Re: [gentoo-project] Questions for Gentoo Council nominees: GLEP 76

[Patrick Lauer]

On 6/30/19 9:42 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-06-30 at 09:11 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> On 6/15/19 11:49 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 12:42:20 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>>> Hi all!
>>>>
>>>> Last year we had a good initiative: it addition to (or even instead
>>>> of) manifests nominees were asked questions by voters. So let's
>>>> continue this year.
>>>>
>>>> I propose to have one question per thread spawned by this e-mail to
>>>> keep discussion focused. If you have multiple questions, please
>>>> start multiple threads. If your question was already asked, please
>>>> join a thread.
>>>>
>>>> I'll ask my questions in subsequent e-mails.
>>>
>>> In my opinion GLEP 76 is the most controversial decision made by
>>> running council. While it fixed some long standing issues like
>>> copyright headers and proper acknowledgement of out of the tree
>>> contributors, it created grave problems: now some long-time
>>> contributors and even developer are seriously discriminated because
>>> they want to keep their privacy.
>>>
>>> What is your opinion on this problem?
>>
>> I think everyone involved in the discussion meant well, but different
>> cultural starting points (e.g. different ideas about what copyright
>> means), trying to find a compromise, not being experienced with legal
>> language/concepts (or even legal concepts not translating well between
>> languages) etc.etc. conspired to make this a very weirdly shaped thing
>> that imo doesn't do what people think it does.
>>
>> I mostly ignored the discussion because it was a too high volume of
>> email on a topic where I don't see a strong need to act, in hindsight
>> that was naive optimism on my side.
>
> It's funny you say that given that you've trolled the result
> for 4 months.
>
Hey I've really missed the personal attacks from you.

Do you think I can get 20% off if I order a pack of ten?

I consider the *ideas* behind GLEP76 pretty reasonable (even if I don't
agree with it completely), just the way it is written is ... eh ... very
much open to individual subjective interpretation, which is not what you
want in a standard. Especially not near legal issues.


>>
>>> Should GLEP 76 be left as is?
>>
>> No,it should be improved.
>> E.g. having signed commits, and adding signed-off-by, is ... weird.
>> It also leads to semantic satiation, where every commit has
>> signed-off-by, every commit, signed-off-by, signed-off-by ...
>>
>> And since it's autogenerated it doesn't really mean anything. It would
>> make more sense to add it *only* to commits from not-gentoo-devs, since
>> all the other commits are already signed by authenticated users.
>
> How would you verify that devs have actually read the new spec, and not
> just ignored it?  Do you prefer that we disabled commit access for
> everyone, and then asked everyone to make a vow?
>
I don't quite understand what you read into my comment.

Adding an autogenerated "Blessed-by-Krom" has very little *meaning*, so
what do we gain by adding an autogenerated "Blessed-by-Krom"? (No,
eternal battle in the afterlife is not guaranteed)

Since it's mandatory to continue committing, and autogenerated ... what
does it really do? And how does it do more than requiring people to read
and understand the rules before, and signing their commits? (Which,
legally, shows an equivalent intent)

(Does anyone actually read *and understand* Terms&Conditions? How do you
verify that? Usually you'd just assume that people are not actively
malicious and that their word is enough)

So from my perspective GLEP76 doesn't really improve the situation, just
makes everything more complex and causes exhausting discussions about
non-technical topics that don't improve the distro.