Stephen Michael Kellat wrote at 22:14 (EST) on Thursday:
Please do also disclose a summary of your sidebar discussion with Richard Fontana as well as Claes Wallin that appears to be happening on Identica and other federated StatusNet sites.
Stephen, since that discussion is public, I am pretty sure it's not an HBR violation to discuss copyleft-next on identi.ca, since it's a public forum. But I see your point (more on that below).
Meanwhile, my understanding of the identi.ca conversation is this:
* Pam Chestek got copyleft-next off GitHub, and nothing there told her GitHub wasn't the canonical location for participation (this should be fixed immediately, IMO. I realize the README says it, but there should be something in big bold letters on GitHub: THIS IS A MIRROR ONLY. DO NOT SUBMIT PULL REQUESTS AND ISSUES HERE. USE MAILING LIST AND GITORIOUS [or whatever solution Fontana decides]. Ideally, the pull request/issue tracker should be turned off.
* Pam realized, probably after getting the checkout and seeing the readme, that Gitorious was preferred.
* Pam couldn't submit changes via Gitorious (at that point, presumably her tracking branches were all pointed at GitHub, which was probably part of the problem).
* Fontana opened an issue on GitHub to collaborate with Pam on the issue she raised.
* I theorized that this marked a distributing occurrence, since GitHub instance of copyleft-next seemed to be active again instead of just being a mirror. I complained heavily to Fontana about it, and Fontana countered with what I believed were incorrect analogies to GPLv3 drafting process (i.e., I thought copyleft-next was trying to avoid those, anyway!)
Pam and Fontana, is that summary accurate from your point of view?
I am minded at this point to ask that the folks who find the need to use GitHub please make themselves heard on list within our primary record of communications. The mailing list has functioned quite well as a de facto issue tracker thus far and I do not enjoy the notion of having to chase down discussion across multiple fora.
This is a good point. I'll try to avoid using identi.ca to discuss copyleft-next in future.
I do agree that having to follow GitHub, identi.ca, Gitorious, and this mailing list is annoying. While HBR doesn't prohibit it, I suggest we all work to restrain ourselves to use *only* the mailing list and Gitorious and nothing else for now, to avoid people having to track so many fora.
I have *so* little time for copyleft-next, thus I really am swayed by Stephen's point here. I had assumed that checking the git log from Gitorious and reading mailing list traffic would be adequate any time I had a moment to check in with copyleft-next. If that's not true: because of use of GitHub, identi.ca, or any other fora being used, we may want to nip it -- not because it's an HBR violation or even because one of those solutions is proprietary (identi.ca isn't after all), but because it makes it difficult to follow a conversation across so many fora.
I hadn't realized how big of a problem that is for people who have limited time for the project until Stephen raised it. Thanks for raising that point.