I'm afraid this thread is taking on a life of its own like some of the previous ones. So I'm going to try to trim a bit.
On Tuesday, 29 November 2005, at 16:10:14 (+0900), Carsten Haitzler wrote: > yes - but its not a temporary condition. xcomps life changed ina way > where he'll be ultra-busy for many years to come. if you talk with > him. i'll let him divulge his life's details. and it shows that > entrance basically has fallen into dormant status ever since. My point is that it's his responsibility to give up the reigns or simply take a less active development role (and more management). It's his choice. > and if the person who "owns" it vanishes? stops working on it? has > no time? then it sits and rots (well just goes nowehere)? and no > one is allowed to touch it without his express approval? come on! if > someone wants to pick up the ball and keep runing wiht it - or more > than 1 person. - why not? the original author doesnt lose credit. he > still has the full respect and admiration for having picke dup the > ball and run with it as far as they did. now a new set of people > keep runing with it. you seem to have something against that? Not at all. Anyone with CVS access can contribute. I have no problem with that. All I'm saying is that the person in charge remains the person in charge until one of the following happens: (1) (S)he steps aside willingly; (2) (S)he is inexplicibly out of touch via e-mail and IRC for a significant period of time. Again, I'm not talking about contributors (i.e., people who commit changes to CVS). I'm talking about the lead developer. The person in charge. The designer, architect, and ultimate decision maker. For E, Evas, etc., that's you. For Eterm, it's me. For EWL, it's RbdPngn. For entrance, it's xcomp. For Etk, it's Simon. And so forth... > well that reminds me. need to add myself to AUTHORS - as i have done > work on entrance - a reasonable amount - enough to justify an > AUTHORS entry... u can check cvs logs. thus as an AUTHOR i belive i > have a little more weight to pull in this. i never saw you jump up > and down when i worked on entrance beofre? do you see me making a > fuss when YOU just commit things to spec and makefiles etc.? I think we're talking about two different things here. Anyone with commit access can contribute; I've never said anything about that. Hopefully my statements above will clarify. > if they are the only one working on it - which they will be, You're making a rather large assumption there. > they get to cal the shots as to when to make a release, what > features to put in, how to code them, etc. what is wrong with that? What's wrong with it is that it's not their project, and as long as the original maintainer is still around, they do not forfeit their rights. If the original maintainer says "no release," there will be no release. The contributor has two options at that point: accept the "no release" decree or fork the project. Otherwise things get very messy. > so old owner says "no - go away. don't touch it". ok. fine. now it > gets no improvements as old owner is doing nothing. it gets no > releases, no fixes. its DEAD. since any admin acts as benevolent > dictator, its up to an ADMIN to call the final shot - should the > fued just go on? shoudl someone be kicked out? (access removed). A project being committed to E's CVS tree does not give us (project admins) the right to overrule the original author. We can remove their access and kick them out of the E team, but that project remains theirs. They own the name, for lack of better terminology. The BSD license allows us to use the code and continue the work, but under a different name. > i think you are taking this the wrong way. as if the new owner > completely remvoes all copyright access. it's like a > distribution. peolpe "own" a package. when a packager "owns" the > kernel - they dont own copyright and all credit. they own the job of > producing packages and then do it. if they dont do it - then someone > else takes over as owner. if multiple people share co-ownership then > they are a team. (ie they ALL are active). people dormant for long > enough lose "ownership" of that project. they dont lose copyright or > anything else, but they dont push the agenda of its code. Yes, we've established that you're referring to "own" in a different sense than I am. > > But Ibukun is still here and is still responsive. It's a very, > > very different situation. > > really? news to me. last commit by xcomp: > nov 11 - it was just reverting a small change by seb. no new work. > nov 9 - xcomp commits patch (not new work by him) > nov 8 - xcomp puts in another path - not him either. > nov 7 - xcomp adds patch again > oct 12 - tiny 1 line change to turn off tcp on x > oct 10 - tiny 1 line change for sh exec > oct 10 - minimal key changes in config Commits are not the sole method of being responsive. Check e-mail. Check IRC. The bottom line is, it's up to him. So I'll let him say his piece. Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "If the President knowingly lies to the American people, he should immediately resign." -- Bill Clinton in 1974 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
