Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo, GitHub, and the Social Contract

[hasufell]

Matt Turner:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:56 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
>> Dean Stephens:
>>> On 02/15/15 22:26, hasufell wrote:
>>>> Scripts no one can read except the team (even after being asked to
>>>> publish them) is by definition propriety software. It was used to
>>>> develop and package emul-linux-x86-* packages until this very day.
>>>>
>>> Your prose might benefit from labeling when you are using hyperbole,
>>> otherwise when you make factually inaccurate claims it might seem as
>>> though you actually believe them.
>>>
>>> In case that was unclear: while those scripts might not be formally
>>> published, they have been made available to people who are not on the
>>> team. Unless, that is, you define "the team" as anyone who has seen the
>>> scripts; in which case you would be trivially correct by definition.
>>>
>>
>> Are you saying you only share the code with your buddies? In that case,
>> it is against our social contract as well.
>
> Yes, fine, it is. I don't think you're making an interesting point.
>

My point is that the team violated the social contract.

>> Not only that, it is even a serious security problem since the developer
>> community doesn't know how these things are packaged and neither do the
>> users.
>
> There's a serious security problem if they were to release the scripts
> (passwords and all) right this second.
>

This statement makes me wonder if you really understand opensource (or
even free software).

Maybe the recruitment quizzes need to be fixed in this regard.

> There's a lack of man power and that's completely sufficient to
> explain why these things haven't happened.
>

Definitely not.