4 ms·
They're discussing this on a public forum, but only sharing screenshots of small sections of PDFs which remain private. The CLAs are the governing documents her
by cormacrelf 5y ago
They're discussing this on a public forum, but only sharing screenshots of small sections of PDFs which remain private. The CLAs are the governing documents here, and nobody except the people who have access to those agreements in full have any business even forming an opinion as to what rights are held by whom. Posting selected parts (literally just the definitions section, the non operative part!) for public point-scoring is pretty ridiculous. Either shut up and email them privately, or post the entire thing so people can see what you've signed up for.
(The outdated copy of the agreement that's available online is not good enough.)
- cdogl 5y agoI'm sympathetic to this argument, but the fact that the blog posts, discussions, tweet threads etc. under issue are publicly viewable (that's the web!) doesn't imply an obligation that members of the debate perform for the public as if it were a political debate or a court room. I suspect that the intended audience of posts by aggrieved maintainers is other maintainers in the community. Oughtn't they be able to communicate and organise without putting their communications under lock and key? Here we are now discussing it privately on HN and GitHub as we're a bunch of busy-bodies, but I am not necessarily prepared to blame the maintainers for that.
- cormacrelf 5y agoSomeone here claims that DNF has forced all comms onto the public forums, and if that’s the case I think you’re right.