| 1 |
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 09:27 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 25 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 04:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Saturday 24 March 2007, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > It looks like our social contract doesn't prohibit Gentoo from being |
| 6 |
> > > > dependent upon a single sponsor or corporation. In the interests of |
| 7 |
> > > > keeping Gentoo run by the developers rather than any outside party, how |
| 8 |
> > > > about the following addition to the Social Contract? |
| 9 |
> > > > |
| 10 |
> > > > <heading>We will be run by the Development Community</> |
| 11 |
> > > > Gentoo will be run by the development community. We will never allow |
| 12 |
> > > > ourselves to be reliant upon a single sponsor or corporation. |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording is |
| 15 |
> > > way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to spout long |
| 16 |
> > > winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue that doesnt |
| 17 |
> > > exist |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > Supposedly >80% of our stuff is hosted in one building, where would we |
| 20 |
> > find ourselves were this building to building to burn to the ground? Get |
| 21 |
> > flooded? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> and how does writing a vague rule into our Social Contract propose to help the |
| 24 |
> situation ? just because we have a rule that says our infrastructure needs |
| 25 |
> to be spread out among sponsors doesnt mean sponsors are going to materialize |
| 26 |
> out of nowhere to make this happen |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> our machines live where people have been so kind as to offer |
| 29 |
> space/electricity/bandwidth/etc... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I was simply suggesting that perhaps we need to try make sure that when |
| 32 |
we able to we try ensure that we aren't too reliant upon one single |
| 33 |
fascility. Perhaps bad wording. |
Archives