Here are some highlights:
* "Improved geocoding in CiviCRM", by Eileen McNaughton:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/06/05/improved-geocoding-in-civicrm/
* "Thank you week-end thread", with posts by hashar (
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2018-June/090126.html) and
legoktm (
Here's my 2 cents.
License is one example for me, if you are using gerrit and all of WMF
infrastructure (from jenkins to translatewiki integration) you have to
publish your code with at least one OSI-approved license. You can't say
"All rights reserved" and still use all the benefits that came
I think there's a lot of misunderstanding on this whole thing.
The issue pointed out was that the CoC makes a false feeling of protection
by being in extensions that are developed outside WMF's technical spaces.
That is if I had an issue with an extension's maintainer WMF would refuse
to help as
Taking a step back here...
I agree with you in principle...but
Shared spaces imply that occasionally disputes are going to arise as to
what belongs in a repo. If we dont have a fair method of resolving such
disputes (/my way or the highway/ is not fair), then this model is not
going to work.
--
I'd just like to apologize for dragging the other thread into this one and
being overly personal and failing to assume good faith.
That was a failing on my part, and not good practice.
Please if you respond further to this thread, treat only the narrow issue
of ownership / maintainership
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
Thank you for starting this thread :)
On 06/08/2018 12:03 PM, Antoine Musso wrote:
> Marco Aurelio, who has been dramatically helping to archive a few
> outdated/no more working extensions. The workflow is nice, makes
> sure nothing get
And that's fine and good and should continue, but doesn't mean it's a
shared ownership model. As I was saying before with the analogy, global
users make uncontroversial edits using their rights but aren't supposed to
use their global rights to involve themselves in controversies.
On 9 June 2018
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
CoC.md business aside, I agree with the main thing you've said.
Specifically:
On 06/09/2018 08:58 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> I think we should though clarify that code repositories on gerrit
> and diffusion are not owned by any one person, but
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:55 AM Isarra Yos wrote:
> Perhaps I was too subtle the last time I hinted at this: this is toxic.
> What you and others are doing misrepresenting what others are saying,
> the general heavy-handedness, the implications that anyone against a
> specific aspect of
On 09/06/18 17:30, Brion Vibber wrote:
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:21 AM Alex Monk wrote:
For example where you said "IMHO specifically because some people are
trying to avoid being bound by it or protesting its existence by looking
for loopholes to avoid it", which is not at all what that
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:21 AM Alex Monk wrote:
> On 9 June 2018 at 18:14, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:00 AM Alex Monk wrote:
> >
> > > This is outrageous. Not only are you blatantly misrepresenting what
> > various
> > > people are saying in the other thread and their
On 9 June 2018 at 18:14, Brion Vibber wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:00 AM Alex Monk wrote:
>
> > This is outrageous. Not only are you blatantly misrepresenting what
> various
> > people are saying in the other thread and their intentions,
>
>
> Perhaps. I've tried to go by the plain
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:00 AM Alex Monk wrote:
> This is outrageous. Not only are you blatantly misrepresenting what various
> people are saying in the other thread and their intentions,
Perhaps. I've tried to go by the plain readings of position statements and
I could have made a mistake?
This is outrageous. Not only are you blatantly misrepresenting what various
people are saying in the other thread and their intentions, you are now
suggesting that repository owners do not in fact get to decide what goes in
their repository and what does not, as if this has been the case all
Recent threads have demonstrated there seems to be some disconnect about
what is expected about maintainership and ownership of repositories.
This has spilled over into talk about the code of conduct, IMHO
specifically because some people are trying to avoid being bound by it or
protesting its
Let me say I am very much surprised on this whole debate. We call these in
Hungary "storm in a glass of water".
Please step back all for a moment and try to look at the whole stuff from a
broader view.
We have a very first world problem, to write and discuss and enforce codes
of conduct, and
16 matches
Mail list logo
