4 ms·
The mailing list doesn't seem to make it out into such a controversial issue. It's an optional field that doesn't require a real birthday.
by withinboredom 6mo ago
The mailing list doesn't seem to make it out into such a controversial issue. It's an optional field that doesn't require a real birthday.
- righthand 6mo agoThe issue isn’t the field but how the governance system for critical software is non-existant.
- uecker 6mo agoIt also has to be considered in light of the fact that Lennart builds a company for "cryptographically verifiable integrity on Linux".
- withinboredom 6mo agoBecause someone added a new user field? Does that need governance?
- righthand 6mo agoWhen your software is the core piece of tech in almost all mainline Linux distros, yes it does require governance. However you may like someone being an authoritarian regardless of the “it’s only a user field no big deal” view and the next thing they change without governance for everyone you will be fine with also, even if you disagree. Again it’s not about the field.
- withinboredom 6mo agoIf this is the “straw that broke the camel’s back” as they say… it seems it is more about the field than anything else. It’s a strange hill to die on… there are much larger changes happening on a daily basis… or is this like a bike shedding effect, where it’s such a small trivial and pointless change that it is worth fighting over? Something everyone can understand. I dunno. The only reason I’m even on the mailing list was to report a bug several years ago…
- righthand 6mo agoI think it’s about raising visibility of an issue. What type of code change the issue is tied to is irrelevant. However it helps that the code change has some already existing political momentum. What other arguments are we going to try and whittle the governance issue down to “its just the code change who cares!”?