Mail archive

Re: [alpine-devel] [RFC] New Governance Model

From: Natanael Copa <>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 17:00:06 +0200

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 10:25:21 -0400
Chloe Kudryavtsev <> wrote:

> On 4/11/2019 8:31 AM, Natanael Copa wrote:
> > Just because they have been entrusted authority and power does not mean
> > they own it. They can not own the community members or people and they
> > legally don't own the code contributions unless the authors of those
> > explicitly says so (like they do with Gentoo).
> >
> > So using the word "own" can be and has already been misunderstood, and
> > in my opinion does not describe what we are after. And in worst case
> > can be abused (3 years in future: "Hey we own the code so we make it
> > closed source now. The developer doc clearly states that we own this
> > project, which includes the code. You should have thought of that before
> > you sent the patches...")
> >
> > I do agree that they need to been given the needed power, and I
> > understand what you mean. I just think we should use different words for
> > it to avoid confusion.
> Okay, that makes sense to me.
> We should thus reword it as something like so:
> "Base is the ultimate authority, and the rest of the project structure
> exists [...]"
> Would that be acceptable?

Would be better at least.
> RE: patch ownership...

lets keep that discussion separated from this. Preferable at a
different time.

> > If the community is not ready for enforced rotation. What are the
> > options? Or is forced rotation the only way to solve this?
> >
> >> It has a lot of advantages, and very few disadvantages, so I'd like to
> >> keep it.
> >
> > What are the disadvantages?
> I think I went over it in detail in my other email (which I had
> forgotten to CC at you, so please do still take a look).
> The summary of the disadvantages of not rotating:

No, I meant: what are those very few disadvantages of forced rotation?


Received on Thu Apr 11 2019 - 17:00:06 UTC