[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Which of the following do you think is most likely to happen? and which of the following do you think is most likely to happen ? * Ridiculous scenario #1 * Ridiculous scenario #2 * Spin of recent events to look like a conspiracy obviously the last one is most likely since the other two are clearly ridiculous ... perhaps we should have each dev out there contribute tuples of scenarios and then we can write up rules that clearly lay down the law for the most likely of each group 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? i dont need to be reminded, i have plenty of hardware donations laying around me which i utilize quite often we write up rules for things that are actual problems, not hypothetical scenarios that random people dream up if you cant logically balance common sense, then you dont deserve to be a developer ... obviously you would tell sponsor who is attempting to blackmail you that they can blow it out their rectum -mike pgprF3vt9aVAx.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:16:13 -0400: 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 Umm... let's not go where this seems to be heading... -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract
I'd like to ask what are the negative side-effects of adding such paragraph. Are there any true negative side-effects to a specification like that? A different topic is the way the paragraph is written. If we don't like how it is written, we can change it and problem solved. To be honest, protecting ourselves from things that now seem improbable, isn't such a bad idea. On 3/25/07, Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:16:13 -0400: 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 Umm... let's not go where this seems to be heading... -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- Ioannis Aslanidis deathwing00[at]gentoo.org 0xB9B11F4E -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract
I'd like to ask what are the negative side-effects of adding such paragraph. Are there any true negative side-effects to a specification like that? A different topic is the way the paragraph is written. If we don't like how it is written, we can change it and problem solved. To be honest, protecting ourselves from things that now seem improbable, isn't such a bad idea. At best, we can only make some sort of effort to meet it. Enforcing something like 'not relying on one vendor' requires basically either money from us or good will from others. It's not like we can co-locate our machines whereever we want or use any software that we wish or use as much bandwidth as we wish. The OSL and GNi and Indiana State University have been kind enough to host many of our machines. I don't think anyone claims it's easy (except maybe patrick) to find new hosting providers or new machines. We have new machines coming; I have no idea where they are being hosted. I assume Infra isn't dumb enough to put all our machines in one place, I trust them to make intelligent choices about our Infrastructure, thats why they exist. -Alec -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On Sunday 25 March 2007, Ioannis Aslanidis wrote: I'd like to ask what are the negative side-effects of adding such paragraph. Are there any true negative side-effects to a specification like that? A different topic is the way the paragraph is written. If we don't like how it is written, we can change it and problem solved. it isnt a different topic because as pointed out, it's very easy to skew the meaning to apply to anything and then screw ourselves there's also the matter that if some more sponsors were to drop us, we'd then have to worry about our infrastructure being evenly spaced out among the remaining sponsors ... and then we could run into situations where sponsors offered more resources and we were forced to say no because our social contract was too restrictive considering the pita this adds to address an issue that doesnt exist, seems like a no brainer to me: dont do it To be honest, protecting ourselves from things that now seem improbable, isn't such a bad idea. and where exactly do you stop ? -mike pgpywoh95McdB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposed addition to the Social Contract
On 3/25/07, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To be honest, protecting ourselves from things that now seem improbable, isn't such a bad idea. and where exactly do you stop ? -mike That's a good question, but I am not appropriate to answer to that yet. :) -- Ioannis Aslanidis deathwing00[at]gentoo.org 0xB9B11F4E -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: 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. Er personally I think it's a nice mission statement, but it doesn't have much meaning, and consequently little place in a `Social Contract'. After all, Gentoo _is_ run by the devs, and I don't actually see how that could change. Any corporation would firstly be mad to try and take it over since the devs wouldn't have it. They don't even accept the authority of people they voted for ;) Additionally, the consequent negative publicity would be a PR nightmare; imagine the blog entries and the malevolence they'd unleash! As for getting into a situation of over-reliance, that's a good stance to take, as an objective- not a statement of fact. Again, I don't think the Council would let it get to that. Maybe it would be useful as one of your objectives tho'. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
