[Edited and reposted to adhere to guidelines]
On 16/01/20 12:27 am, Jean Louis wrote:
> Why don't you talk to Dr. Stallman?
I trust he is involved in the conversation. Maybe not here but
definitely through the FSF since I gather one of the questions in these
threads is what FSF's role is in all
Hi Mike,
On Wed, 2020-01-15 at 02:20 -0500, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 01:05:02 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > This was indeed what I meant. More specifically I said "GNU
> > maintainers serve at the pleasure of the FSF" because that is what I
> > really believe. I certainly
Should I guess add that that as a GNU maintainer you also have a
responsibility towards the GNU project, to apply its policies, and
decisions. To wit,
Being a package maintainer is a relationship between you personally
and the GNU Project. The maintainer or maintainers are the ones who
Hi Andreas,
On Wed, 2020-01-15 at 11:32 +0100, Andreas R. wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:56:16AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 04:24:44AM -0500, Dora Scilipoti wrote:
> > > > Since Brandon was delegated by the FSF president to
> > > > appoint new (co-)maintainers
At pleasure has a negative connotation in English, meaning that you do
the bidding of someone else. This is simply not true in the
relationship between the FSF and the GNU project, and has never been
the csae.
So what you say is a gross misinterpretation, the FSF does not dictate
anything
Hi Siddhesh,
On Wed, 2020-01-15 at 23:19 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> I continue to express support for a more open governance model
> with the understanding that it probably means nothing since I
> am not a GNU maintainer.
Of course it means something! You are the glibc release manager.
Just because you are a GNU maintainer, does not mean that you are part
of any governance structure of the GNU project. In general, the GNU
project favors _less_ maintainers, because multiple ones makes it a
hassle to discuss matters of importance and take decisions -- this can
specifically be
On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 18:33 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Siddhesh,
>
> On Wed, 2020-01-15 at 23:19 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > I continue to express support for a more open governance model
> > with the understanding that it probably means nothing since I
> > am not a GNU maintainer.
RMS has already drafted a single document over how the GNU project
works, and what various entites exist, and how it is governed. So
your comments would be far better suited on the internal lists, since
that is where such discussions will happen, not here.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 20:38:03 -0500, nylxs wrote:
> It is the only thing that is productive.
No, it is not productive. You have caused a significant moderation
burden. For someone trying to stick up for GNU, you're doing a poor job
of working with us. As I've said many times, I oppose
On 1/16/20 12:03 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> I simply mean that practically the FSF has the ultimate authority
> over the GNU project
No, it does not.
On 16/01/20 11:03 pm, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Of course it means something! You are the glibc release manager.
> Responsible for the next version of the core of the GNU system. Herding
> 50+ hackers, making sure they behave and keep to the agreed upon
> schedule and features. We just haven't
On 17/01/20 2:32 am, Brandon Invergo wrote:
> We have started to recognize people as having release-upload rights, even if
> they aren't formal maintainers (this is really fairly recent and so far has
> been
> handled on a case-by-case basis). Siddhesh, if this applies to you in your
> current
On 16/01/20 11:34 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Just because you are a GNU maintainer, does not mean that you are part
> of any governance structure of the GNU project. In general, the GNU
> project favors _less_ maintainers, because multiple ones makes it a
> hassle to discuss matters of
On 16/01/20 11:39 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Should I guess add that that as a GNU maintainer you also have a
> responsibility towards the GNU project, to apply its policies, and
> decisions. To wit,
Of course, which is why even though I was once excited at the prospect
of being an FSF
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:23:26 -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> So while they provide infrastructure, and legal advice, etc, it is for
> our needs. They do not do any type of oversight, or anything similar
> that we follow the software freedom mission. That falls on the
> responsibility of the
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 22:39:18 -0500, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 20:38:03 -0500, nylxs wrote:
>> It is the only thing that is productive.
>
> No, it is not productive. You have caused a significant moderation
> burden. For someone trying to stick up for GNU, you're doing a
17 matches
Mail list logo
