| 1 |
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 3:52 PM William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Regardless of anything that is said in this thread, I do not agree, as |
| 4 |
> a council member, with the idea of the Gentoo community actively |
| 5 |
> tarnishing anyone's reputation. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I have added the proctors to this email, because I think they should |
| 8 |
> determine whether your behavior is a CoC violation. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The opinions below are my own. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
IMO advocating for what Gentoo should or shouldn't do isn't a CoC |
| 14 |
violation. I certainly haven't said anything intended to tarnish |
| 15 |
Sony's reputation in the email above. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I do think that antarus's suggestion of leaving the policy as-is for |
| 18 |
now and seeking further clarification from Sony as to why they feel it |
| 19 |
is necessary to change it would be more constructive. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That said, I don't like the idea that corporations can basically |
| 22 |
dictate policy changes under the threat of withdrawing contributions. |
| 23 |
This has created a lot of churn mostly involving the most senior |
| 24 |
members of the community, and a moderate amount of division. While |
| 25 |
one developer getting to spend a few hours per week on company time on |
| 26 |
Gentoo commits is certainly helpful, many other companies seem to be |
| 27 |
able to provide this to Gentoo without requiring policy changes, and |
| 28 |
far more hours get donated by volunteers without any demands for |
| 29 |
concessions. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I'll admit that my post was a bit emotional, and as such perhaps not a |
| 32 |
great example for a dev to set. However, I'm not sure that passive |
| 33 |
acceptance of a change like this is going to be any less harmful to |
| 34 |
Gentoo than active defiance. These two are of course not the only |
| 35 |
alternatives, and we should seek a better way. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Rich |
Archives