Stephen Michael Kellat wrote at 22:14 (EST) on Thursday:
Please do also disclose a summary of your sidebar discussion with
Richard Fontana as well as Claes Wallin that appears to be happening
on Identica and other federated StatusNet sites.
Stephen, since that discussion is public, I am pretty sure it's not an
HBR violation to discuss copyleft-next on identi.ca, since it's a public
forum. But I see your point (more on that below).
Meanwhile, my understanding of the identi.ca conversation is this:
* Pam Chestek got copyleft-next off GitHub, and nothing there told her
GitHub wasn't the canonical location for participation (this should
be fixed immediately, IMO. I realize the README says it, but there
should be something in big bold letters on GitHub: THIS IS A MIRROR
ONLY. DO NOT SUBMIT PULL REQUESTS AND ISSUES HERE. USE MAILING LIST
AND GITORIOUS [or whatever solution Fontana decides].
Ideally, the pull request/issue tracker should be turned off.
* Pam realized, probably after getting the checkout and seeing the
readme, that Gitorious was preferred.
* Pam couldn't submit changes via Gitorious (at that point, presumably
her tracking branches were all pointed at GitHub, which was probably
part of the problem).
* Fontana opened an issue on GitHub to collaborate with Pam on the
issue she raised.
* I theorized that this marked a distributing occurrence, since GitHub
instance of copyleft-next seemed to be active again instead of just being a
mirror. I complained heavily to Fontana about it, and Fontana
countered with what I believed were incorrect analogies to GPLv3
drafting process (i.e., I thought copyleft-next was trying to avoid
those, anyway!)
Pam and Fontana, is that summary accurate from your point of view?
I am minded at this point to ask that the folks who find the need to
use GitHub please make themselves heard on list within our primary
record of communications. The mailing list has functioned quite well
as a de facto issue tracker thus far and I do not enjoy the notion of
having to chase down discussion across multiple fora.
This is a good point. I'll try to avoid using identi.ca to discuss
copyleft-next in future.
I do agree that having to follow GitHub, identi.ca, Gitorious, and this
mailing list is annoying. While HBR doesn't prohibit it, I suggest we
all work to restrain ourselves to use *only* the mailing list and
Gitorious and nothing else for now, to avoid people having to track so
many fora.
I have *so* little time for copyleft-next, thus I really am swayed by
Stephen's point here. I had assumed that checking the git log from
Gitorious and reading mailing list traffic would be adequate any time I
had a moment to check in with copyleft-next. If that's not true:
because of use of GitHub, identi.ca, or any other fora being used, we
may want to nip it -- not because it's an HBR violation or even because
one of those solutions is proprietary (identi.ca isn't after all), but
because it makes it difficult to follow a conversation across so many
fora.
I hadn't realized how big of a problem that is for people who have
limited time for the project until Stephen raised it. Thanks for
raising that point.
--
-- bkuhn