Re: Minutes of the GNOME Foundation Board meeting 28 November 2000
- From: Ali Abdin <aliabdin aucegypt edu>
- To: George <jirka 5z com>
- Cc: Bart Decrem <bart eazel com>, Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, Russell Steinthal <rms39 columbia edu>, Daniel Veillard w3 org, foundation-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Minutes of the GNOME Foundation Board meeting 28 November 2000
- Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:04:12 -0200
* George (jirka 5z com) wrote at 03:00 on 01/12/00:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:14:37AM -0800, Bart Decrem wrote:
> > > ...One reason Miguel wanted the Sourceforge software was ACLs.
> > > However a number of problems with using that software were also
> > > brought up.
> > I don't have an opinion on ACLs, but I do want to point out that the lack
> > of ACLs was used by Nat Friedman in the Foundation's Charter as a shining
> > example of GNOME's Openness (our first "principle):
> I also think that no ACLs is one of the reasons for GNOME success. I think
> trusting people makes those people think more about their actions. While
> several times there were some bad things that happened, those can happen with
> ACLs as well, so ACLs do not completely prevent problems, yet they destroy
> the openness of the gnome cvs.
> I also think that if we start putting up barriers such as ACLs, it will
> discourage people from working on GNOME projects.
I agree. It is also a possible hindrance for development. Instead of telling
someone on IRC "sure check in the patch", you have to go add them to the ACL,
or check-in the patch for yourself. I think this is just an unncessary
Usually unauthorized check-ins are dealt with promptly maintainers, and we
haven't seen anybody really trampling over someone's CVS tree (except for that
I think all the developers here get enough mail without having to
filter/process ACL addition requests, or to keep track of patches for adding
to CVS at some point in time.
> > > The openness of GNOME has always been a point of pride for us, and an
> > > important characteristic which distinguishes us from many of the other
> > > open source projects out there. Anyone can become a contributor, write
> > > access to our CVS does not involve trial by fire or other masonic
> > > rituals, we don't use Access Control Lists, and we've always been
> > > exceedingly good about folding talented newcomers in our arms and
> > > welcoming them to the project. No resume required.
> > So we'd have to change that if we do decide to have ACLs.
> > I guess I'm asking that, if we get serious about having ACLs, we first
> > discuss it on Gnome Hackers and keep in mind that it would require a
> > change to the foundation's charter.
> And not just a change of the foundation charter, but also a change of the
> GNOME "culture" which is the more important thing.
So this mail is for my anti-ACL vote.
] [Thread Prev