On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 10:50:30PM +0200, Lars Seipel wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 04:10:14PM -0400, Christian Schaller wrote: > > So one thing I been thinking quite a bit about here is that for many developers whose application could potentially be included might > > want to be able to have a non-public discussion with us on it first. There could be many reasons for this including not wanting to create > > a public expectation of something before they finally decided upon doing it to needing to figure out some technical or legal details before committing > > I really dislike the confidential part and the reasons given for it > aren't very convincing. Why do you think this is necessary to achieve > the purpose of the 3rd party software policy as set out by the council? [...] Christian didn't say it was necessary in all cases, he said there are developers for whom it might be, and clearly stated one reason why. A process which sets up a third party developer for embarrassment or abuse isn't a good one, especially when we're trying to build mutually positive relationships. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
