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

[Michał Górny]

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.

>
> > 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?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny