| 1 |
On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Also, you are at least a developer of PMS, if not the lead. If PMS is |
| 3 |
> > an official Gentoo project, then since when can official Gentoo |
| 4 |
> > projects have "non-dev" devs? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> How many non-developers contribute to the tree? How many non-developers |
| 7 |
> have submitted patches for Portage or eselect? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
It's one thing to make a contribution or submit a patch - it's quite |
| 10 |
another to be actively and very significantly involved in a key |
| 11 |
technical project that is supposedly defining an interoperability spec |
| 12 |
for the key distinguishing feature of Gentoo, namely Portage. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Right now, you're effectively doing an end-run around the entire |
| 15 |
Gentoo management structure. Fortunately for you, it doesn't look like |
| 16 |
anyone cares. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Really, I find this weird and ambiguous and you should probably be |
| 19 |
reinstated as a dev or be bumped off of PMS, which should be managed |
| 20 |
by Gentoo developers only. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Again, so far as I'm aware, the only non-tree copyright assignment that |
| 23 |
> was a requirement was for developers who signed the long-abolished |
| 24 |
> hideous legal document. If there are requirements to the contrary that |
| 25 |
> I've missed then I'd like to see them -- as the main copyright holder |
| 26 |
> for at least one official Gentoo project, this is something that is |
| 27 |
> extremely relevant to me. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I'm also very interested to find out about this. I would be |
| 30 |
disappointed to find that the Foundation has chosen to not fulfill or |
| 31 |
neglect one of the key purposes for which it was created. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-Daniel |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives