Openness: Apache as a guiding model (was Re: GFS removed??? )
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Thu Mar 17 19:12:35 UTC 2005
For one I fail to see any connection of the issues at hand (GFS kernel
modules) with extras, so forcing people to contribute to extras just
because they want to contribute to FC/RHEL seems to be very wrong.
Furthermore your definition of "openness" would even apply to the US
Sorry for top posting, your mails are just too long.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:42:35PM -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:02:49 +0100, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net> wrote:
> > So that's why the list is closed and important content is moving
> > there.
> I think you and I have very different definitions of closed. Putting
> the semantics of open/closed terminology aside for a minute.. I don't
> think its irrational to expect people who are actively contributing to
> Extras to have a prominent say in how the policies of Extras are
> implemented. There is a way for you to become a part of that peer
> group, and have a seat at the table. If you don't desire to be a
> contributor , that's understandable. But you have to realize that if
> you choose not to become one you most likely have less impact on how
> the system evolves as decisions are being made.
> Back to the issue of
> Would you call Apache's organizational structure closed?
> Apache Foundation has several mailinglists that are committer only:
> Several of those Foundation lists.. aren't even publicly accessible
> for review. And yet I would call Apache an open, collaborative,
> community process.. which is exactly what Apache calls themselves. If
> you feel Apache isn't an open process either... fine.. "open" is
> rather open to intepretation. Just be aware that what's going inside
> Fedora is not out-of-step with how Apache organizes things and
> calibrate your indignation accordingly. In Apache's model a committer
> is nearly the same as what an Extras contributor is defined to be
> right now:
> And Apache's "Foundation Community Mailing List" seems very much like
> the Fedora's "fedora-maintainers" list to me. Committer equivalent
> level access.. with a public archive for review.
> You are free to continue to stand outside the process, if becoming a
> maintainer isn't something you desire, but please let's dial down the
> sensationalized language about open versus closed like its a black and
> white issue.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20050317/7e9d523c/attachment-0002.bin
More information about the devel