hi thorsten!
as you requested, i have removed the credits from the tinymce module
README, although personally i disagree with this policy.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 17:41 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
Actually we agreed a while ago that we do not want to keep this notes.
sorry, i was not aware of a strict policy against such notes.
We should add it to our guidelines.
definitely. and it seems there is no precise, unanimous consensus on
this, given michi's remark to this thread.
The most important thing to learn in this project is that the code
belongs to the community and is normally not the work of a single
entity.
you should not read this as a claim to ownership. of course everyone is
free to work with the code as they please. i dropped my name in mostly
so that people know who to blame or direct bug reports to if they are
not on the lists and do not have access to the svn log.
This is exactly why we do not want that. All communication about the
Lenya code (since your commit, it belongs to the ASF) should be on the
please stop bickering about "belong this, own that". it was never my
intention to claim ownership or piss-mark my territory.
mailing lists from lenya! We do not want direct communication with
committer. That is why we removed most of the author tags in our
documentation.
this makes sense, and i will follow the consensus on this list.
otoh, just as food for thought, other projects (notably the linux
kernel) have *subsystem maintainers* that are responsible for keeping
their stuff on par and updated. granted, the lenya project is so small
that explicit subsystem maintainers are not really necessary, but having
names in a module as the "guys to blame" can do good things:
0. in the open source world, credit is everything. the only reward nerds
get for their work is to have google tell them how cool they are.
1. it might help to prevent a "fire-and-forget" attitude towards commits
and indicate you will feel particularly responsible for this piece of
code in the future and take care of the architectural "big picture" for
the subsystem you introduced.
2. people can find out whether a subsystem is being maintained. for
example, if there is a name in the code that nobody has een on the list
for a while, it's likely a case of bit-rot.
if i were to apply changes to the ac subsystem, i would certainly first
discuss them with you (via this list) before committing (although you
would tell me i didn't have to), because you are likely the one that is
most familiar with that code and has a certain archtitecture in mind
that new code should adhere to.
i don't see anything bad or counter-productive in adding a README and
CHANGES to every subsystem where committers sign off their code.
Hmm, I understand that corporate entities would like special credits but
there is only one form for crediting and this is giving the *person* who
is committed Commit access. If this person further s helping with
project management then she is likely candidate for PMC membership.
That is the way we credit here on the ASF.
pmc membership is an office, and maybe a gesture of honour, but not a
credit. (besides, it's extra work!)
i see absolutely zero problems with a line saying "thanks to foo inc.
and mr. and mrs. john doe".
Please try to understand the line of argumentation why credits can be
harmful to this project.
i still don't buy the argument. if users contact developers off-list, we
redirect them to the list or cc the list in our replies. presto -
everyone is happy.
regards,
jörn
--
"Open source takes the bullshit out of software."
- Charles Ferguson on TechnologyReview.com
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier, EDV-Administrator
Institut für Politikwissenschaft
Universität Duisburg-Essen, Standort Duisburg
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Telefon: 0203/379-2736
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
