Subject: Re: The NetBSD developers agreement
To: S.P.Zeidler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Timo Schoeler <email@example.com>
Date: 09/06/2006 00:05:22
thus S.P.Zeidler spake:
> Thus wrote Charles Shannon Hendrix (firstname.lastname@example.org):
>> I think the whole idea of walling off "the core" and keeping anything
>> about this project a secret is just plain wrong.
>> Why not just make it all public, all the time?
> This project consists of a lot of people working on it in their free time.
> You are not going to get to install full video surveillance in my flat
> just because I have commit rights.
nobody demanded this. nobody wants to see Homer Simpson scratching his
butt, or anyone else forgetting to feed his cat or listening to bad music.
you get the point but spread obfuscation by discussing it into death,
without proper argumentation in the _subject itself_.
> Also you aren't going to get to monitor
> all communication with friends of mine that also happen to be NetBSD
if you have to talk to them in order to improve the scheduler or
introduce a new ABI, this should show up publically, on a mailing list
> If you expect it, you will be frustrated. :)
see Homer Simpson. nobody wants to see it, nobody asked for it.
>>> Heh. The company I work for has just been subsumed by a big,
>>> three-letter IT-giant of a primary color. The new contract I
>>> have received contains - as far as I can see - nothing that
>>> even approaches the strong words of the NetBSD Developers'
>>> Agreement. It should be abolished sooner rather than later.
>> Maybe someone can explain the root justification for a few things to end
>> users of NetBSD:
>> - why do we need a corporate entity?
> 'corporate' does not mean 'company that makes money'. It's not.
again, you got the point, but spread obfuscation.
> 'corporate' is 'organization that is a legal entity' and is the only way
> to get tax returns on monetary donations to the Project (and there would
> be no servers to run the project on if there weren't donations of money).
it's about the (doubtful) need of an entity (TNF) that can establish
contracts as representative of it's members (developers) and the
_danger_ of stealthy activities that may happen because the possibility
_that_ they can happen was created due to the fact of the existence of
the (created) entity (TNF).
it's as simple as that.
>> - why does the core have to have privacy when discussion this public
> Because they want to be able to say something stupid in their discussions
> and not be embarrassed ever after?
you may be aware that every mailing list app in use is able to create
lists with read-only accounts (subscribers from the public), so posting
to the list would only be possible for developers. this way,
introduction of the new scheduler (ABI) can be discussed in public
_without_ being molested by people who only want to raise their google
i don't think there's any need to explain the internet to NetBSD developers.
> Look at any parliament if you want to
> see what too public 'discussions' are: people holding speeches at each other.
err, what? you can attend to _any_ event that is held by a legal party
in germany as long as it's not an inner-party event. as soon as public
things are discussed you can go there and _at least_ listen. if you want
to speak, in most cases there's the possibility to do this (of course
not in the highest houses of your country -- but it wouldn't be possible
for a non-developer to post to the developer-only list, would it? :)
so go to your cities/villages town hall/city hall and have a look at the
appointments. then go there and take part in the discussion about the
amount of dog shit on the boardwalk.
it's as easy as that. it's democracy.
>> - why can't sub-projects requiring things like NDAs be handled
>> quite apart from the NetBSD project?
> You want to found a new legal entity (a new corporation) each time an NDA
> needs signing? Who's to pay for the setup? that costs money!
blobs -> pkgsrc.
furthermore: why sign NDAs? does OpenBSD on a regular basis?
>> - why do meetings about NetBSD have to be private?
> You are quite allowed to get three people of your choice and hold a
> meeting about NetBSD on your local marketplace. :)
you miss the point. again. try harder.
>> It just seems that the users and the project as a whole would be better
>> served without this stuff.
> Maybe you are an exhibitionist and don't understand in the least;
and maybe he demands democracy in an _open source_ project and you don't
understand what he discusses (or you are not willing to understand :).
> there are NetBSD developers doing good work that are too shy to speak up
> in public.
then they really need a psychiatrist. if they're that shy, there's still
the mailing lists.
> You would lose their input if you forced publicity.
then it may be. would you trust your doctor (attention: real life) when
he's always watching and observing and checking whether anyone sees or
recognizes him? :D
> And you're never ever going to be able to monitor everything that goes on
> between members of this large a group, unless possibly you're the CIA.
blablabla. come on, even if this was the case (which it isn't), germans
do have lots of experience with that (third reich, the regime today...).
Timo Schoeler | http://riscworks.net/~tis | email@example.com
RISCworks -- Perfection is a powerful message
ISP | POWER & PowerPC afficinados | Networking, Security, BSD services
GPG Key fingerprint = B5F6 68A4 EC45 C309 6770 38C4 50E8 2740 9E0C F20A
Frankie says: Relax