"help needed with savannah" in [email protected] > Depends on what your priorities are. In my view, letting pass 10 > projects that shouldn't is better than blocking 1 project that should. > Likewise, keeping submissions open for an indeterminate amount of time > is quite worse than a quick approval or denial. So Mario, I would ask > you to not block submissions with lots of philosophical questions > about attitude or about the spirit to share, but just stick to facts. > [...]
It would be clearer to consider your suggestion in context. Could you please point an example of a project I blocked with lots of philosophical questions?. We shouldn't neglect the philosophical foundations of free software and the GNU project. I usually *point* philosophical issues, it's not my intention to block the project by doing so. > Allow me to point out two GNU documents which emphasize this point: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#VerbatimCopying > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpinionLicenses > > Once we establish that we only need to check facts (can the project be > redistributed freely with modifications), things get easier. Facts are > easy to machine-check. When time is precious, better solve the issue > for the 90% that can be checked automatically (even if it takes a > little longer to get there) than go one by one for 100% of projects. > You save time in the end. I don't understand what do you mean. > Alexander sufficiently apologized for the honest mistake, I don't > think a knee-jerk reaction like that is in order. After all github is > a perfectly legitimate place to host code (and they give a great > service too). Thanks for pointing my mistake. However I totally disagree with your opinion of github. Alexander: Please excuse me. I accidentally skipped the aforesaid message (Found it now in the archive).
pgpMHalea6QoE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
