Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 13:50:09 +0000 From: Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> To: Marc Lehmann <schmorp@schmorp.de> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD asking contributors to fix their opinions - is it official? Message-ID: <CAEJNuHw1NnLxVGmZPzz0r8gopscAPn=oj1WJWVCFqYLhpQraoA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20200321122609.GB5709@schmorp.de> References: <20200321122609.GB5709@schmorp.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 12:26, Marc Lehmann <schmorp@schmorp.de> wrote: > > 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 I'm not affiliated to FreeBSD, but I see nothing wrong in a developer from another project posting onto a public mailing list of another project and voicing his concerns about a particular issue and I see nothing wrong in you posting here and asking for feedback, but at the same time I think you are taking it a bit too personal. I've read [1] and I see nothing that induces to thinking he was speaking on behalf of the whole of FreeBSD. -- Ottavio Caruso
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAEJNuHw1NnLxVGmZPzz0r8gopscAPn=oj1WJWVCFqYLhpQraoA>