On 01/26/2014 01:36 PM, Christopher Antila wrote: > On 23 January 2014 11:18:01 Pete Travis wrote: > > Hi Guillermo, > > > I came home last night and was met with a request on IRC from nb to > remove > > content referencing rpmfusion from the F14 Software Administration and > > Musicians Guide. He was tasked to this by spot/Fedora Legal via IRC as > > well, probably precipitated by the discussion on advisory-board@ . > > > I thought a bit about the legal implications and the potential publicity > > fallout of an engaged debate over our content, and in a knee-jerk > reaction, > > removed references to rpmfusion from web.git. Nick had prepped a > patch for > > the Musicians Guide that I merged forward. The Storage > Administration Guide > > clearly needed more work, and I unpublished it from F14 forward for now. > > > So, I would like your thoughts on how to move forward. I can > probably apply > > some regex to substitute nonfunctional example repos, but my Spanish is > > laughable at best. I would like to work with you to resolve the > immediate > > issue as best as we can. The same goes for the Musicians Guide. > > > The greater question and its handling is a little distasteful, > though. I > > dislike the communication through back channels and PMs, there has been > > nothing like a policy declaration from Fedora Legal, and I'm continuing > > that by changing content and mailing privately myself. As much as I > > believe in open communication, I really don't want to see some tech > > journalist or blogger pushing vitriolic headlines [...]. It seems > better > > to deal with the immediate issue quickly and quietly, then have an open > > discussion on general policy once that work is done. > > > Again, I apologize for yanking your work off docs.fp.o . I do want > to make > > it right. > > > --Pete > > I feel this has been more than *a little* distasteful. There are so > many small > things that could have been done differently to make this event more > palatable. > At minimum, the authors of affected guides could have been notified > just before > changes were made. A little better, the docs@ list should have been > notified. > Better still, we could have been given some length of time to remove the > content ourselves. > > As it is, at least in the Musicians' Guide, you didn't do a very good > job (or > "spot missed a spot"). The chapter called "Planet CCRMA at Home" is > about a > third-party repository. The Qtractor chapter still refers to > RPMFusion, and > it's probably not the only one. Furthermore, as I previously > mentioned, the > Musicians' Guide's "Revision History" was not amended to indicate this > certainly notable change in content. > > Plus, I didn't publish the Musicians' Guide with Fedora 17 for a > reason: it > was out-of-date, and I didn't have the resources to fix that. Now we've > published obsolete documentation for end-of-life software, making the > web.git > repository about 250 MiB larger in the process. > > - From my position, there's not much to debate. If Fedora Legal > officially decides > (or has already officially decided) we can't refer to third-party > repositories > from official Fedora documentation, we must remove references to > third-party > repositories from official Fedora documentation. Until they do, or > until someone > points to a previous decision, I'm disinclined to make changes that will > decrease the usefulness of the Musicians' Guide. A guide about software > management would also probably be less useful if references to > third-party > repositories were removed. > > In more than three years, nobody has said anything about the Fedora 14 > editions of these documents until now. An extra week, letting the > guide owners > sort things out, probably wouldn't have killed anyone. Unfortunately, > a "knee- > jerk reaction" has killed openness and therefore accountability. > > I've thought for a couple of days about how to respond. I accept what's > happened and I can understand why it happened. I bear no grudges, and > I'm open > to making further changes as requested by the Fedora Legal team. I won't, > however, engage in a discussion "behind closed doors" unless: (1) the > door is > clearly labeled, (2) the result of the conversation, along with the > decision- > making process, is published publicly, and (3) we fear something > greater than > tech bloggers. > > > Christopher The reaction from you and Eric here is one I will learn from. I do believe in open communication on these things, from start to finish. In the future, we should ( and I will ) insist on bugs filed against anything with legal complaints. It is obvious in retrospect, and I am suitably embarrassed. I hope you can forgive my panic :) Moving forward, I would of course like to help with the content as needed. I won't barge into your Guide and start making changes on my own, but do feel free to give me homework, create and assign bugs, whatever. -- -- Pete Travis - Fedora Docs Project Leader - 'randomuser' on freenode - immanetize@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- docs mailing list docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs
