Re: Changing "Linux" with "GNU/Linux" or "GNU"

[Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>]

On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 17:33 +0100, Don Scorgie wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 11:51 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >     I am not saying you don't have my support.  What I'm saying is
> >     that I'm not the silver bullet that you think I am.  Maintainers
> >     will WONTFIX a "use GNU/Linux" bug just as fast with my name on
> >     it as without.
> > 
> > You surely know the situation, but you may as well do what you can
> > easily do, even if it isn't 100% influential.

I already do my part as an individual.  My point is simply
that this is not an issue where the documentation team can
force developers' hands.  If I tell somebody to say "GNU"
or "free software", or to stop using loaded phrases like
"intellectual property" or "rights management", I'm doing
it as myself, not as the leader of the documentation team.

> > Meanwhile, if the maintainers who deal with substantial issues in the
> > code don't want to fix these problems, that obstacle is not very hard
> > to work around.
> > 
> > I am sure we can find a volunteer to do it.  We could give him write
> > access to the sources, solely for the purpose of making these changes
> > in comments and documentation.  It would not be necessary for this
> > volunteer to know enough for real work on GNOME development.
> > Maintainers watching the commit logs would verify that this volunteer
> > doesn't ever change the code.
> 
> I get the feeling that doing this may upset a few people.  If someone
> marks the bug as WONTFIX (or would likely mark it as WONTFIX), the
> chances are that when they see someone committing the same fix directly
> (without the maintainers consent), they'll revert the change and then
> complain loudly.
> 
> I don't know if that would be the case, its just a guess.

Maintainers would be pissed if we had somebody changing strings
in the source code behind their backs, especially strings that
they've explicitly refused to change themselves.  If they marked
the bug WONTFIX, it's almost certainly *not* because they were
just too lazy to open up emacs and make the change themselves.

Making changes in documentation we can usually do, insofar as
we have full editorial control over the document.  Most, but
not all, pieces of user documentation in Gnome are owned by
the GDP as a community, not any particular person.

Program source, on the other hand, is under maintainer control.
Gnome is a confederacy.  Maintainers have nearly complete control
over their modules.  Basically, these are the hard requirements
maintainers sign up for in being part of our release:

1) Follow our release cycle, including freezes.
2) Give the GTP control of your translations.
3) Don't break API/ABI if you're in the platform.

We say things like "work with the usability folks" and "work with
the documentation folks", but those things don't *de facto* lead
to relinquishing any amount of control over CVS.

This is just the way our community works.  Other communities are
structured differently, but we are who we are.  Power grabs will
inevitably fail in Gnome.  We have to devise solutions that work
well within our community.

--
Shaun