1 |
Peter Stuge posted on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 05:19:01 +0200 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Rich Freeman wrote: |
4 |
|
5 |
>> [Peter Stuge posted...] |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>> Everything in the Gentoo project is per definition strictly |
8 |
>>> developer-only. I suppose that it's a function of having the project |
9 |
>>> centered around a foundation. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> I can't think of any reason that the Foundation would have anything to |
12 |
>> do with who can and cannot participate in anything related to Gentoo. |
13 |
|
14 |
Good catch. I was confused by that wording as well, but thought of |
15 |
"foundation" in the sense of (physical) underlying superstructure as |
16 |
opposed to (social/legal) organization, because "Gentoo Foundation" in |
17 |
the social/legal sense, for those knowing about it at all, indeed doesn't |
18 |
make sense here. But it's good to put an end to that speculation |
19 |
directly, since otherwise it's likely spread further confusion in the |
20 |
future. |
21 |
|
22 |
> The reason I had in mind is indeed the all-or-nothing security model for |
23 |
> the publications (ebuilds is what I had in mind, I should have written |
24 |
> "Everything I know in the Gentoo project...", sorry about that!) where |
25 |
> even Copyright seems to have to be assigned to the foundation. |
26 |
|
27 |
That has actually been debated here from time to time, and the general |
28 |
agreement seems to be that assigning copyright to the Gentoo Foundation |
29 |
is recommended (for various reasons), but specifically *NOT* required, in |
30 |
part because some gentoo devs (Greg KH was one who specifically stated |
31 |
he'd probably have to resign from being a gentoo dev in that case, I'd |
32 |
guess due to the work-for-hire clauses in his employment contract which |
33 |
allow him to contribute to FLOSS projects but NOT to surrender copyright, |
34 |
which as a work-for-hire, remains with his employer) would very likely be |
35 |
unable to participate were that the case. |
36 |
|
37 |
While there's also ethical arguments to be made on either side, the |
38 |
practical effect of triggering the resignation of multiple gentoo devs |
39 |
were copyright assignment forced, basically put an end to the discussion. |
40 |
|
41 |
>> Gentoo projects have involved non-developers from time to time. The |
42 |
>> documentation project even gives commit access to non-developers, |
43 |
> |
44 |
> Awesome! I'm really glad that I was wrong about that - but at the same |
45 |
> time documentation tends to serve a bootstrapping function, |
46 |
> and thus matter less over time. |
47 |
|
48 |
[The actual reason I bothered replying as it's core to the debate at |
49 |
hand.] |
50 |
|
51 |
It's worth noting that one of the big reasons projects use overlays is to |
52 |
allow non-devs more, in some cases basically full, access. As covered |
53 |
below that's simply not practical in the main tree, but under the |
54 |
relatively narrower confines and tighter direct supervision of a project |
55 |
overlay, active project users very often work hand in hand with full |
56 |
gentoo devs as effective co-equals in the project overlay. Of course |
57 |
users do have to have a bit of history with the project before they gain |
58 |
that level of trust, but once they get it, they may well get full access |
59 |
to the overlay, with the only differences between what they can do and |
60 |
what a full dev can do being that a dev can transfer to the main tree, |
61 |
and of course also that if there ever /were/ a disagreement that got to |
62 |
the point of "me or him", the dev would most likely win, but of course |
63 |
everyone knows that so in practice it doesn't tend to get to that point. |
64 |
|
65 |
However, project overlays are entirely under the control of that project, |
66 |
which means it's up to them what the rules are. Projects such as kde |
67 |
(the one I'm most familiar with in that regard, but there are others) |
68 |
really depend quite heavily on the work of trusted users who really do a |
69 |
lot of the actual grunt work in the overlay, while others are I believe |
70 |
gentoo-dev-only. |
71 |
|
72 |
So it ends up being a project decision. If the devs in the games project |
73 |
aren't comfortable with user write access, their overlay, their rules, |
74 |
and it won't happen. If they are, their overlay, their rules, and it |
75 |
will. |
76 |
|
77 |
Which is what this whole thread is about. Apparently the games project |
78 |
devs aren't comfortable with user access, at least not enough to make the |
79 |
existing user-controlled overlay a viable official project overlay, so if |
80 |
they want an overlay, they will need to create a new one. Perhaps at |
81 |
some point they'll /get/ comfortable with having trusted user access and |
82 |
gamerlay might tighten up access a bit so they can merge, but at this |
83 |
point, a new, seperate devs-only overlay seems to be what they have in |
84 |
mind, and as they'll be making the decisions, that's very likely what |
85 |
they'll get. |
86 |
|
87 |
>> The way our current portage tree is set up basically forces us into an |
88 |
>> all-or-nothing security model for commit access - we don't have layers |
89 |
>> of integration testing to protect users from errors or abuses. |
90 |
>> |
91 |
>> Proxy maintainership is one way around this. |
92 |
|
93 |
-- |
94 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
95 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
96 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |