Speakup in kernel

[Janina Sajka]

Michael K. Johnson writes:
> From: "Michael K. Johnson" <johnsonm at redhat.com>
> 
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 03:34:29PM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > But, you said "multiple issues, including security." What else, please?
> > With documentation, please.
> 
> You've seen Alan's list by now.

And the email with Kirk Reiser.
> 
> But what part of "we are tracking upstream" and "submit it upstream"
> is hard to understand?  Fedora Core is not a place to put software
> that YOU DO NOT THINK IS READY FOR UPSTREAM.  Period.

t's helpful to see Alan's list. But, it's very disturbing to note that
it's only partly technical. It's also disturbing to have to fight to get
explanations. No one forced Red Hat to put Speakup into 8.0. So, what do
you expect us to say about what happened with Speakup at Red Hat when we
go upstream? At least those answers are now pretty much at hand, even if
they're not all very technical.

> 
> Really, if you think that it's not good enough for upstream but
> is good enough for the FC kernel, what does that say about your
> opinion of the FC kernel?  Pretty poor.

Just thought you'd like to be a leader, not a follower. After all, you
did put it in 8.0.

> 
> >Put up, Michael.
> 
> I've got a lot of goals.  And, if your memory isn't horribly short,
> you may remember me jumping in on a random piece of code outside
> my area of expertise to help enable blind use, for which you thanked
> me at the time.

Still do. It was a trivial, yet extremely important patch to our
constituency.

Do you also recall telling me it was inadequately documented? Am I out
of line expecting the same standard of excellence from Red Hat?


> You may not remember that I was the one who got the
> original blinux-list set up.

Newt is important, and Speakup is important. Brltty is important. Doing
something to make the emacspeak you ship actually work would be
important. But, in the sceme of things, setting up a list serve is not a
big deal. It was very nice of you, but it's not in the same league with
these other issues. Not even close.


> I'm not some anti-disabled bigot here,
> and I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off the rhetoric.  (If you don't,
> I can find a place in my .procmailrc for you, frankly.)
> 
> It is my responsibility to balance many competing demands.  The
> rules I have come up with to balance those demands are the result
> of experience, and the upstream rule is one such rule.

It's a good yardstick. But, for the last time, I'm not the one who
decided to put Speakup into 8.0. If that was a mistake, as you've said
it was, please recognize that making such "mistakes" creates spillover
that's problematic for the cause of accessibility. It's seems the
Mozilla email I shared with you is one such. Holding your feet to the
fire for credible explanations of why you also pulled it is, therefore,
not out of line. If those explanations stray into the unfortunate
nontechnical, that's also not my doing. But it is my professional
responsibility to point out what's wrong, as well as what's right, about
your decisioning regarding accessibility.


> 
> michaelkjohnson
> 
>  "He that composes himself is wiser than he that composes a book."
>  Linux Application Development                     -- Ben Franklin
>  http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad/
> 
> 
> --
> fedora-test-list mailing list
> fedora-test-list at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

-- 
	
Janina Sajka
Email: janina at rednote.net		
Phone: (202) 408-8175

Director, Technology Research and Development
American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
http://www.afb.org

Chair, Accessibility Work Group
Free Standards Group
http://accessibility.freestandards.org