Proposed F19 Feature: systemd features

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 02/02/2013 08:41 AM, Michael Scherer wrote:
> Le samedi 02 février 2013 à 06:29 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" a
> écrit :
>> On 02/02/2013 02:39 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> Am 02.02.2013 03:08, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
>>>> When I meet a maintainer in the project that stated to me "I have to talk to my manager first" before upgrading his
>>>> "component" that rings alarm bells to me, That gives me the feel that they are maintaining their components as a
>>>> part of their job not because they want to scratch an itch and want to!
>>> jesus christ be gladful that companies like red hat are
>>> paying people for development of free software and if
>>> someone get paied for a job soemtimes he has to speak
>>> with his managers
>> It's not like RH gives other company's the alternative to sponsor the
>> project now does it....
> Depend on what you mean by "sponsorship". If that's :
> "paying someone to work on it", there is. See people from puppetlabs,
> for the easiest to find example
>
> If that's :
> "paying for infrastructure", there is too. There is the mirrors, there
> is the servers, check the details with fedora-infrastructure, as I do
> not have the details right there.

You even cant do that.

> Now, there is some areas where this could be more open such as security
> and legal, but that's highly sensitive topics due to the confidential
> nature of some of the work ( ie, not so easy to open ). And unless
> someone volunteer to do anything first, we will not be able to open more
> ( and trust me, just opening is not enough, you have to fix the process
> as people try to integrate, or that's just useless ).
>
> Now, if you have a suggestion on who want to sponsor fedora and why they
> couldn't, I would gladly discuss and try to see what could be improved.

Trademark issues "Fedora" is trademarked and owned by FH

>>>> I dont know about your parts but I grew up in environment where slavery is not accepted
>>> your definition of "slavery" is completly broken
>> If an RH employee is maintainer is maintaining a component in the
>> distribution and doing so because it's an part of his job but not
>> because he want's to I call that slavery especially when he has to go to
>> his manager to ask him if he is allowed to "upgrade" the component it to
>> it's latest release.
> You can call it slavery as much as you want, that doesn't mean it is.
> Cf wikipedia : "
> "Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be
> bought and sold, and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against
> their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and
> deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand
> compensation."
>
> Comparing someone asking for advice for whatever reason to slavery is
> insult to those that died and still die today in much more horrible
> conditions that "sending a email to someone to see if that's ok".

For that I apologies since I took slavery as forcing individual to do 
something he wanted not to do,

>> Yes first hand I have experienced an RH employee
>> that has said I need to speak to my manager before he could upgrade the
>> component he was maintaining to the latest release and to me that's
>> pretty fucking alarming....
> Maybe the employee was just too shy or just wanted to check with someone
> with more experience about the distro ( or someone with a broader view
> ). Or maybe the employee just didn't know he could do it, or the impact,
> not all people working on RH are experienced packagers. Without any
> specific, your example are just unusable to anything but speculation.

I cant reveal who it was without him being put in awkward situation

>
> We try to assume good faith in each others communication, and I hope you
> do as well.

No based on experience it has turned quite the opposed path for me. I 
assume the worst in people and procedures that way I no longer get 
disappointed.

JBG