Received: from spf5.us4.outblaze.com (spf5.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.27]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iA1HDGNA016679 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:13:17 GMT Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [199.232.76.165]) by spf5.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C0676FCB for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:13:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1COfs5-0005jJ-1V for migo@homemail.com; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:21:33 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1COfqy-0005hc-4B for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:20:24 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1COfqx-0005hO-2a for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:20:23 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1COfqw-0005gl-MU for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:20:22 -0500 Received: from [205.149.2.136] (helo=xl2.seyza.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34) id 1COfiL-0005Kp-7j for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:11:30 -0500 Received: from xl2.seyza.com (localhost.seyza.com [127.0.0.1]) by xl2.seyza.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iA1HEtIb030136; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 09:14:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lord@xl2.seyza.com) Received: (from lord@localhost) by xl2.seyza.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id iA1HEsd4030133; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 09:14:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lord) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 09:14:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200411011714.iA1HEsd4030133@xl2.seyza.com> From: Thomas Lord To: cduffy@spamcop.net In-reply-to: <1099281732.22720.81.camel@localhost> (message from Charles Duffy on Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:02:12 -0600) Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] community spirit References: <200411010336.iA13af6p023128@xl2.seyza.com> <1099281732.22720.81.camel@localhost> Cc: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-BeenThere: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: a discussion list for all things arch-ish List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Status: RO Content-Length: 1753 Lines: 40 > From: Charles Duffy > While granting you notice up-front would have been polite, I'm not sure > that what Canonical did is something that would necessarily be > considered "uncivil". They're starting their own branch with the intent > of focusing on a specific featureset -- good for them, and I sincerely > hope it results in quality ideas/patches/whatnot being created. I admit I'm being (formally) fussy and using a pretty strict standard when I say it's "uncivil". Their action was not very clearly over the line into the territory of "civil" and, therefore, I conservatively call it "uncivil". That's because they are a corporation and I think it appropriate that we hold our fictional citizens to the highest standards. Is the fork good, bad, indifferent? Who knows... that's a separate question. I have my doubts about the specific /form/ of the fork because I don't think it will "play well" with the subset of the community working on the GNU mainline. There are lots of boring technical reasons why I think there are better approaches to achieve their aims but I'll skip those here. One point is, though, whatever problems now arise, we're going to be stuck with the question "Would this problem have come up if Canonical had been more civil about designing and creating their fork?" If they'd been more up-front about it, that question wouldn't be there: we'd all be able to say "Well, at least we did our best." As things stand, none of us can say that. -t _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/