21–30 of 152 posts
While communication may not have been handled perfectly, this is an annoyed, entitled, entirely unnecessary tract. Tellingly, it never appears to be the ones who do the actual work who throw such tantrums. And how about just extending the benefit of the doubt instead of immediately feeding the outrage machine?
You give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.
I get tired of community uprisings and activism that fundamentally misunderstand how open source works, fork it. If you're not the in the top producers in a DoOcracy then you neglected your right to exert influence in the direction of the project. I've led a few larger projects and the rate at which the least of us will have the biggest opinions about who is -owed- what is flabbergasting. DoOcracy's are great, but th…
Gitea was a fork of Gogs. I'm assuming we'll see a fork of Gitea now?
I'm also reminded of Audacity, so maybe we'll see a half-way popular fork and then the "parent" amending their ways?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a multi-step process. First you do the right thing and kindly ask to repair trust that has been breached. If that doesn't work, which is a likely outcome, discussion about forks are in order. "Just fork it" is easy to say, but with large projects require careful consideration. There's too many people saying "just fork it" all too casually, if you ask me.
> First you do the right thing and kindly ask to repair trust that has been breached Gitea is a self-labeled "DoOcracy". nobody owes an apology. forking is inherent to open source methodology. ideological conflicts help nobody but those who lead them. the fact is that the work is done by few, and those few have decided to exercise their rights in open source to do what is their prerogative.
There's a whole bunch of contributors to this project, who've never been informed. Even maintainers were caught by surprise as only some marginal bits of info were apparently spread.
A project creating CONTRIBUTING guidelines, then Owners not honoring them? Effectively just pretending to be a community-driven project. Probably legally the ones incorporating have done nothing wrong. And culture, norms don't count in business world. But they do in free software community.
Yes, a fork may be in order. But technically this could still be mended and things be put right.
I get tired of community uprisings and activism that fundamentally misunderstand how open source works, fork it. If you're not the in the top producers in a DoOcracy then you neglected your right to exert influence in the direction of the project. I've led a few larger projects and the rate at which the least of us will have the biggest opinions about who is -owed- what is flabbergasting. DoOcracy's are great, but th…
While communication may not have been handled perfectly, this is an annoyed, entitled, entirely unnecessary tract. Tellingly, it never appears to be the ones who do the actual work who throw such tantrums. And how about just extending the benefit of the doubt instead of immediately feeding the outrage machine?
Writing them to resolve this issue in good faith, is giving them the benefit of the doubt.
I get tired of community uprisings and activism that fundamentally misunderstand how open source works, fork it. If you're not the in the top producers in a DoOcracy then you neglected your right to exert influence in the direction of the project. I've led a few larger projects and the rate at which the least of us will have the biggest opinions about who is -owed- what is flabbergasting. DoOcracy's are great, but th…
The dispute here isn't about the code. It's about the domain name and trademark.