Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Signing off.
Re: Signing off.
From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:03:40 -0600
Honestly, to me, it's entirely their choice what conditions they want to put
on whether or not someone's code can be committed.
The *only* problem I have with all of this is that it wasn't already in the
CONTRIBUTING document. Apparently it's been discussed in the past, but I
either wasn't on the appropriate mailing list yet, or very possibly not even
involved with the project yet at all. To me, it seems wrong that someone
does the work, submits the work, then finds they're refused for no fault of
their own since the published guidelines didn't say anything about it.
So that's why I don't really agree with either side. I think it's their
choice, and because of that they can't really be 'wrong' in it, though
everyone's free to disagree as they wish. And to clarify, I feel pseudonyms
and non-traditional names are two different things, as to me at least one is
hiding who you are, and the latter is a chosen self-identity.
The problem is, were someone to be grandfathered in because it wasn't in the
contributing doc, that opens a hole for future people to say 'well, there's
already pseudonyms in there' and if a non-traditional name is accepted it
opens the question 'how do you know that's no a pseudonym' (which already is
mirrored in the 'how do you know it's a real name' question).
It seems to me rather than arguing over this, and honestly flooding my
mailbox, the Linus, Daniel and Bjorn should sit down and hammer out exactly
what their whole policies on names Given, Chosen, and Pseudo are, their list
of reasons for it, and publish that to this mailing list. They've certainly
had the chance to see the arguments given here, but I at least don't feel
like I've got a clear perspective on what the causes for the policy exactly
are. So why not halt the debate, ask that they definitively respond. Then,
if new issues arrive, if things are said that have not yet been argued
about, they can be addressed. But if what's said is already covered by the
arguments put forth here, accept that things are as they are, that whether
you agree with them or not it's not your decision to make, and go on with
Honestly, I've seen two sides of the argument, but I've seen a *lot* of
simply echoed opinions from both sides, where one says "Real names are good
for legal reasons" and the other says "But you could just lie." But simply
arguing back and forth isn't really going to address the issue that's come
up. It needs to be put down what is the 'official' cause for wanting full
names, and then instead of just calling it a bad idea, offer alternatives
that meet/exceed the same goals but allow those of you who have preferred
names perhaps the freedom to use them. I know there's likely not an answer
that will satisfy both sides, and there's no requirement for the side in
control to give any, but it's possible that if things cool down for a bit,
there's some gray area in there somewhere that can be inhabited.
On 3/10/06, gl <gl_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > I honestly have a very hard time agreeing with either side in this
> > discussion.
> I'm suprised to hear you say that, because I completely agree with
> everything you've said.
Received on 2006-03-10