Re: Discussing issues

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

Kendall Bennett writes:
 > To me, clearly this issue is not about being able to "push development 
 > direction even though they themselves would not be the ones doing the 
 > work", but about being able to *do* stuff that they feel is important to 
 > their interests and have it included in XFree86. They are not going to 
 > force you or anyone else working in XFree86 to do any work for them, but 
 > rather they will do the work themselves *provided* there is a way for 
 > their work to actually get into the core XFree86 distribution. 

I fail to understand why people think this is not already possible. 
Naturally if somebody feels something is necessary and presents an 
implementation this person is not rejected. It may be that others 
object to the way this person has solved things, or it is possible 
that others don't like the way it is implemented.

This is a very natural thing in open source: looking at the
kernel projects (not only linux) there have been many concepts 
which were developed that have never made it into the kernels. 

If you brin along code and want to integrate it into code others
are developing on you have to prepared to collaborate with these
others to integrate the code you propose. You have to solicite your
changes and maybe have to make modifications others request you 
to do.

 > >    While there are things that people have a right to demand - they
 > > have a right to demand to be able to contribute - there are other
 > > things that people are demanding that they do not have the right to
 > > demand of volunteers.  In my opinion, agression stems from the appearence
 > > that those people, who have nothing to vote with and having no positive
 > > incentive to give developers, have resorted to threatening the very
 > > existence of the project hoping that it will get them what they want.
 > Seriously now, exactly what demands have Keith, Jim et al been putting on 
 > you such that you feel they are trying to force you to work on things for 
 > them? My understanding from the outside looking in, is that all this 
 > started because Keith wanted more flexibility in being able to work on 
 > projects himself that *he* or *his employer* felt were important. 

What is stopping him? Why all this talk about 'change in governance'?

 > Specifically (I assume from what limited information we have seen of the 
 > internal discussions) his own CVS tree with the ability to merge stuff 
 > into the mainline tree easily. Nowhere have I seen any evidence of Keith 
 > wishing to become a dictator and forcibly control what other XFree86 
 > developers have to work on!

Nobody is saying this. But I fail to understand what the issues you've
mentioned have to do with 'new governance over XFree86'.

Forum mailing list

[X.Org]     [XFree86]     [XFree86 Discussion]     [XFree86 Newbie]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Samba]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux