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

Pamela Chestek pchestek at gmail.com
Fri Feb 8 14:13:47 UTC 2013


The summary is accurate from my viewpoint. I knew months ago that Richard
had put the repository on Github, but the knowledge was old and I didn't
realize bad. So after FOSDEM I went straight to Github. It would have taken
really big red flags for me to wake up and realize that I was in the wrong
place. I ultimately figured it out because of the reference to Gitorious in
the license itself.

I was wrong in my dent when I said I downloaded from Github; I didn't, I
edited right on Github. Upon realizing my error, I then dutifully
downloaded from Gitorious and started over. As explained when I submitted
to Github, the problem was that I couldn't figure out how to get the
changes from my computer to Gitorious to ask for a merge, and I also
suspect I probably also have it all configured wrong on my computer anyway.
At that point I just gave up. I figured it was going to take me yet several
more hours to figure it out, and while I considered it a worthwhile effort,
I didn't have that time at the moment and wanted to wrap up my task and
provide feedback after FOSDEM in a timely manner. Therefore the fateful
decision to submit on Github.


Pam


On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn at ebb.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> copyleft-next mailing list
> copyleft-next at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/attachments/20130208/76269969/attachment.html>


More information about the copyleft-next mailing list