Yeah, it's really starting to smell as though this whole process was a "consultation" done in bad faith with a predetermined outcome. Not what one expects from Fedora/Red Hat.
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 11:53, Panu Matilainen <pmati...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 4/2/20 3:15 AM, clime wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 23:22, Paul Frields <sticks...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:03 AM Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:52 AM Nicolas Mailhot via devel > >>> <devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Le mercredi 01 avril 2020 à 11:30 +0100, Leigh Griffin a écrit : > >>>>> > >>>>> To distill it down: > >>>>> > >>>>> - Gitlab has more features that are needed right now for our > >>>>> stakeholder group > >>>>> - Gitlab has an entire company dedicated to roadmap features, we do > >>>>> not. > >>>> > >>>> Unfortunately, Gitlab’s roadmap is also conflicting with Fedora > >>>> objectives. The bread and butter of Gitlab is intermediating between > >>>> devs and end users, culling free software intermediaries like > >>>> distributions, and positionning itself in their stead. That is > unlikely > >>>> to result in any commitment to making distribution workflows work. > >>>> > >>>> That would not be a problem if the disintermediation worked, but like > >>>> many actors Gitlab sees the $$$ and power in being the > >>>> desintermediator, and does not care if the result is deffective, as > >>>> long as $$$ and power flows its way. > >>>> > >>> > >>> It's also important to note that at the core of GitLab's incentive > >>> model is that they want to remove incentives to use FOSS solutions in > >>> favor of their unified proprietary solution. They are constantly > >>> integrating features and capabilities into the proprietary parts to > >>> make it "juicier" for enterprises who don't really have a compunction > >>> about whether they are using Free Software solutions or not, or even > >>> may not be willing to support them if it was Free Software because of > >>> outmoded thinking. > >>> > >>> The consequence of this is that it starves interest and development in > >>> FOSS solutions, and contributes to making the FOSS ecosystem weaker > >>> over time. > >> > >> That statement rings hollow for me, when Github is arguably the single > >> biggest vendor of open source in the world, no part of itself is open > >> source, and thanks to its pervasiveness, open source has won the war > >> of how development should work. > > > > This is imho a contradictory statement. Github, being closed source > > and pervasive, is a proof that open-source has won? > > Yes, this really is a bizarre statement. > > It also assumes people are perfectly okay with this, whereas many of us > are disgusted to the bone by this situation. > > - Panu - > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
