Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open letter to Gitea

gitea-open-letter.coding.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 152 posts

Re: Open letter to Gitea

#131

Post by wrycoder »

dachary wrote: post #124
kdumont wrote: post #93

As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I'm a contributor to gitea and have no ownership in the new organization. I genuinely would like some clarification to the points in the letter, as I'm trying to advise the owners and understand my future with the project. It seems like the demands are: > Implementing an intuitive and fair election process. I think we do that now: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/blob/main…

There only are three demands: > A non-profit organisation owned by the Gitea community is created. > The Gitea trademark and domains are transferred to the non-profit. > The name of the company is changed to avoid any confusion with the non-profit. A week ago the Gitea project was an informal community trusting elected individuals with essential assets such as the domains and the trademark. They had a clear moral bou…

Shades of Freenode.

Re: Open letter to Gitea

#132

Post by ianbutler »

munificent wrote: post #70
lovich wrote: post #44

I’ve never participated in an open source community so this is the view of an ignorant third party. Everytime I see anything related to the open source world bubble up into the public I am only reminded of high school and college level social drama. It seems utterly exhausting to be involved

> Everytime I see anything related to the open source world bubble up into the public I am only reminded of high school and college level social drama. This is entirely explained by survivorship bias. The matural social interactions which are the bread and butter of open source never bubble up to your purview because they aren't dramatic and interesting.

I wish those mature normal dynamics got more spotlight, not just in OSS but the general world. All the air is taken up by drama like this.

Re: Open letter to Gitea

#133

Post by throwaccount12 »

I find it very interesting how the person who put together this open letter has a company they started to sell Gitea, and is not even a maintainer of Gitea. So he hasn't even voted. Seems like a very suspicious conflict of interest that should be taken into account, and is very likely acting in bad faith.

Re: Open letter to Gitea

#134

Post by throwaccount12 »

ianbutler wrote: post #59
maxbond wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't slander them by saying they're throwing a tantrum, without even talking about what parts of the document you're referring to or why it is you feel that way, and then decry how they're not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. That is pearl clutching. Writing them to resolve this issue in good faith, is giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Outsider opinion: So I think the entire doc as a first step in supposed good communication is in bad faith. Bringing this out into the public, and being on the front page of HN makes it seem like a stunt, and for pressure, not a good faith plea. I feel like a private conversation between the concerned parties should have happened first, and if it did that should have been mentioned. If that didn't work then maybe mak…

I am an outsider as well, and I researched the person who wrote this letter, and he has a company that sells Gitea and is not a maintainer. This letter is in bad faith like you said.

Re: Open letter to Gitea

#136

Post by bastardoperator »

rapnie wrote: post #126
bastardoperator wrote: post #84

I find it odd that gitea uses github.

The project is quite large and cannot be easily migrated without loss of data, due to rate limits in Github's API's. The preparation has been long going, but they are nearing a point where they move the project to a gitea server. That's vendor lock-in, right there.

The Gitea repo is actually not that big. The harder part is converting issue and pull request metadata from the GitHub archive which they reference here:

https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/18165

The migration bundles all of that up so I assume the holdup is writing something that can covert that archive to something Gitea understands or can use.

Re: Open letter to Gitea

#137

Post by MRtecno98 »

mmu_man wrote: post #129
thrown_22 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be have been solved even more simply by making it a legal obligation. Drama like this is God's way of teaching hippies why we have contract law.

I don't see why this wouldn't already be legally binding. He was elected, but he accepted the mandate which is described by this document.

AFAIK he did not sign anything so no actual contract was formed

Re: Open letter to Gitea

#138

Post by MRtecno98 »

ianbutler wrote: post #132
munificent wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everytime I see anything related to the open source world bubble up into the public I am only reminded of high school and college level social drama. This is entirely explained by survivorship bias. The matural social interactions which are the bread and butter of open source never bubble up to your purview because they aren't dramatic and interesting.

I wish those mature normal dynamics got more spotlight, not just in OSS but the general world. All the air is taken up by drama like this.

The general world would not care tbf, if you want to know just go read some oss mailing list

Re: Open letter to Gitea

#139

Post by rapnie »

bastardoperator wrote: post #136
rapnie wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The project is quite large and cannot be easily migrated without loss of data, due to rate limits in Github's API's. The preparation has been long going, but they are nearing a point where they move the project to a gitea server. That's vendor lock-in, right there.

The Gitea repo is actually not that big. The harder part is converting issue and pull request metadata from the GitHub archive which they reference here: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/18165 The migration bundles all of that up so I assume the holdup is writing something that can covert that archive to something Gitea understands or can use.

Yes, I was referring to the entirety of the project, including all issue discussions and PR metadata.

Re: Open letter to Gitea

#140

Post by rapnie »

kdumont wrote: post #78
tinalumfoil wrote: post #3

What's been the general opinion of this change to the gitea contributors? It's difficult to match usernames to real names but I don't see overlap between the top contributors and signatories. https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pulse

Gitea contributor ("maintainer") here [0] - we were blindsided by the original Gitea Ltd. announcement too, but if you look at any of answers in discord regarding clarification, it's pretty clear that this is a better situation than the gitea assets being owned by a single person, and the intention is NOT to syphon money from the project or start a shillcoin or something like that. The general consensus from us maint…

> It's not supported by a vast majority of the maintainers of the project and spearheaded by folks who have contributed very little.

I feel that here you demonstrate some of the improvements that can be made to the project. This stance shows that the view on what constitutes the Community around the project is quite narrow: Contribute a lot of code and you matter. Commits + LoC or be silent.

While that is a logical perspective and how many FOSS projects look upon community, it neglects all the people in different roles that have a warm heart for the project and do activities that may be less visible than that. Like taking time to advocate the project across the web wherever they can. Or those working in a broader ecosystem in other projects where you indirectly benefit. Codeberg is an example who maintain a downstream fork, and where people like Otto Richter act like delegated maintainers and handling a lot of user feedback. Or the group of projects involved in forge federation, that did the brunt work where Gitea benefits tremendously [0].

The announcement of Gitea Ltd and the follow-up with the Open Letter did a lot of good in that respect. For the first time there's broader open discussion on strategical aspects and long-term project direction where many of the community have their say. Though the open letter only gives indications of the kinds of community project improvements that can be made, these last couple of days a ton of feedback has been posted on how these could actually be shaped.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29830061

Post reply on HN