Re: to git or not to git
With remote git repository hosting we have many options. You could self-host gogs or gitlab, or use many of the public instances of these, e.g. notabug.org or 0xacab.org. Or just host good old cgit somewhere safe. Or indeed keep using github as a place/mirror to put code. But with repository hosting we have a lot of choice - in the end I suppose it depends what you want to put there and what you want to be public. Best wishes. Alessandro Rubini: > This is the question. Or, better, to github or not to github. > > Once upon a time, github was a bad hosting site, because the site code > is not free, and we should have rather preferred gitorious. I > did. But then gitorious closed shop and I had to go to the various > projects (hosted elsewhere) that had submodules and make a commit to > change the link. Not many projects, I admit, but still an unpleasant > operation. Besides, all past history is now broken because of the > dangling submodule link. I'm able to bisect anyways, but will my user > be able too? And this problem is replicated for all repo owners. Not > nice. > > So, besides self-hosting (unfeasible for whole-kernel repos) I moved > to github. Well, not using it other than as a git repo why should I > care that the code (that I do not use) is not free? Maybe because I > contribute visibility to that specific unfree provider, but they were > "friendly" guys. > > Now, they are microsoft. Same people. Same site. Different owner, > different money-flow. Shall I (we) change attitude? Most smart people > say no, that nothing changed. I'm aware the new owner is not worse > than most other companies -- but they are the same ones who wanted to kill > us out of the market, before turning into friends who still would love > if we disappeared. > > So, I feel a little uneasy, and I'm now wondering where to push my > yet-unpushed projects (while keeping previous stuff on github for > several reasons -- mostly link-rusting issues). > > How does the free software community feels in this respect? > > thanks > /alessandro > ___ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@lists.fsfe.org > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All > participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: > https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct > ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
to git or not to git
This is the question. Or, better, to github or not to github. Once upon a time, github was a bad hosting site, because the site code is not free, and we should have rather preferred gitorious. I did. But then gitorious closed shop and I had to go to the various projects (hosted elsewhere) that had submodules and make a commit to change the link. Not many projects, I admit, but still an unpleasant operation. Besides, all past history is now broken because of the dangling submodule link. I'm able to bisect anyways, but will my user be able too? And this problem is replicated for all repo owners. Not nice. So, besides self-hosting (unfeasible for whole-kernel repos) I moved to github. Well, not using it other than as a git repo why should I care that the code (that I do not use) is not free? Maybe because I contribute visibility to that specific unfree provider, but they were "friendly" guys. Now, they are microsoft. Same people. Same site. Different owner, different money-flow. Shall I (we) change attitude? Most smart people say no, that nothing changed. I'm aware the new owner is not worse than most other companies -- but they are the same ones who wanted to kill us out of the market, before turning into friends who still would love if we disappeared. So, I feel a little uneasy, and I'm now wondering where to push my yet-unpushed projects (while keeping previous stuff on github for several reasons -- mostly link-rusting issues). How does the free software community feels in this respect? thanks /alessandro ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: application for FSFE e.V. membership and resignation
Hi list, I was the first elected fellowship representative and am still part of the legal body FSFE e.V. where I had to see this kind of trolling for way too long already. Lots of time and energy wasted that could otherwise have been spent to further Free Software. I'll personally back out of this "discussion" again and focus on the latter. Kind Regards, Torsten ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
application for FSFE e.V. membership and resignation
Hi Matthias, I am writing to you directly, with CC to the FSFE community, as this is the procedure for membership described[1] in the constitution of FSFE e.V. I understand that previous Fellowship representatives have written to you privately on this basis and been granted FSFE e.V. membership beyond their two year term as a Fellowship representative. FSFE e.V.'s recent decision to remove[2] the Fellowship and Fellowship elections from the constitution creates a difficult situation for me. As a member of the Fellowship, elected by fellows, I have a responsibility to the Fellowship. As long as two or more people consider themselves fellows, the Fellowship still exists as an organization because that is the definition of a fellowship. Removing it from the constitution doesn't make it go away. FSFE e.V.'s meeting in 2017 recognized (item 15 in the minutes[3]) that contributors are not members and despite a split of the GA, it was resolved to bring them in as members, yet nothing has been done to implement this motion. The notice of meeting for 2018 (attached) suggests that out of 1,700 fellows, only one person has been proposed for FSFE e.V. membership and I feel this makes a mockery of the motion passed in 2017. Last year's decision and the lack of effort to implement it further emphasises the fact that fellows and volunteers are a separate group, not being members. You view us as a resource to be exploited rather than equal participants. As FSFE e.V. and the Fellowship are now separate bodies with no defined relationship, there is clearly a conflict of interest for somebody elected by one organization (the Fellowship) to be a member of another organization (FSFE e.V.). Therefore, I want to make it clear to everybody that where my obligations to the Fellowship are not aligned with obligations to the residual members of FSFE e.V., I will be putting my obligation to fellows first as that is the only responsible thing an elected representative can do. Some members of FSFE e.V. have expressed resentment about this situation but the fact is, fellows were promised representation and they need good representation now more than ever. For example, you previously wrote in a private GA discussion that my communications to fellows should be censored to ensure that communications maximize donations (your comment in February: "people might even stop to support us financially" if I write emails to the the people who I am mandated to represent). But that is nonsense: the role of a representative is not to maximize donations, my role is to ensure the money already given to you is being spent as well as possible. For trying to fulfil that role, you immediately set up an illegal conspiracy to stab me in the back, publishing an internal censorship policy for future communications and calling an extraordinary general meeting[4] on a Saturday while I was out in Kosovo doing real free software activities and voting on a motion tacked onto the end of the agenda to immediately terminate my membership without cause. It is never nice to write such strong words, but in a case like this, fellows deserve to know the ugly truth about FSFE Council's behaviour and as the elected representative I would be negligent if I didn't blow the lid on this. As the #MeToo movement has demonstrated, sometimes it is necessary to call out obnoxious behaviour to begin a process of reform. People are asking how FSFE e.V. can raise[5] almost EUR 650,000 in one year and spend barely EUR 37,000 on producing merchandise. The public pages about financial transparency don't give enough information to answer that. With well over half of the funds now coming from the corporate sector and the two most senior staff enjoying lengthy periods of paternity leave in 2018, people are also asking whether it is reasonable for volunteers to contribute their time and personal funds at all. There are many organizations in the free software world who we can contribute to and FSFE e.V. should not take us for granted. Personally, I feel that my highest responsibility is to those who elected me and gave me a mandate and I do not wish to be in a position that puts me above the rest of the wider FSFE community by accepting a "regular" membership of FSFE e.V. if other members of the Fellowship and volunteers are excluded from the same membership. In fact, I feel it would constitute an act of betrayal for someone elected to represent the community to suddenly transition to being a member of an elite, unelected group before their term as representative had even finished. Membership is critical for all members of our community because that gives everybody the right to attend the annual meeting, to propose motions for the agenda, to nominate for roles in council and to hold council responsible to the whole community. In other words, membership is the only basis for good governance. The constitution empowers you to grant all fellows and volunteers membership
