[Members] source control

Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeilenga at isode.com
Fri Feb 22 19:00:38 UTC 2013


On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:56 AM, bear <bear42 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 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.

Oh no.  It's more my concern that for XSF to agree to GitHub's terms that the XSF might need to ask it's contributors to agree to GitHub's terms.

-- Kurt

> 
> 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/d3417a56/attachment.html>


More information about the Members mailing list