On 04/22/2014 12:15 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
There is also a third group, somewhere in between, who believe that's ok
to ship Free Software that connects and interops with proprietary
services (gtalk, aws, etc), but it's not ok to ship proprietary
software, metadata about proprietary software
with 'implementation'.
Christian
- Original Message -
From: drago01 drag...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 4:37:40 PM
Subject: Re: The Forgotten F: A Tale of Fedora's Foundations
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:24 PM
On 4/24/14, Christian Schaller cscha...@redhat.com wrote:
So decisions need to be general to allow us to look for a variety of options
to fulfill them. Lets say Fedora decided we want to make it
easier for our users to get more multimedia codecs. We would not get the
go ahead from legal to
On 24 April 2014 02:49, Christian Schaller cscha...@redhat.com wrote:
Well my point is I spoke to Red Hat legal before I even posted the
original proposal to open up to more 3rd party repositories some
Months ago. There are a lot of repositories that it is perfectly
fine for Fedora to include
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/24/2014 11:01 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 24 April 2014 02:49, Christian Schaller cscha...@redhat.com
mailto:cscha...@redhat.com wrote:
Well my point is I spoke to Red Hat legal before I even posted the
original proposal to
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/24/2014 11:01 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 24 April 2014 02:49, Christian Schaller cscha...@redhat.com
mailto:cscha...@redhat.com wrote:
Well my point
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
OK cool. What is the plan for when repositories change what they
are carrying and add stuff that may be legal for them but not for
others? Will there be periodic reviews to make sure that this
hasn't happened or some
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:04:41 -0600
Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com wrote:
One practical difference is that there's no bug trackers for
individual COPRs. At least when a package is in Fedora, communication
can happen in a central place (Bugzilla), and there's an FE-LEGAL
blocker mechanism,
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:04:41 -0600
Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com wrote:
One practical difference is that there's no bug trackers for
individual COPRs. At least when a package is in Fedora, communication
can happen in a
On 24 April 2014 09:56, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/24/2014 11:01 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 24 April 2014 02:49, Christian Schaller cscha...@redhat.com
mailto:cscha...@redhat.com wrote:
Well my point
- Original Message -
From: Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 6:46:03 PM
Subject: Re: The Forgotten F: A Tale of Fedora's Foundations
On 24 April 2014 09:56, Stephen
On 24 April 2014 16:06, Christian Schaller cscha...@redhat.com wrote:
These were things that people were wondering when this came up in the
past.
Once again this is becoming a debate about hypotheticals which rarely
leads anywhere
constructive.
It actually isn't hypothetical. I have had
sgall...@redhat.com, devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:10:49 PM
Subject: Re: The Forgotten F: A Tale of Fedora's Foundations
On 04/22/2014 09:13 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
So one of the key questions here is whether the current policy on
essentially hiding
On 4/22/14, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
[cut]
Everything in our repos is free, so putting the choice in the
installer seems off to me. Our policy (which is complex and obviously
driven by things stronger than the UX) generally leaves it to users
post-install to add
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
There are some aspects on this:
- I don't think Fedora is able add non-free, patent-encumbered sw in
e. g., in the way Ubuntu does - it fails on the fact that US law is
applicable [...]
This has been repeated multiple
On 4/23/14, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
There are some aspects on this:
- I don't think Fedora is able add non-free, patent-encumbered sw in
e. g., in the way Ubuntu does - it fails on the fact that US law is
On 23 April 2014 02:29, Christian Schaller cscha...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Mairin,
Not sure exactly where you are coming from in terms of wanting legal
to weigh in, but in general I don't think legals opinion is very relevant
and this point. The first step here should always be us as a project
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 April 2014 02:29, Christian Schaller cscha...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Mairin,
Not sure exactly where you are coming from in terms of wanting legal
to weigh in, but in general I don't think legals opinion is
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 08:36 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
The language in this Foundation is sometimes dangerously unclear. For
example, it pretty much explicitly forbids the use of non-free
components in the creation of Fedora (sorry, folks: you can't use
Photoshop to create your package
- Original Message -
From: Nikos Roussos comzer...@fedoraproject.org
There is also a third group, somewhere in between, who believe that's ok
to ship Free Software that connects and interops with proprietary
services (gtalk, aws, etc), but it's not ok to ship proprietary
software,
On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 06:46 -0400, Christian Schaller wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Nikos Roussos comzer...@fedoraproject.org
There is also a third group, somewhere in between, who believe that's ok
to ship Free Software that connects and interops with proprietary
services
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 06:23 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 04/21/2014 01:27 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 04/21/2014 01:07 PM, Haïkel Guémar wrote:
We should think on how we could improve collaboration with
third-party repos, fedmsg/copr might be
On 04/22/2014 11:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
I'd like to summon Máirín Duffy into this conversation here, if she's
willing. She's done a fair amount of research into exactly how many
and what kind of questions are reasonable to ask a user in startup
before scaring them off or confusing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 05:31 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 21 April 2014 11:19, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com
mailto:sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 01:08 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/22/2014 07:40 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 04/22/2014 11:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
I'd like to summon Máirín Duffy into this conversation here, if
she's willing. She's done a fair amount of research into exactly
how many and
Hi folks,
On 04/22/2014 07:40 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Is it safe to assume that research is backup by public usability
tests?
On 04/22/2014 07:55 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
When I invoke Máirín, I usually find it safe to make that assumption,
but I'll let her speak for herself on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/22/2014 08:55 AM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
Hi folks,
On 04/22/2014 07:40 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Is it safe to assume that research is backup by public
usability tests?
On 04/22/2014 07:55 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
When I invoke
- Original Message -
Le lundi 21 avril 2014 à 11:17 -0400, Stephen Gallagher a écrit :
I'm trying to assert with this proposal that the best way for us to
advance free and open source software is to continue shipping only
open-source software, while making it easy for users to
2014-04-22 16:10 GMT+02:00 Máirín Duffy du...@fedoraproject.org:
To be honest, I'm fairly uncomfortable discussing this without Fedora Legal
weighing in. I don't see any problem with re-visiting the decisions made
along this path, but I also am pretty confident the folks who decided things
On 04/22/2014 09:13 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
So one of the key questions here is whether the current policy on
essentially hiding (protecting?) the user from these external software
sources is truly in keeping with our Foundations, Mission and general
project health.
To be honest, I'm
Hi,
On 04/22/2014 10:14 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
Well, we may end up lawyered by Legal, but I think it's good we try to
realign ourselves and clear up few misunderstandings.
How do you propose we do that?
~m
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:50:20PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
Board seats should absolutely keep in mind various aspects of the
entire project, but we need less partisanship and more open-mindedness
at this level. We need people willing to work together to find out
what is best for the Project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/22/2014 11:17 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:50:20PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
Board seats should absolutely keep in mind various aspects of
the entire project, but we need less partisanship and more
open-mindedness at
On 04/22/2014 08:55 AM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
Some of the choices Przemek suggested don't make sense depending on
the context. E.g., full functionality vs. small size / speed I think
has a different meaning depending on whether you have a workstation
target (which, either way, will include X) or
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:50:20PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
Board seats should absolutely keep in mind various aspects of the
entire project, but we need less partisanship and more open-mindedness
at this level.
On 22 April 2014 05:53, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 05:31 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 21 April 2014 11:19, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com
mailto:sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP
2014-04-21 17:56 GMT+02:00 Eric H. Christensen spa...@fedoraproject.org:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:36:55AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
...I'd
like to suggest a fifth Foundation, one to ultimately supersede all
the rest: Functional.
I think anytime anyone suggests a new foundation
2014-04-21 19:07 GMT+02:00 Haïkel Guémar hgue...@fedoraproject.org:
Le 21/04/2014 18:37, Stephen Gallagher a écrit :
I spoke too strongly there, I think. We do however give a *very*
strong impression that using non-FOSS solutions for anything at all is
unwelcome at best. Consider the recent
2014-04-21 19:37 GMT+02:00 Eric H. Christensen spa...@fedoraproject.org:
And how are these contributors going to contribute to their proprietary
solutions that we now provide for them?
They aren't; isn't that a *benefit* for the open solutions?
How do we support something that is simply
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 08:33:55PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
I find it difficult to believe that most users [don't have Flash
installed]. AFAIK there is no data to say either way, and anecdotal
evidence from around here isn't supportive.
2014-04-22 21:31 GMT+02:00 Eric H. Christensen spa...@fedoraproject.org:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 08:33:55PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
I find it difficult to believe that most users [don't have Flash
installed]. AFAIK there is no data to
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:31:11 -0400
Eric H. Christensen spa...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 08:33:55PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
I find it difficult to believe that most users [don't have Flash
installed]. AFAIK there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about Fedora's Foundations: “Freedom,
Friends, Features, First, particularly in relation to some very
sticky questions about where certain things fit (such as third-party
repositories, free and non-free web services,
I agree with this completely. Functional capability matters quite a lot and
we seem to forget this a lot lately.
On Apr 21, 2014 7:35 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about Fedora's Foundations:
Le 21/04/2014 14:36, Stephen Gallagher a écrit :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about Fedora's Foundations: “Freedom,
Friends, Features, First, particularly in relation to some very
sticky questions about where certain things fit (such as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 09:08 AM, Haïkel Guémar wrote:
Le 21/04/2014 14:36, Stephen Gallagher a écrit : Lately, I've been
thinking a lot about Fedora's Foundations: “Freedom, Friends,
Features, First, particularly in relation to some very sticky
questions
...snip...
IMHO, it feels wrong to call this it's own foundation. A foundation is
a core value of our community, and this seems like a harsh reality we
have to live with.
I guess I would prefer to have the 'freedom' foundation clarified some
rather than adding this as a foundation.
I guess it
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 08:36 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
At the same time, we
regularly allow the packaging of software that can interoperate with
non-free software; we allow Pidgin and other IM clients to talk to
Google and AOL, we allow email clients to connect to Microsoft
Exchange,
sgallagh wrote:
[...]
Sometimes this goal prevents us from taking the easy way out by
including proprietary or patent encumbered software in Fedora, or
using those kinds of products in our other project work. [...]
The language in this Foundation is sometimes dangerously unclear. For
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:36:55AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
To make things clear: I'm personally closer to the second camp than
the first. In fact, in keeping with the subject of this email, I'd
like to suggest a fifth Foundation, one to ultimately supersede all
the rest: Functional.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:52:24AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
existing features foundation. (Features represents our commitment to
excellence.) Putting friends, features, and first in servitude to that
doesn't feel right.
Errr, friends, freedom, and first.
*drinks more coffee*
--
Matthew
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about Fedora's Foundations: “Freedom,
Friends, Features, First, particularly in relation to some very
sticky questions about where certain things fit (such as third-party
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 10:52 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:36:55AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
To make things clear: I'm personally closer to the second camp
than the first. In fact, in keeping with the subject of this
email, I'd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 11:02 AM, inode0 wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about Fedora's Foundations:
“Freedom, Friends, Features, First, particularly in relation to
some
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:17:41AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Well, the problem I have with the Foundations is that by the way we
have defined them, we've very clearly identified them as equal to
one another. I'm not sure that this is sensible, particularly with
regards to the Freedom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:36:55AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
...I'd
like to suggest a fifth Foundation, one to ultimately supersede all
the rest: Functional.
I think anytime anyone suggests a new foundation that supersedes all of what
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:40:03AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
...snip...
IMHO, it feels wrong to call this it's own foundation. A foundation is
a core value of our community, and this seems like a harsh reality we
have to live with.
I also have a hard time envisioning functionality at the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 11:56 AM, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:36:55AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
...I'd like to suggest a fifth Foundation, one to ultimately
supersede all the rest: Functional.
I think anytime anyone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 12:37 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
What about solutions that have no useful FOSS analog? Are you
expecting that someone who uses Adobe Lightroom all the time
should switch to Fedora and write a brand-new post-processing
engine
Le lundi 21 avril 2014 à 11:56 -0400, Eric H. Christensen a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:36:55AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Now, let me be further clear on this: I am not in any way advocating
the use of closed-source software or services. I am not suggesting
that we start
Le lundi 21 avril 2014 à 11:17 -0400, Stephen Gallagher a écrit :
I'm trying to assert with this proposal that the best way for us to
advance free and open source software is to continue shipping only
open-source software, while making it easy for users to *transition*.
By setting a
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/21/2014 11:56 AM, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:36:55AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
...I'd like to suggest a fifth Foundation, one to ultimately
supersede all the rest: Functional.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:37:57 -0400,
Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't think it's unreasonable for us to allow them to use Chrome
from the Google repository. I don't think it's unreasonable to allow
them to use Steam from the Valve repository. Device drivers get into
Le 21/04/2014 18:37, Stephen Gallagher a écrit :
I spoke too strongly there, I think. We do however give a *very*
strong impression that using non-FOSS solutions for anything at all is
unwelcome at best. Consider the recent discussions around GNOME
Software where we have
1) Forbidden it from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 01:08 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:37:57 -0400, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't think it's unreasonable for us to allow them to use
Chrome from the Google repository. I don't think it's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 07:04:03PM +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le lundi 21 avril 2014 à 11:56 -0400, Eric H. Christensen a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:36:55AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Now, let me be further clear on this: I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 01:07 PM, Haïkel Guémar wrote:
Le 21/04/2014 18:37, Stephen Gallagher a écrit :
I spoke too strongly there, I think. We do however give a *very*
strong impression that using non-FOSS solutions for anything at
all is unwelcome at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:37:57PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 04/21/2014 11:56 AM, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
i packaging or otherwise making it easier for one to choose
proprietary software. When we start pushing proprietary solutions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 01:37 PM, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:37:57PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 04/21/2014 11:56 AM, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
i packaging or otherwise making it easier for one to choose
proprietary
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:37:57 -0400,
Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't think it's unreasonable for us to allow them to use Chrome
from the Google repository. I don't think it's unreasonable to
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 20:08:06 +0200,
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
going to be significantly modifying the graphics system ... what
does that even mean?
afaik it does not do any such a thing. It is just an X / SDL2 + OpenGL
application like any other (just closed source).
It does
Le lundi 21 avril 2014 à 13:19 -0400, Stephen Gallagher a écrit :
On 04/21/2014 01:08 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:37:57 -0400, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
But I think that trying to actively discourage (read: prevent)
users from installing such
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:02 AM, inode0 ino...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com
wrote:
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about Fedora's Foundations: Freedom,
Friends, Features, First, particularly in relation to some very
sticky
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 04:35 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:02 AM, inode0 ino...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about Fedora's Foundations:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
To boil it down:
Is the Freedom Foundation too strict? (Alternately, are we reading it
too strictly?) In other words, is our hard-line on only displaying
FOSS solutions ultimately accomplishing our Mission to
On 21 April 2014 11:19, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 01:08 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:37:57 -0400, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
Does Fedora need to be that gateway OS?
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 04:35 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:02 AM, inode0 ino...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Stephen Gallagher
On 04/21/2014 01:27 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 04/21/2014 01:07 PM, Haïkel Guémar wrote:
We should think on how we could improve collaboration with
third-party repos, fedmsg/copr might be part of the technical
solution. How about a Fedora Partnership Program ? We could open up
at a
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 17:50 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
Look, I think the Foundations are great. They remind us all of why we
got into this to begin with (or most of us anyway). However, they are
never going to completely cover all cases. They are broad. They
project strength and conviction.
79 matches
Mail list logo
