d5bc6c2dbe0@gentoo.org> <20190615124933.b2f20fde0b47509e6b54f989@gentoo.org> <79783d8a-105e-7583-f319-f3c89a84eccc@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-8qKqpa3MyEfbNo9pDlfr" User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Archives-Salt: 0c5cd53b-ea2d-4161-9343-b8276a8a1786 X-Archives-Hash: 3d671e3f9730330145e5f39b9692dc22 --=-8qKqpa3MyEfbNo9pDlfr Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2019-06-30 at 09:11 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 6/15/19 11:49 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 12:42:20 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > > Hi all! > > >=20 > > > Last year we had a good initiative: it addition to (or even instead > > > of) manifests nominees were asked questions by voters. So let's > > > continue this year. > > >=20 > > > I propose to have one question per thread spawned by this e-mail to > > > keep discussion focused. If you have multiple questions, please > > > start multiple threads. If your question was already asked, please > > > join a thread. > > >=20 > > > I'll ask my questions in subsequent e-mails. > >=20 > > In my opinion GLEP 76 is the most controversial decision made by > > running council. While it fixed some long standing issues like > > copyright headers and proper acknowledgement of out of the tree > > contributors, it created grave problems: now some long-time > > contributors and even developer are seriously discriminated because > > they want to keep their privacy. > >=20 > > What is your opinion on this problem? >=20 > I think everyone involved in the discussion meant well, but different > cultural starting points (e.g. different ideas about what copyright > means), trying to find a compromise, not being experienced with legal > language/concepts (or even legal concepts not translating well between > languages) etc.etc. conspired to make this a very weirdly shaped thing > that imo doesn't do what people think it does. >=20 > I mostly ignored the discussion because it was a too high volume of > email on a topic where I don't see a strong need to act, in hindsight > that was naive optimism on my side. It's funny you say that given that you've trolled the result for 4 months. >=20 > > Should GLEP 76 be left as is? >=20 > No,it should be improved. > E.g. having signed commits, and adding signed-off-by, is ... weird. > It also leads to semantic satiation, where every commit has > signed-off-by, every commit, signed-off-by, signed-off-by ... >=20 > And since it's autogenerated it doesn't really mean anything. It would > make more sense to add it *only* to commits from not-gentoo-devs, since > all the other commits are already signed by authenticated users. How would you verify that devs have actually read the new spec, and not just ignored it? Do you prefer that we disabled commit access for everyone, and then asked everyone to make a vow? --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --=-8qKqpa3MyEfbNo9pDlfr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGTBAABCgB9FiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAl0YZ9xfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEM3 NkE4NDUwOTQwOThEMjhDQzhCMjZDNTYzOUFEQUUyMzI5RTI0MEUACgkQY5ra4jKe JA5aNgf/cUryDhMIJyEGZhfWoWHAuoLUN4yU09BD1LJ8HQjdT9Onw7a7B7bW3DSn 1OgNbbZlucjWzyPCx3rpNrPfqbsxKW6M1lJVc5fk5+368yxXHUXOd5z6y9GupfVJ dK8PeA2WMIvY+aD/WPRIGmGJPSQIe+TRBXTb+MOq1ywyTHdrw9CnFBFcIEc3GB6C knNSAMrlCGRyBl/yt0wfF3IVIXm4k+CC+xBCLSYuo6gPh6Gg3EoRW6GyyImZDiD0 D7R9GZaUb6CMFfWiOmeXDRm/PnR8mTkBqarUDb4h8le1WKnUoUAsSJgPeAgSx3mX 9PXgfKQnbt1TOJlXdKrzZBpplRBDSg== =tnVG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-8qKqpa3MyEfbNo9pDlfr--