[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [fab] JBJ considered harmfull



On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 22:43 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 13:10 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > 
> > > This doesn't prevent him from leaving abusive comments in our bug reports.  
> > > This is IMHO the bigger issue.  
> > 
> > My $0.02:
> > 
> > Abusive comments in these particular bug reports, in the scheme of things,
> > is a non-issue.  Or rather, a symptom of a larger issue.  Namely:
> > 
> > Who owns the upstream for RPM?  And why are we avoiding this question like 
> > the plague?
> > 
> > Here's the fact: for years and years and years, RPM was maintained by a 
> > Red Hat employee.  In fact, RPM was called "Red Hat Package Manager" until 
> > we decided to gift it to the world and change the name to the more 
> > traditionally self-referential "RPM Package Manager."
> > 
> > But that didn't change the fact that, for years and years, Red Hat was the 
> > upstream.  Not jbj -- Red Hat.
> > 
> > When we fired jbj, we didn't have the courage to draw a line in the sand 
> > and say "we're taking upstream ownership of RPM back."  Why not?  Because 
> > we thought it would be difficult politically?  Because we didn't want the 
> > responsibility anymore?  Because nobody in management actually cared 
> > enough to think about the ramifications?  I don't know.
> > 
> > Fast forward a year plus, and here we are.  We're in a position where we 
> > have, essentially, forked RPM -- and no one is willing to admit it.  No 
> > one is willing to take ownership of what we've done.
> > 
> > Perhaps jbj "owns" RPM, in its current incarnation, by default, because no 
> > one else is willing to touch it.  That's fine.  He can have it.  But that 
> > is not what *we* are using.
> > 
> > Here are the questions that we *must* answer.  If internal engineering at 
> > Red Hat is not willing to answer them, then the august body that is the 
> > Fedora Board must at least take a position.
> > 
> > 1. Who is the upstream provider of RPM?  Is it rpm.org?  jbj?  Red Hat?  
> > Fedora?
> > 
> > 2. If we are not the upstream of RPM -- and I'd argue we're not -- is it 
> > our intention to reunite with the RPM codebase at some point in the 
> > future, or not?
> > 
> > 3. If we are not going to rejoin with upstream RPM -- and I'd argue we're
> > not -- then we have, in fact, forked RPM.  Therefore, what's the name of
> > the new project, who is the upstream (Red Hat? Fedora?) and how do we act
> > as an effective upstream for this project?
> > 
> > We will continue to deal with these unpleasant issues until we have the 
> > courage to resolve them.
> > 
> 
> I believe this is more or less what I said at the last fedora board
> meeting.
> Anyone else there feel free to correct me if I'm misremembering it.

You're not, this is what you said as I recall it.

> Paul Nasrat is willing to take over our fork of rpm and move forward. We
> just have to make sure he can make it a priority.
> 
> Can we do that?

I wonder what we gain or lose by announcing the fork explicitly, if so.

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
       Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board
    Fedora Docs Project:  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]