| 1 |
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:48 AM desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 06/28/19 08:09, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 7:49 AM Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> I never stated that the trustees will know better, I stated that |
| 7 |
> >> their knowledge of what we assume to be real names will be |
| 8 |
> >> sufficient and there is no need for all developers to know them. |
| 9 |
> >> This is because the trustees are responsible for legal issues of |
| 10 |
> >> Gentoo. |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> With such approach we lose nothing, but gain something valuable: we |
| 13 |
> >> may and will accept more people and more contributions. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > IMO you lose a professional atmosphere. I think there is a difference |
| 16 |
> > in atmosphere when you have Andrew and Rich and Michał having a |
| 17 |
> > discussion, versus codebozo and leetcoder and trollmaster. (Just |
| 18 |
> > making up random handles - no correspondence implied.) |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> What you describe as, in effect, a dehumamizing interface, others |
| 21 |
> perceive as a way to keep minimize their social exposure. Where you find |
| 22 |
> some ill-defined negative, others find a distinct positive. Is Gentoo |
| 23 |
> really in a position where it can turn away demonstrably skilled |
| 24 |
> contributors based solely on their wanting to minimize personal exposure? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I think either decision will turn people away. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
You claim that we have an environment that people do not want to be |
| 29 |
personally exposed to. I think it makes more sense to fix these |
| 30 |
issues than to cover them up by making it easier to avoid personal |
| 31 |
association with the distro. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Minimizing social exposure also means minimizing the personal |
| 34 |
consequences of your own actions. I suspect that is likely to make |
| 35 |
the existing problems worse. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I think it is more important to make Gentoo a project that people are |
| 38 |
proud to be associated with. This isn't just to avoid personal damage |
| 39 |
to reputation, but because it will actually make people want to |
| 40 |
participate. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
If Gentoo turns into just another online forum where everybody trolls |
| 43 |
everybody else all the time and nobody bothers to do anything about |
| 44 |
it, then why would anybody but a troll want to participate? |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> "Other people do it" is not exactly a great logical argument |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Sure, not on its own. However, keep in mind that most of the stuff |
| 49 |
that people are complaining about with regard to GLEP 76 are standing |
| 50 |
policy in other well-funded and mainstream FOSS projects, like the |
| 51 |
Linux kernel. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
The fact that the Linux Foundation considers something a good idea |
| 54 |
doesn't automatically make it a good idea. However, they do have all |
| 55 |
those pesky lawyers and all that which people seem to think we don't |
| 56 |
have enough of, and they also have a very positive reputation for the |
| 57 |
most part. I don't see too many people who are ashamed to have their |
| 58 |
name in a signed-off-by header in the kernel. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
It doesn't hurt to point out when a process resembles something that |
| 61 |
has been used elsewhere, so that others can look more closely and |
| 62 |
decide for themselves whether this has been a positive or negative |
| 63 |
thing. MANY of Gentoo's policies are patterned after things other |
| 64 |
projects have done, since there is no point in re-inventing the wheel. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
-- |
| 67 |
Rich |
Archives