2011/6/1 Mark Wielaard <m...@klomp.org>: > On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 15:55 +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote: >> On 6/1/11 12:10 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: >> > The bylaws say that there should be "An assessment of the openness and >> > transparency of the development process and its supporting >> > infrastructure", but don't really describe sanctions. Currently there >> > are a couple of proposals for infrastructure changes (bug database, >> > code review framework) that are in danger of being implemented using >> > closed proprietary code. >> >> "Openness of the supporting infrastructure" does not imply that the source >> code for it must be open source. > > Right, that is why there currently is a danger that is could be > implemented using closed proprietary code. Which would be a bad thing > for contributors. So we could fix that in the bylaws by making sure it > does imply that. > > Thanks, >
I agree although I don't necessarily think that having fully open code for the support infrastructure is really a "must have" requirement (although I hope for this move of course, all things considered). As it has been pointed out many times, data availability is by far most important, and the focus of this section should on this concept. We need to be sure that we can use bug entries and that we (as Community and as single members) own the data introduced in the same way we can use and access the code itself. I think people should to be able to link in their code a sentence or a snippet from a bug entry without any risk whatsoever. Cheers, Mario -- pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF IcedRobot: www.icedrobot.org Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ Please, support open standards: http://endsoftpatents.org/
