From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 29 10:48:45 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D428210 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:48:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mk-outboundfilter-6.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-outboundfilter-6.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EB26191 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:48:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Trace: 79763287/mk-outboundfilter-6.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$ON_NET_AUTH_ACCEPTED/pipex-temporary-group/81.170.77.156/None/crees@freebsd.org X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 81.170.77.156 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: crees@freebsd.org X-SMTP-AUTH: bayofrum@uwclub.net X-MUA: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5 X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArUMADqkNlNRqk2c/2dsb2JhbABZgwaBBoMWg3C4eoMJAwKBExd0giUBAQEEIxUeMwQHGAICJgICOR4hEYdkrl6FXZ0CF4EpiCcuhB8RAVcWglmBSQEDnwSLf4MwPYE1 X-IPAS-Result: ArUMADqkNlNRqk2c/2dsb2JhbABZgwaBBoMWg3C4eoMJAwKBExd0giUBAQEEIxUeMwQHGAICJgICOR4hEYdkrl6FXZ0CF4EpiCcuhB8RAVcWglmBSQEDnwSLf4MwPYE1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,756,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="79763287" X-IP-Direction: OUT Received: from 81-170-77-156.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO pegasus.bayofrum.net) ([81.170.77.156]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2014 10:48:44 +0000 Received: from www.bayofrum.net (unknown [192.168.1.70]) by pegasus.bayofrum.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 260315A0B7 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:48:39 +0000 (GMT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:48:39 +0000 From: Chris Rees To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LPPL10 license consequences =?UTF-8?Q?intended=3F=20=28arabic?= =?UTF-8?Q?/arabtex=29?= In-Reply-To: <5336A1B5.3080200@marino.st> References: <532DC88A.7010104@marino.st> <532DFDB2.1090200@cyberleo.net> <532ED19F.1090100@marino.st> <533541E5.6040003@marino.st> <20140329031431.GA21162@village.abthorpe.org> <533686CE.6040706@marino.st> <20140329101455.GA21319@lonesome.com> <5336A1B5.3080200@marino.st> Message-ID: X-Sender: crees@FreeBSD.org User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.5 X-bayofrum-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-bayofrum-MailScanner-ID: 260315A0B7.A7FAD X-bayofrum-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-bayofrum-MailScanner-From: crees@freebsd.org X-Spam-Status: No X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:48:45 -0000 On , John Marino wrote: > On 3/29/2014 11:14, Mark Linimon wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 09:39:42AM +0100, John Marino wrote: >>> *this* is a crappy attitude though. >> >> No, that's the sound of burnout. >> >> IMVHO, one of the contributing factors to burnout is exactly this kind >> of email. It was certainly the case in my decision to step back over >> a >> year ago. > > Come on, Mark. > First of all, he started with the attitude, not me. Don't dish it out > if you don't want a response. But everyone is a victim nowadays, > rights? > > >> I appreciate that you are doing some good work for the project, but I >> find your current attitude disappointing. Not everything that ought >> to happen quickly does, on a volunteer project. > > tabthorpe is not just anybody, he's an assigned leader. Despite his > intention to step down, he's still in that role today. I do expect > people in leadership positions that they've agreed to assume to lead by > example. Part of that is not just blowing off emails. The "volunteer" > excuse is old and used as a blanket excuse for not doing what ought to > be done. obviously it is often valid, but now it is often abused. > > Happen quickly? sure, I agree with that, it's life. Not Responding / > acknowledging quickly? I disagree. It's easy to say, "Hey, I see the > issue, I'm pretty swamped for the next 10 days. I'll take a look at it > after that if nobody else does in the meantime. And we should think > about how to centralize licensing...". > > This licensing topic is actually kind of a big mess that nobody seems > to > be leading, and it's not even clear if missing licenses is a problem. > What's the policy? It would be better to disable the entire framework > than continue with this half-support. The policy on the licensing framework is that it was submitted by a GSoC student who has disappeared, and tabthorpe was the only one to step up and take care of the "mess". Unfortunately that's the case with a lot of stuff here-- someone drops something, someone else generously picks it up and gets flak for historical issues, as well as not being able to devote 110% of their time to it. If you're interested in the license framework, PLEASE fix it up! Chris -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.