On Wednesday 13 November 2013 20:58:46 you wrote:
> Not only the “source materials” need to be accessible without additional
> third party account, but everything that is needed for participation.
>
> Example: Let’s say KDE project KoolApp has a TODO list on a third party
> website with invasive p
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 21:09:28 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> Seeing how the full thread developed I don't think the clause in discussion
> fit for that example. It's about the online services used and governance,
> not about the product (which is what this clause is about).
exactly; while a vali
On Wednesday 13 November 2013 20:58:46 Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 13. November 2013, 18:44:45 schrieb Eike Hein:
> > On Tuesday 12 November 2013 23:22:59 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> > > To me, "source materials" means anything that cannot be produced
> > > automatically from the oth
Am Mittwoch, 13. November 2013, 18:44:45 schrieb Eike Hein:
> On Tuesday 12 November 2013 23:22:59 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> > To me, "source materials" means anything that cannot be produced
> > automatically from the other source materials.
> >
> > I'd assume that when in doubt whether they shoul
On Wednesday 13 November 2013 18:44:45 Eike Hein wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 November 2013 23:22:59 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> > To me, "source materials" means anything that cannot be produced
> > automatically from the other source materials.
> >
> > I'd assume that when in doubt whether they should put
On Tuesday 12 November 2013 23:22:59 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> To me, "source materials" means anything that cannot be produced
> automatically from the other source materials.
> I'd assume that when in doubt whether they should put something in the repo,
> people would just ask.
Thanks - if that'
On Tuesday 12 November 2013 23:11:54 Eike Hein wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 November 2013 22:53:18 Thomas Zander wrote:
> > All these may actually exclude the stuff that is used to create the
> > deliverables. If you use gimp to draw, the gimp file is imporant, but the
> > "asset" and "deliverable" is ty
On Tuesday 12 November 2013 22:53:18 Thomas Zander wrote:
> All these may actually exclude the stuff that is used to create the
> deliverables. If you use gimp to draw, the gimp file is imporant, but the
> "asset" and "deliverable" is typically used for the png you export.
> So I'm assuming we wan
On Tuesday 12 November 2013 21.08.21 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 November 2013 17:51:36 Eike Hein wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 November 2013 17:33:08 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > > if that is not clear (and apparently it is not .. you aren’t the
> > > first to suggest this) then perhaps we need a
On Tuesday 12 November 2013 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>
> perhaps we’re having a definition problem here.
>
> to me “project assets” are all the things that make up the end
> project/product as released. this is how the word is used in relation to,
> for instance, games with all their data and graphic
On Tuesday 12 November 2013 21:33:05 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sunday 10 November 2013 21:46:41 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > On Sunday 10 November 2013 18:28:58 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > > That's what this email is about, I'd like to apply the attached
> > > patch, it's mostly about small scale
Hello,
On Sunday 10 November 2013 21:46:41 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Sunday 10 November 2013 18:28:58 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > That's what this email is about, I'd like to apply the attached patch,
> > it's mostly about small scale changes. I don't see anything which
> > could be controversial in th
On Monday 11 November 2013 22:38:21 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El Diumenge, 10 de novembre de 2013, a les 18:28:58, Kevin Ottens va
escriure:
> > Hello community,
> >
> > Any opinions on this? I'd like to collect feedback before proceeding with
> > a
> > vote of the e.V. membership and then a push.
Hello,
On Monday 11 November 2013 10:21:52 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Sunday, November 10, 2013 18:28:58 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > Any opinions on this?
>
> second read on a monday morning:
>
> "Interact with teams that have common values, leadin to the
> cross-pollination of ideas and innovations”
On Tuesday 12 November 2013 17:51:36 Eike Hein wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 November 2013 17:33:08 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > if that is not clear (and apparently it is not .. you aren’t the first to
> > suggest this) then perhaps we need a phrase other than “project assets” or
> > some clarification of i
On Tuesday 12 November 2013 18:00:34 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> my concern is that if it says that all KDE contributors can write to it, it
> can be interpreted as being enough to simply be able to open an account
> there.
>
> iow, this makes github a valid place to put your code (well, if we ignore
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 17:44:26 Eike Hein wrote:
> Deciding whether to drop or keep 'accounts' along those lines
> is difficult. With previous practice, securely establishing
> identity is sufficient, and the wording makes it clear that
> this has to be possible for *all* contributors. That'
On Tuesday 12 November 2013 17:33:08 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> if that is not clear (and apparently it is not .. you aren’t the first to
> suggest this) then perhaps we need a phrase other than “project assets” or
> some clarification of it.
I was toying with 'deliverables', but it doesn't feel quit
On Tuesday 12 November 2013 17:34:41 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> +1 for getting rid of “must”; -1 on getting rid of accounts; and yes, we
> probably need to find some better wording for “project assets” since it
> trips people up.
On the accounts one, after hitting send I was back to pondering,
about
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 17:06:51 Eike Hein wrote:
> - "Must" is gone. It's kinda feels more declarative now!
> - "Accounts" is gone.
>
> Open issues:
> - Do we need to do anything about "project assets"?
+1 for getting rid of “must”; -1 on getting rid of accounts; and yes, we
probably need
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 16:43:27 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> It also sounds like it would rule out using any other tools, which are not
> hosted on KDE infrastructure. In the IRC log there were mentioned Google
> Docs, Trello, there are certainly more (and not only closed-source ones). I
>
On Tuesday 12 November 2013 16:43:27 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> When I read the suggestion and this explanation I wonder why we don't just
> say what is meant: "The canonical version of the project is hosted on KDE
> infrastructure"?
>
> This doesn't cover the part that all KDE contributors hav
On Monday 11 November 2013 13:56:32 Eike Hein wrote:
>
> After the exchanges in this and the other leg of the subthread
> there ended up being a follow-up discussion on IRC, with Aaron,
> Sune (svuorela), me (Sho_) and others contributing.
>
> Ultimately, we've together settled on this wording su
On Tuesday 12 November 2013 02:43:39 Valorie Zimmerman wrote:
> This makes me so happy. I've been through various "by-law fights" in
> the past, which sometimes exhaust or even break apart groups. Instead,
> I see us really grappling with our shared values, strengths and
> weaknesses, and putting t
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Eike Hein wrote:
> On Monday 11 November 2013 14:25:32 Kevin Ottens wrote:
>> I'd like to note I'm glad that you all took the time to resolve this issue
>> by using a better medium than email. Thanks for that, less time spent
>> tracking emails and ideas back and f
El Diumenge, 10 de novembre de 2013, a les 18:28:58, Kevin Ottens va escriure:
> Hello community,
>
> Any opinions on this? I'd like to collect feedback before proceeding with a
> vote of the e.V. membership and then a push.
What's the rationale in the "Be considered for financial support" -> "Re
On Monday 11 November 2013 14:25:32 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> I'd like to note I'm glad that you all took the time to resolve this issue
> by using a better medium than email. Thanks for that, less time spent
> tracking emails and ideas back and forth for me.
Definitely helped; hopefully providing the
Hello,
On Monday 11 November 2013 13:56:32 Eike Hein wrote:
> After the exchanges in this and the other leg of the subthread
> there ended up being a follow-up discussion on IRC, with Aaron,
> Sune (svuorela), me (Sho_) and others contributing.
I'd like to note I'm glad that you all took the time
Heyo ...
After the exchanges in this and the other leg of the subthread
there ended up being a follow-up discussion on IRC, with Aaron,
Sune (svuorela), me (Sho_) and others contributing.
Ultimately, we've together settled on this wording suggestion:
"All project assets must be hosted on infras
On Monday, November 11, 2013 11:46:20 Eike Hein wrote:
> * Improves the situation.
a) by removing language whose literal wording creates an us/them wall,
something that is the opposite of inclusion.
b) by replacing it with something that is clearer to understand on first read
as has been noted
On Monday, November 11, 2013 11:18:34 Eike Hein wrote:
> By disallowing direct write access for folks without a KDE
> contributor account, we're making them get KDE contributor
> accounts to gain write access. This ends up happening as a
> natural result of the tedium involved with proxying changes
On Monday 11 November 2013 11:12:12 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> so if the ONLY clause was somehow intended to address the “second class
> citizen” issue, it should be evident how it can not do so in its current
> form and also remain consistent with KDE’s current, consensus culture.
It's not evident t
On Monday 11 November 2013 10:54:52 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> iow, it has solved nothing.
No, I believe you're actually overlooking a broader point
here. Codifying the access model is a lot less about actual
ACL, and more about the implications it has for *people*,
both existing contributors, but al
On Monday, November 11, 2013 10:56:11 Eike Hein wrote:
> On Monday 11 November 2013 10:29:07 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > i’ll also point out that we already have a tiered system: maintainers.
>
> Psychology matters. It's a lot easier to step up to become a
right, so not all tiered systems are bad.
On Monday, November 11, 2013 10:44:46 Eike Hein wrote:
> On Monday 11 November 2013 10:14:56 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > the difference is that it does not specify “ONLY”, which in this day and
> > age of decentralized revision control systems seems sensible. or are you
> > suggesting that we should
On Monday 11 November 2013 10:29:07 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> i’ll also point out that we already have a tiered system: maintainers.
Psychology matters. It's a lot easier to step up to become a
maintainer if the number of process barriers is low, when the
access model informs you of your basic righ
On Monday, November 11, 2013 10:34:09 Eike Hein wrote:
> There's two halves to the access model:
>
> * All KDE contributor accounts must have direct write access. (There
we all agree on this point, it is therefore unnecessary to go into this
further.
it is the ONLY clause:
> * Only KDE contrib
On Monday 11 November 2013 10:14:56 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> the difference is that it does not specify “ONLY”, which in this day and age
> of decentralized revision control systems seems sensible. or are you
> suggesting that we should not allow any contributions from the "outside"?
You're confusi
On Monday 11 November 2013 10:10:56 Thomas Zander wrote:
> Could you please explain to those that don't immediately spot it how the
> before and after are functionally different?
Of course.
There's two halves to the access model:
* All KDE contributor accounts must have direct write access. (The
On Monday, November 11, 2013 09:16:24 Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2013-11-11, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > Could you please explain to those that don't immediately spot it how the
> > before and after are functionally different?
> That it opens up for several groups of contributors, KDE contributors and
On Sunday, November 10, 2013 18:28:58 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> Any opinions on this?
second read on a monday morning:
"Interact with teams that have common values, leadin to the cross-pollination
of ideas and innovations”
to
“Interaction with ...”
since you changed “Stand on” to “To stand on”, th
On 2013-11-11, Thomas Zander wrote:
> Could you please explain to those that don't immediately spot it how the
> before and after are functionally different?
That it opens up for several groups of contributors, KDE contributors and
other people. I do also think that it is important that KDE pro
On Monday, November 11, 2013 07:31:15 Eike Hein wrote:
> In my mind - based on experience as contributor, main-
> tainer and for a period, sysadmin working on the contri-
> butor account system - codifying the two halves that make
> up our access model was the single most important accom-
> plishme
On Monday 11 November 2013 07.31.15 Eike Hein wrote:
> - * Software assets access model
> -* Direct write access to the software assets is granted only to KDE
> contributor accounts
> -* Direct write access to the software assets is granted to all KDE
> contributor accounts
>
> - * Software assets access model
> -* Direct write access to the software assets is granted only to KDE
contributor accounts
> -* Direct write access to the software assets is granted to all KDE
contributor accounts
> + * All KDE contributor accounts get direct (and universal) write
On Sunday 10 November 2013 18:28:58 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> That's what this email is about, I'd like to apply the attached patch,
> it's mostly about small scale changes. I don't see anything which
> could be controversial in there.
>
> Any opinions on this? I'd like to collect feedback before proc
On Sunday, November 10, 2013 18:51:06 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> On Sunday 10 November 2013 18:45:42 Marta Rybczynska wrote:
> > leadin -> leading
>
> Great, I managed to introduce a typo... Thanks for spotting it. It's fixed
you just wanted to see if we were actually reading it ;)
other than the typ
On Sunday 10 November 2013 19:03:45 David Edmundson wrote:
> There's a change from
>
> "_can_ be defended via the FLA"
> to
> "_will_ be protected defended via the FLA"
>
> (emphasis added by me)
>
> As I understand it the FLA is opt in (http://ev.kde.org/rules/fla.php)
> and does not automatica
On Sunday, November 10, 2013 18:28 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> Hello community,
>
> After the publication of the initial version of the manifesto, I said I'd
> act as curator for the time being and that it should be a living document
> which would get updated from time to time.
>
> I didn't really live
There's a change from
"_can_ be defended via the FLA"
to
"_will_ be protected defended via the FLA"
(emphasis added by me)
As I understand it the FLA is opt in (http://ev.kde.org/rules/fla.php)
and does not automatically cover all projects.
David
___
On Sunday 10 November 2013 18:45:42 Marta Rybczynska wrote:
> leadin -> leading
Great, I managed to introduce a typo... Thanks for spotting it. It's fixed on
my side.
Regards.
--
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net
KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
signature.asc
Descrip
leadin -> leading
Otherwise I like it.
Cheers,
Marta
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> Hello community,
>
> After the publication of the initial version of the manifesto, I said I'd
> act
> as curator for the time being and that it should be a living document which
> woul
Hello community,
After the publication of the initial version of the manifesto, I said I'd act
as curator for the time being and that it should be a living document which
would get updated from time to time.
I didn't really live up to it so far as no revision has been done. But somehow
I found
53 matches
Mail list logo
