[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