[Members] source control

Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeilenga at isode.com
Fri Feb 22 18:33:19 UTC 2013


On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Waqas Hussain <waqas20 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Waqas Hussain <waqas20 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Oh, and I personally couldn't care less which of the repos gets to be
>> called "official", as long as both allow contribution directly.
>> 
>> 
>> IMO, whether to allow contributions to come via some non-XSF hosted repo is
>> a policy decision, best left to the board.
>> 
>> -- Kurt
> 
> This is a technical decision, and not a business decision.

What ownership and control we should have over the repo IS a business decision, not a technical decision.  I argue that there's actually a policy decision here to be made, as I don't believe the board ever consider before the impacts of outsource the git repo upon our IPR and other existing policies.   With a policy decision made (or they stating that no policy decision is needed), then the Executive Director can execute with support from the technical teams.  I say Executive Director here as I suspect he's the only non-board member actually authorized to bind the XSF into agreement with the third party git repo provider.

I would suggest that those who do make commits to the current git repo actually review the github terms of service to see if they are willing to bind themselves (and possibly their employer) to the agreement.  I did and I found I couldn't.  I've advised the Peter and the board of this.

-- Kurt

> 
> --
> Waqas Hussain



More information about the Members mailing list