At 2024-03-02T19:36:29+0900, Jing Luo via Discussions among Savannah Hackers, open subscription wrote: > I wanted to see how group registrations were handled. I was speechless > when I saw these comments from the tasks.
I decided to read over all of these too. > https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16489 > https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16293 > https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16459 > https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16390 > https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16254 > > Is this how we are supposed to talk to people? Do I need to point out > the obvious problem here? It appears to me that all of the people submitting these requests had difficulty reading and proposing projects adhering to the documented requirements. https://savannah.nongnu.org/register/requirements.php It is therefore not surprising to me that, without willingness and ability on the part of the submitters to resolve the problems, that the registrations got cancelled. > Since 90+% of the tasks are cancelled, why don't we just close group > registration completely? What percentage of non-cancellation would lead you believe that Savannah's non-GNU hosting service was serving its function well? And indeed a percentage a valid and worthy metric for measuring such a thing? > That way we don't hurt GNU or FSF's reputation. GNU/FSF's reputation for stone-faced seriousness about licensing and use of terminology around licensing and related matters has been a fixture in the community for literally decades. Projects failing to get registered because they couldn't clear up the provenance of code, or didn't understand that the MPL is incompatible with the GNU GPL, or wanted to mark pieces of the specification of their software project as an "Invariant Section" under GNU FDL, don't sound like failure cases to me. They sound like proper screening. I warned RMS literally 20 years ago[1] that people would abuse Invariant Sections, mainly by marking as "Invariant" stuff that was logically "Secondary".[2] Sure enough, they still do. Regards, Branden [1] Here's a summary from a mere 19 years ago. https://www.linux.com/news/gnu-free-documentation-license/ [2] Even official GNU projects managed this; some, at least, got fixed.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
