[Members] source control

bear bear42 at gmail.com
Fri Feb 22 19:03:21 UTC 2013


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com>wrote:

>
> 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.
>

can you send an email to the members@ list with [board] in the subject line
requesting that the board looking to the GitHub TOS and make sure we are
even able to accept commits via GitHub?

(yes, I know I can do it - but it makes me all warm and squishy if one of
the members does it ;)


>
> -- 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
>
>
>


-- 
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/d8b23307/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Members mailing list