[Members] source control

bear bear42 at gmail.com
Fri Feb 22 18:56:44 UTC 2013


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com>wrote:

>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:37 AM, bear <bear42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Top posting this just to make sure it's seen by everyone in the
> conversation...
>
> I'm going to cut to the chase on this conversation as I think both sides
> have very valid points and that we can solve this with some intelligently
> designed tech.
>
> So... I'm going to review our current Git setup on the XSF server and then
> set up the commit hooks and processes to actively mirror the content to
> GitHub.  Next I will then research and report on a way to handle
> submissions and pull-requests from GitHub to our repo - with the goal to
> make Peter's life less stressful and to increase the amount of visibility
> to the repo.
>
> Any objections?
>
>
> First, I like to be able to continue to contribute to XEPs via git commits
> as it does seem to make Peter's life easier.  So long as I can contribute
> (such as via the directly hosted git repo) without binding myself or my
> employer and its affiliates into GitHub's terms of service, I have no
> objection here.  In particular, I cannot agree to clause F.3 of their terms
> of service (possibly other clauses as well, but F.3 is an obvious "show
> stopper" for me).
>
> Second, I am concerned about the effectiveness of our IPR policy for
> contribution made through 3rd parties or otherwise in directly.   It seems
> to me that allowing indirect contribution weakens the effectiveness of our
> IPR policy.  However, as I've suspect the IPR is not all that effective to
> begin with, this I consider this only as something I should raise as a
> concern, not something I need to object to.
>
>
I'm not going to remove access to the XSF Git - if that is what I came
across as saying above then my apologies.

The only thing I might do is make pushes to the XSF Git require a peer
review or an admin check before being commited - that way we can have the
access but also ensure that it isn't polluted.  Of course the details are
what will make (or break) my optimistic thoughts - so I need to get some
proof-of-concepts in place so folks can explore.



> --- Kurt
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Bear
>
> bear at xmpp.org (email)
> bear42 at gmail.com (xmpp, email)
> bear at code-bear.com (xmpp, email)
> http://code-bear.com/bearlog (weblog)
>
> PGP Fingerprint = 9996 719F 973D B11B E111  D770 9331 E822 40B3 CD29
>
>
>


-- 
Bear

bear at xmpp.org (email)
bear42 at gmail.com (xmpp, email)
bear at code-bear.com (xmpp, email)
http://code-bear.com/bearlog (weblog)

PGP Fingerprint = 9996 719F 973D B11B E111  D770 9331 E822 40B3 CD29
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20130222/12dbce4e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Members mailing list