From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sat Mar 21 12:26:11 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2142614BB for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 12:26:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from schmorp@schmorp.de) Received: from mail.nethype.de (mail.nethype.de [5.9.56.24]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48l0HQ4Zlwz4LYS for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 12:26:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from schmorp@schmorp.de) Received: from [10.0.0.5] (helo=doom.schmorp.de) by mail.nethype.de with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jFdCb-002nrc-F2 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 12:26:09 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.1] (helo=cerebro.laendle) by doom.schmorp.de with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jFdCb-0002ap-AY for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 12:26:09 +0000 Received: from root by cerebro.laendle with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jFdCb-0001Zd-7Q for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 13:26:09 +0100 Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 13:26:09 +0100 From: Marc Lehmann To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: FreeBSD asking contributors to fix their opinions - is it official? Message-ID: <20200321122609.GB5709@schmorp.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48l0HQ4Zlwz4LYS X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=schmorp.de; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of schmorp@schmorp.de designates 5.9.56.24 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=schmorp@schmorp.de X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.05 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.96)[-0.965,0]; URIBL_BLOCKED(0.00)[deliantra.net.multi.uribl.com,schmorp.de.multi.uribl.com]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a:spf.schmorp.de:c]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-0.998,0]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[schmorp.de,none]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:5.9.0.0/16, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(-2.29)[ip: (-7.57), ipnet: 5.9.0.0/16(-2.32), asn: 24940(-1.55), country: DE(-0.02)] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 12:26:11 -0000 Hi! This is a request to clarify official policy of the FreeBSD project with regards to regulating opinions - if this list is not the right list to ask this question, I would be extremely happy if people could direct me ot a more appropriate forum - I didn't find anything that seemed more appropriate, so I am posting to this list. Apologies if this was wrong. Moving along, today, I received a mail[1] by some adamw@freebsd.org, asking me to remove what "FreeBSD" perceives to be personal opinions from my perl module, Canary::Stability[2]. His mail is a bit hard to read, as it makes many claims and practically gives no evidence for them (and most are hard to believe for me, tpo be honest). The only remotely actionably thing seesm to be that I really need to remove these personal opinions. Since he writes as "@freebsd.org" and he claims that... I'd like to strongly urge you to retire Canary::Stability. [...] FreeBSD has had to go to lengths to fix Canary::Stability. If you really are married to the module, can you please [...] remove the personal opinions? If I read this correctly, he is acting in a capacity officially representing FreeBSD in that matter and seems to indicate that the FreeBSD project needs to police what it perceives as personal opinions. In fact, it seems to be the most urgent and pressing matter, as nothing else of substance was written. If true, I would perosnally find this a very sad thing, as I had the utmost respect for the FreeBSD project, always trying my best to make my modules portable to it and using it as one of the platforms I test all my releases on, and Canary::Stability hopefully makes it clear that I take stability very seriously. To me, this sounds rather orwellian, thought police and all, and while I am maybe a bit too sensitive to these things, I don't consider that a bad thing at all in these times of ever decreasing civil liberty. So my questions are: a) Is this (policing opinions and suppressing undesirable opinions) the official stance of the FreeBSD project? b) If yes, is this written down somewhere? I.e. is there a list of rules that projects must fulfill so they don't need any "opinion fixing" by FreeBSD? c) If no, is the FreeBSD project fine with adam going around and asking upstream contributors to police their personal opinions in the name of the project? Thanks a lot for any clarification! [1] http://lists.schmorp.de/pipermail/perl/2020q1/000036.html [2] http://software.schmorp.de/pkg/Canary-Stability.html -- The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG -----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net ----==-- _ generation ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schmorp@schmorp.de -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\