[copyleft-next] [MERGE REQUEST] HBR should require the project stands up for software freedom of those who contribute to it

Bradley M. Kuhn bkuhn at ebb.org
Fri Feb 8 13:36:42 UTC 2013


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.
-- 
   -- bkuhn


More information about the copyleft-next mailing list