On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 10:50:30PM +0200, Lars Seipel wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 04:10:14PM -0400, Christian Schaller wrote:
> So one thing I been thinking quite a bit about here is that for many developers
whose application could potentially be included might
> want to be able to have a non-public discussion with us on it first. There could be
many reasons for this including not wanting to create
> a public expectation of something before they finally decided upon doing it to
needing to figure out some technical or legal details before committing
I really dislike the confidential part and the reasons given for it
aren't very convincing. Why do you think this is necessary to achieve
the purpose of the 3rd party software policy as set out by the council?
[...]
Christian didn't say it was necessary in all cases, he said there are
developers for whom it might be, and clearly stated one reason why. A
process which sets up a third party developer for embarrassment or
abuse isn't a good one, especially when we're trying to build mutually
positive relationships.
--
Paul W. Frields
http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - -
http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow:
http://opensource.com