Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
<snip>
> I mean support as in bugzilla and bugs dealing not with ease of use when
> one is unable to comprehend the documentation, but that if there's a
> problem with an interaction between their system and our underlying
> system or a bug that needs to be fixed that requires a simple patch or
> some communication with upstream for proper configuration/distribution.
> I also mean the use of our website domain to distribute the z-rejected
> grimoire.

In short, our QA for z-rejected packages only extends to bugs in our
spell and fixing those, not bugs in their code/binaries, correct?

<snip>
> ethics != religion.  Why dismiss an ethical discussion that has impact
> upon all our lives as a religious discussion?  Religious discussions
> deal with the unfalsifiable and unscientific.  Most ethical discussions,
> particularly those in a non-religious context that deals with actual
> ramifications of actions, can be dealt with on game theoretic terms
> coherently in a modern sociobiological framework without any appeal to
> religious authority, which you seem to dislike.

Ethics are not scientific. You can not prove an ethic, therefore 'in
general' it is akin to a religious argument, IMO. You also cannot
define an ethic that applies to everyone or one that everyone agrees
to, so it is not a fact. No matter how you word it we cannot say,
"This over here is the one true belief, and <insert group here> is it's
prophet".

<snip>
> You've essentially ignored (2).  Thanks.

He answered 1 and 2. 1 Being that he wants more definition for what
you consider 'QA support', but then you go and ignore his query for
more. 2 he answered with, (paraphrase) "I don't agree with what you
are saying about what software we should, and should not, package."

<snip>
> You just did.  The TLs didn't weigh in unsupport for it yet, and how do
> you expect them to respond so quickly?

So far, it's 2:1 (AFAIK) against:for.

<snip>
> That's fine with me, I just think publicly dismissing (2) without a
> public reason is not productive to a public discussion.
>
> No disrespect to anybody that disagrees with my question, I just like to
> see rationale behind people's lack of agreement.  I also want to
> reiterate that while I find it an ethical problem, I don't consider it
> an ethical transgression great enough to harm any existing relationships
> over, just to make that clear.  I also don't think that it's important
> enough to prevent 1.0, either.  I'm just bringing it up for discussion.
> It wasn't even a complete proposal, more of a straw-poll and request for
> feedback.
>
> Seth

You must have missed my nice e-mail[0] /detailing/ what I saw wrong with
this.

- -sandalle

[0]
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/sm-discuss/2005-November/012838.html

- --
Eric Sandall                     |  Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us                  |  http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/          |  SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/  #196285  |  http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDbVYFHXt9dKjv3WERArUGAKDCn6AOJLbPanYzNtiJJjFLZ660XwCeM30y
N+kZgQlNpe31ZtsQxU5CiNU=
=wwc9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----