On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 09:35:58AM -0400, Alex Scheel wrote:
> That isn't indicative of the entire Fedora packager ecosystem. A lot of
> people are staying silent.
Do you really want/expect 300 folks to chime in with "+1" replies?
Speaking for myself, Neal and Adam (and others) have already expressed
pretty much everything I have to say, and then some. But what the heck,
here's two more cents.
I'm not terribly invested in what goes on under Fedora's skirts and the
RH<->Fedora relationship, but it's clear that there have been multiple
trust-destroying breakdowns of communication, resulting in a single
stakeholder (ie CPE) effectively dictating a major change that directly
violates Fedora's principles. Let me quote the text of the first:
"We are dedicated to Free Software and content"
"Advancing software and content freedom is a central community goal,
which we accomplish through the software and content we promote. We
choose free alternatives to proprietary code and content and limit the
effects of proprietary or patent encumbered code on the Project."
"Sometimes this goal prevents us from taking the easy way out by
including proprietary or patent encumbered software in Fedora. But by
concentrating on the free software and content we provide and promote,
the end result is that we are able to provide:
" * releases that are predictable and 100% legally redistributable for
everyone;
" * Innovation in free and open source software that can equal or exceed
closed source or proprietary solutions;"
" * and, a completely free project that anyone can emulate or copy in
whole or in part for their own purposes."
To be blunt, moving core distro plumbing off of Free Software, onto to a
proprietary system [1] violates nearly every sentence of that principle.
I might add that the process that led to this decision also violated the
"Friends" principle:
"Like any friends, we occasionally disagree on details, but we believe
in finding an acceptable consensus to serve the interests of advancing
free software. We believe in a strong partnership between Red Hat and
our enormous volunteer community, since they both provide essential
contributions that help the Fedora Project succeed."
A afterthought of a message of a far-reaching change wih followup
responses of "the decision has been made, and is final. We'll figure
out the very-hand-wavy details and what work you will have to do [3] and
get back to you sometime in the future" not an "acceptable concensus" or
even much of a "partnership".
[1] As Neal put it, the final requirement list and the stated reasons
for the decision all but guarantee that only the proprietary Github
Ultimate product can meet them. [2]
[2] Yes, GitLab CE is "open source" but it won't meet the CPE's or
Fedora's needs without a considerable amount of development, both in
the core feature set and (especially) the integration effort. If
we're going to invest that huge of amount development man-hours, why
not spend it improving Free Software (you know, our stated mission)
instead of reintegrating the wheel?
[3] Given that multiple core requirements were left out of the decision
process, what confidence can we have that the full consequences of
this decision will be adequately captured, planned, and budgeted for?
- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
High Springs, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
