On 29/10/2012 11:30, Peter Stuge wrote: > A load of bull IMO. Is this rooted in some stupid US law thing (via > the foundation) or merely in some cowardly individual disconnected > from the real world, phrasing stupid blanket rules? Or something else?
You're free to disagree and not become a developer. But with commit _rights_ come commit _responsibility_. If you commit something for somebody else, you're still responsible if it breaks somebody else's package, it doesn't exempt you from not doing _your_ work. > Isn't it outrageous to claim that people who create and > contribute to and around Gentoo without being developers > are any less responsible for what they do than devs are? No. It seems stupid to me to pretend that those that actually got through evaluation feel they can drop responsibility for what others give to them to commit. Especially, how do you expect people to keep up with a project's policies, if they can't be asked to own up to their own mistakes? > Diego, what you wrote does nothing other than make it seem like you > have a personal agenda against Arfrever. If so, that situation is > something you must obviously work on resolving elsewhere. No. _I_ don't have a personal agenda against him. But _We_, as in Gentoo, have an history instead. A history that keeps repeating. A history that, if hiding behind the "I'm just committing his stuff", will keep repeating. There is a reason why he's been kicked out, and I wasn't the only one taking that decision. Committing stuff for him, from him, without actually checking it, testing it, _owning_ it, is showing a lack of respect for the _whole_ project. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
