Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:12:17 -0400 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have not implemented any policy at the instruction of anyone. We have not implemented any policy under the threat of removal of services. I'm pleased to hear that. To be honest I assumed that was exactly what had happened, as it would reasonably explain the council's panicked response. Being a pragmatist it would seem that obeying a sponsor in that situation would be the only option available to the council in the short term. There was a lot of ambiguity, and it was done on purpose. Nearly every one of our sponsors have mentioned disapproval in the constant bad press Gentoo has been getting. Pretty much anything else they said was in confidence, but at no point did anyone claim that any policy should be made/updated/whatever or some action would/wouldn't be taken. Instead, the Council decided to take action *on our own* based on what we perceived to be a possible threat to our continued valued relationships with *all* of our sponsors. I don't really want to dissect your email line by line, but I feel I would struggle to think of anything a sponsor could say to the council that they felt they couldn't say to the rest of us. I'm happy however to be kept in my current state of ignorance, as it certainly would not be appropriate for any council member to reveal information or documents given to them, in confidence, to anyone else. Then you probably should have talked to me, huh? If something was spoken in confidence to the Council, it would mean all of us. Quite frankly, if you're going to try to use something that I said as some form of proof of something and it is ambiguous, you could at least have the courtesy to contact me. Well, the last time I spoke to you was about your behaviour towards jaervosz, and you said I was reading too much into what you had written, that you didn't represent the council, posting on gentoo-dev made you sick, that my responses to you were partly responsible for fostering a culture of mistrust and hostility within gentoo and that you were wasting ... everyone's time trying to ... rectify [your] shortcomings. And then you announced that you were not going to post on that thread anymore. Do you think that made you approachable, by me, on this matter? There's no conspiracy. Nobody told us to do anything, other than the PR person, whose advice was requested by us. Anything else is bullshit or conjecture. While I still don't understand your reasoning in making an intentionally ambiguous statement about the council's motives, I also don't really care to understand. Assuming you are speaking on behalf of the council in this instance, I'm happy to accept that your ongoing implementation of the CoC is an honest mistake, and not one forced upon you as the result of some ultimatum, as I inferred from your conversation with tove. Your reply has certainly allayed the specific fears I expressed in my previous email, but it looks like you haven't convinced everyone yet: http://tsunam.org/2007/03/26/destoying-things-again/. Regards, -- Richard Brown signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Gentoo infra backups (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract)
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 19:44 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 26 March 2007, bret curtis wrote: Only wimps use tape backup: *real **men* just upload their important stuff on *ftp*, and let the rest of the world mirror it. -- LT :1996 actually, i wonder if this would be useful ... we set up a master backup server where we post raw svn/cvs/etc... stuff and then allow people to setup mirrors of it ... Mike, We can't do a full raw mirror. There are restricted things in CVS. A raw copy of the anonymous cvs is about as close as we could do to this. I personally see little to no benefit in the additional overhead in doing that. But if you can make a case to say robbat2 and pylon for why this would be useful to our community then I'm sure we could open up a rsync of the raw anoncvs mirror. -- Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 10:28 -0500, Dale wrote: Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 22:46 +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning down or the GNi suffering flooding? :) Well, we're on the second floor of the data center which has a quite large basement, which would likely absorb most of the water. About the only feasible way for our stuff to get flooded is if the San Andreas finally gets the big one and the west coast of the US falls into the Pacific, in which case, we'll be worried about other issues, I'm sure. 3rd floor in C.06 actually. That being said, you're more than welcome to assist Infrastructure (and the Foundation) in finding new hosting locations as well as the manpower to bring new services up in those locations or moving existing services. Doing moves like this is a bunch of work, and not something I feel we should be dumping on the Infrastructure team. Can I assume this building has indoor plumbing? It can be on the top floor and still get flooded. I saw a house once that the hot water heater busted and water was about a foot deep and was coming out the walls. More than one way to flood a building. :/ Flooding/burning etc are not likely to happen. See page two of the spec for more details. http://www.365main.com/images/365_Main_San_Francisco_CA.pdf -- Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007 21:46, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how about the following addition to the Social Contract? headingWe will be run by the Development Community/ Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the Gentoo Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5 And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning down or the GNi suffering flooding? :) My point was simply that I think we would be wise to research whether there is the possibility of spreading our critical infrastructure a bit better so that in the event of an Act of God or suchlike we wouldn't find ourselves losing everything to, say, water damage. I agree, adding a line to the social contract won't magically send our servers across the world and into the homes^Wdatacenters of hundreds of wonderful new sponsors. Would be nice if it did though! For anyone, I can host a mirror for gentoo.org. Just contact me. pgpaS1humtNVq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 11:32 +, Catalin Zamfir Alexandru wrote: And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning down or the GNi suffering flooding? :) For anyone, I can host a mirror for gentoo.org. Just contact me. It isn't mirrors that we're discussing here. What is being discussed is the actual development support infrastructure, such as our repositories, bug tracker, etc. That being said, I don't know our current mirror needs, but http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/source_mirrors.xml probably has the answers you are seeking. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 22:46 +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning down or the GNi suffering flooding? :) Well, we're on the second floor of the data center which has a quite large basement, which would likely absorb most of the water. About the only feasible way for our stuff to get flooded is if the San Andreas finally gets the big one and the west coast of the US falls into the Pacific, in which case, we'll be worried about other issues, I'm sure. That being said, you're more than welcome to assist Infrastructure (and the Foundation) in finding new hosting locations as well as the manpower to bring new services up in those locations or moving existing services. Doing moves like this is a bunch of work, and not something I feel we should be dumping on the Infrastructure team. Can I assume this building has indoor plumbing? It can be on the top floor and still get flooded. I saw a house once that the hot water heater busted and water was about a foot deep and was coming out the walls. More than one way to flood a building. :/ Dale :-) :-) :-) -- www.myspace.com/-remove-me-dalek1967 Copy n paste then remove the -remove-me- part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:47:30 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the Gentoo Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5 -mike Gentoo is independent Gentoo will never be reigned by a company nor be dictated by an organisation. Hi vapier, thanks for pointing this out. Am I wrong to assume from your responses in this thread to ciaranm's hypothetical case that the current council have not implemented any policy at the instruction of an external company or organisation? Or under the threat of the withdrawal of services that company/organisation provides to us? I ask because when I was concerned to read this conversation in #gentoo-council: 2007-03-15 15:15 @wolf31o2|mobile we're entrusted by certain outside parties to not disclose things that are spoken to us in confidence 2007-03-15 15:18 tove wolf31o2|mobile: how are outside parties involved in our coc? i don't understand this. can you please elaborate on it? 2007-03-15 15:19 @wolf31o2|mobile tove: no, I cannot elaborate, nor do I care to... just realize that Gentoo has responsibilities to outside parties that provide services and goods to Gentoo... we have relationships that we would like to maintain... and that's about all I can say (or have time to say... I am at work) I certainly inferred that the council had been told do something or outside parties that provide services and goods to Gentoo would cease to maintain that relationship. While there is some ambiguity in what wolf31o2 said, it certainly doesn't read to me that this is a preemptive measure, especially as the first line references already having been told something in confidence. I admit I haven't asked wolf31o2 about this, but then he implied he was forbidden from discussing it further. Perhaps you have not been so constrained by an outside organisation? I'm unsure of what the procedure is for quoting irclogs in a mail is really, but you'll find about 5 minutes either side of that conversation here: http://dev.gentoo.org/~rbrown/gentoo-council.log Regards, -- Richard Brown signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 16:39 +0100, Richard Brown wrote: Hi vapier, thanks for pointing this out. Am I wrong to assume from your responses in this thread to ciaranm's hypothetical case that the current council have not implemented any policy at the instruction of an external company or organisation? Or under the threat of the withdrawal of services that company/organisation provides to us? We have not implemented any policy at the instruction of anyone. We have not implemented any policy under the threat of removal of services. I certainly inferred that the council had been told do something or outside parties that provide services and goods to Gentoo would cease to maintain that relationship. While there is some ambiguity in what wolf31o2 said, it certainly doesn't read to me that this is a preemptive measure, especially as the first line references already having been told something in confidence. There was a lot of ambiguity, and it was done on purpose. Nearly every one of our sponsors have mentioned disapproval in the constant bad press Gentoo has been getting. Pretty much anything else they said was in confidence, but at no point did anyone claim that any policy should be made/updated/whatever or some action would/wouldn't be taken. Instead, the Council decided to take action *on our own* based on what we perceived to be a possible threat to our continued valued relationships with *all* of our sponsors. Again, nobody asked us to do *anything* and nobody made any threats of any kind. This was *entirely* a preemptive measure. It was actually done more at the counsel of some professional PR people which we have been speaking with about our image. This person's advice was to move on these perceived issues quickly and decisively, which is exactly what we did. I admit I haven't asked wolf31o2 about this, but then he implied he was forbidden from discussing it further. Perhaps you have not been so constrained by an outside organisation? Then you probably should have talked to me, huh? If something was spoken in confidence to the Council, it would mean all of us. Quite frankly, if you're going to try to use something that I said as some form of proof of something and it is ambiguous, you could at least have the courtesy to contact me. There's no conspiracy. Nobody told us to do anything, other than the PR person, whose advice was requested by us. Anything else is bullshit or conjecture. Now, can we get on to our regularly scheduled development and leave this non-development banter where it is more appropriate? -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Monday 26 March 2007, Catalin Zamfir Alexandru wrote: For anyone, I can host a mirror for gentoo.org. Just contact me. we're not worried about mirrors, we're worried about the core infrastructure which really cant be mirrored if you're offering to host a web node mirror though, please open a bug on bugzilla for our mirror admins to tracke -mike pgp5x5OUQ0icv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 00:22 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: On Monday 26 March 2007, Dale wrote: Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 22:46 +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning down or the GNi suffering flooding? :) Well, we're on the second floor of the data center which has a quite large basement, which would likely absorb most of the water. About the only feasible way for our stuff to get flooded is if the San Andreas finally gets the big one and the west coast of the US falls into the Pacific, in which case, we'll be worried about other issues, I'm sure. That being said, you're more than welcome to assist Infrastructure (and the Foundation) in finding new hosting locations as well as the manpower to bring new services up in those locations or moving existing services. Doing moves like this is a bunch of work, and not something I feel we should be dumping on the Infrastructure team. Can I assume this building has indoor plumbing? It can be on the top floor and still get flooded. I saw a house once that the hot water heater busted and water was about a foot deep and was coming out the walls. More than one way to flood a building. :/ Actually the situation is not that hypothetical. Some years ago the datacenter of the University of Twente (The Netherlands) was set to fire by an angry systems administrator. The building housed among other infrastructure vital to the university also some machines of great importance to the debian project. Due to a combined effort of suppliers, the university staff and the fact that they had a new datacenter that happened to be about to open, most things were up an running again in a few days. The thing I'm worried about most is insurrance. I trust that infra has backups of the important things like our repositories. The hosting Gentoo gets from GNi is a world class service in some of the best data centers in the world. Everything important gets backed up nightly from one data center to another. As GNi/365 Main move into more data centers world wide chances are Gentoo will be moving into those additionally as well. -- Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Paul de Vrieze wrote: On Monday 26 March 2007, Dale wrote: [snip] Actually the situation is not that hypothetical. Some years ago the datacenter of the University of Twente (The Netherlands) was set to fire by an angry systems administrator. The building housed among other infrastructure vital to the university also some machines of great importance to the debian project. Due to a combined effort of suppliers, the university staff and the fact that they had a new datacenter that happened to be about to open, most things were up an running again in a few days. The thing I'm worried about most is insurrance. I trust that infra has backups of the important things like our repositories. Paul Only wimps use tape backup: *real **men* just upload their important stuff on *ftp*, and let the rest of the world mirror it. -- LT :1996 I have no doubt that Gentoo as a distribution can bounce back from something catastrophic mostly because of how portage makes a snapshot of the tree on everyone's Gentoo distribution at any point in time and same applies to repositories and people that check them out. More than likely we will loose some history and time but it wouldn't be a total lose. It definently won't all go up in a puff of smoke. That aside, does Gentoo have a disaster mitigation and recovery plan and is it published? A cursory glance on google shows none available. I haven't bothered do my own research, so by all means flame on, but does the pont of contact for the domain name still alive? All I have is Scottsdale Arizona and a phone number from whois, for all I know it could be drobbins. :P -- bret curtis -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how about the following addition to the Social Contract? headingWe will be run by the Development Community/ Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt exist -mike pgp3dlspleY6f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how about the following addition to the Social Contract? Not necessary, if something like that happens would be easy fork away =P lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how about the following addition to the Social Contract? headingWe will be run by the Development Community/ Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt exist Supposedly 80% of our stuff is hosted in one building, where would we find ourselves were this building to building to burn to the ground? Get flooded? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how about the following addition to the Social Contract? headingWe will be run by the Development Community/ Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt exist Supposedly 80% of our stuff is hosted in one building, where would we find ourselves were this building to building to burn to the ground? Get flooded? and how does writing a vague rule into our Social Contract propose to help the situation ? just because we have a rule that says our infrastructure needs to be spread out among sponsors doesnt mean sponsors are going to materialize out of nowhere to make this happen our machines live where people have been so kind as to offer space/electricity/bandwidth/etc... -mike pgpjLYRHPtRnx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:54:33 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt exist Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address would be something like this: Gentoo, for whatever reason, ends up relying upon $sponsor for, say, two thirds of its hardware. $sponsor employs a Gentoo developer who has certain political views that aren't in line with Gentoo policy. Said developer uses his influence as an employee of $sponsor to get $sponsor to say to the Council either you change policy to say blah within a month or we're going to stop sponsoring you. Now, something like that, were it to happen, would put Gentoo in a very tricky situation. The Council can't easily say no, since losing two thirds of its hardware would effectively halt development. Equally, however, it's not exactly a good idea for the Council to establish a precedent of rushing through policy changes that most people don't want because of outside pressure. *shrug* I guess that's the intention behind the proposal, anyway. If it is, I agree that Christel's wording isn't as clear as it could be... -- Ciaran McCreesh -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt exist Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address would be something like this: blow your conspiracy theories somewhere else -mike pgpfXLHvJfQBs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt exist Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address would be something like this: blow your conspiracy theories somewhere else Hm? Like I said, it was a hypothetical situation. I'm not suggesting that anything like that has ever happened, merely that Christel's idea of protecting Gentoo from that kind of thing in the future isn't a bad thing... -- Ciaran McCreesh -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt exist Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address would be something like this: blow your conspiracy theories somewhere else Hm? Like I said, it was a hypothetical situation. I'm not suggesting that anything like that has ever happened, merely that Christel's idea of protecting Gentoo from that kind of thing in the future isn't a bad thing... well, while we're protecting Gentoo from hypothetical situations that dont exist now but could in the future, we should add a clause that bans collusion with Lucifer as that would of course give us a bad rep -mike pgpSvm1symcIA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:00:00 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt exist Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address would be something like this: blow your conspiracy theories somewhere else Hm? Like I said, it was a hypothetical situation. I'm not suggesting that anything like that has ever happened, merely that Christel's idea of protecting Gentoo from that kind of thing in the future isn't a bad thing... As a lowly user, I agree. Gentoo should not put all its eggs in one basket. Dale :-) :-) :-) -- www.myspace.com/-remove-me-dalek1967
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: [Sun Mar 25 2007, 07:35:33AM CDT] Supposedly 80% of our stuff is hosted in one building, where would we find ourselves were this building to building to burn to the ground? Get flooded? Looking through http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/server-specs.xml, that 80% number doesn't seem right. Where's your number coming from? Now it is true that 100% of our CVS server (presumably our most critical resource) is located in one place (Global Netoptex, it seems), but I have a hard time seeing how that could be otherwise, given the nature of CVS. I assume that infra regularly backs up the repository to an alternative site, so disaster there would be survivable. *Shrug* From what I can tell, our resources aren't really all that localized. Incidentally, the language of the proposed change would probably prevent us from relying on freenode as our sole IRC host, since freenode would certainly count as a single vendor. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpigXWRG4cU1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 09:27 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how about the following addition to the Social Contract? headingWe will be run by the Development Community/ Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt exist Supposedly 80% of our stuff is hosted in one building, where would we find ourselves were this building to building to burn to the ground? Get flooded? and how does writing a vague rule into our Social Contract propose to help the situation ? just because we have a rule that says our infrastructure needs to be spread out among sponsors doesnt mean sponsors are going to materialize out of nowhere to make this happen our machines live where people have been so kind as to offer space/electricity/bandwidth/etc... I was simply suggesting that perhaps we need to try make sure that when we able to we try ensure that we aren't too reliant upon one single fascility. Perhaps bad wording. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Dale wrote: As a lowly user, I agree. Gentoo should not put all its eggs in one basket. Gentoo should use whichever basket could fit... -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Which of the following do you think is most likely to happen? * That Gentoo relicences everything under a proprietary licence GPL-3 you mean? * That Gentoo colludes with Lucifer Cough... * That Gentoo comes under pressure from a sponsor with an agenda Remember that several archs rely upon hardware donations from sponsors. What would happen if some of those sponsors said we'll stop giving you the kit you need unless you agree not to support $chinese_cloned_cpu? That either the former sponsor won't support you because you aren't supporting him and the $chinese_cloned_cpu manufacturer will sponsor you or you get something back from this sponsor so you can make up for the missed opportunity with the other vendor. It's pretty much that. Whoever provides the toys for us to play could ask something back, if one of the 2 parties isn't happy you can find others to play with... Obviously you may have other reasons to help one of the two parties. That proposal about the social contract won't change that. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:35:21 +0200 Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gentoo should use whichever basket could fit... Just because there is a basket that can fit all our eggs should not prevent us from looking, where possible, for other baskets that would let us distribute them more evenly. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how about the following addition to the Social Contract? headingWe will be run by the Development Community/ Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. As I understand it, Gentoo is a tax-exempt foundation registered in the state of New Mexico. As a result, there are legal restrictions on sponsorship, etc. Before modifying the Social Contract, I'd recommend consulting an attorney with expertise in such matters. The last thing Gentoo needs is major legal hassles. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P) http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how about the following addition to the Social Contract? headingWe will be run by the Development Community/ Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. As I understand it, Gentoo is a tax-exempt foundation registered in the state of New Mexico. As a result, there are legal restrictions on sponsorship, etc. Before modifying the Social Contract, I'd recommend consulting an attorney with expertise in such matters. The last thing Gentoo needs is major legal hassles. your information is dated ... Gentoo is not a tax-exempt foundation specifically so that we dont have to worry about getting screwed when a single entity decided to donate a ton of cash ... in other words, most foundations choose to be a 501(c)(3) so that donaters can have tax write offs while Gentoo is a 501(c)(1) -mike pgpP86nwAURQM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how about the following addition to the Social Contract? headingWe will be run by the Development Community/ Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the Gentoo Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5 -mike pgpE9bsjeWJhJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how about the following addition to the Social Contract? headingWe will be run by the Development Community/ Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the Gentoo Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5 And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning down or the GNi suffering flooding? :) My point was simply that I think we would be wise to research whether there is the possibility of spreading our critical infrastructure a bit better so that in the event of an Act of God or suchlike we wouldn't find ourselves losing everything to, say, water damage. I agree, adding a line to the social contract won't magically send our servers across the world and into the homes^Wdatacenters of hundreds of wonderful new sponsors. Would be nice if it did though! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the Gentoo Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5 And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning down or the GNi suffering flooding? :) it addresses ciaranm's conspiracy theory My point was simply that I think we would be wise to research whether there is the possibility of spreading our critical infrastructure a bit better so that in the event of an Act of God or suchlike we wouldn't find ourselves losing everything to, say, water damage. I agree, adding a line to the social contract won't magically send our servers across the world and into the homes^Wdatacenters of hundreds of wonderful new sponsors. Would be nice if it did though! right ... addressing this specifically can really only be done via a suggestion (please try to spread our infrastructure around the world) and by then, might as well not bother ... plus, this is kind of overkill for the Social Contract i think ... -mike pgpf99dnUmppd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:59:41 -0400 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the Gentoo Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5 And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning down or the GNi suffering flooding? :) it addresses ciaranm's conspiracy theory Like I said, it was a purely hypothetical example. You're being awfully touchy about this... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: i think this whole idea is a moot point anyways ... go visit the Gentoo Foundation web site and see Chapter 2 Section 5 And how exactly does this help us in the event of say the OSL burning down or the GNi suffering flooding? :) it addresses ciaranm's conspiracy theory Like I said, it was a purely hypothetical example. You're being awfully touchy about this... you're right, i get touchy when people throw bs onto the lists and simply waste developer time -mike pgpBt5kfQXct3.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how about the following addition to the Social Contract? headingWe will be run by the Development Community/ Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. -- I remain, Sir, your most humble and obedient servant, Christel - conventionally stuck in the 1920s signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Darn, there go Piotocorp's plans of buyout... -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
