Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 17:00:06 +0200
From: Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>
To: Chloe Kudryavtsev <toast@toastin.space>
Cc: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] [RFC] New Governance Model
Message-ID: <20190411170006.6de52951@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
In-Reply-To: <144bcb8f-66fe-29ad-f18d-bc90779bdfa7@toastin.space>
References: <2a54dd89-9204-644f-6273-e5505d490e05@toastin.space>
	<20190410143631.7740d688@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
	<d58b4a47-c6bf-e122-d02a-edc741271365@toastin.space>
	<20190411143119.644e3407@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
	<144bcb8f-66fe-29ad-f18d-bc90779bdfa7@toastin.space>
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 10:25:21 -0400
Chloe Kudryavtsev <toast@toastin.space> 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?

-nc


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---