[Opensim-dev] The notion of "core"

Tue Oct 20 11:04:46 UTC 2009

My message was in response to your sarcastic comment,
"Thanks for all the information -- it makes one feel in the loop an
having a voice."

My point was that you're calling us on keeping people out of the loop
when you don't also keep people in the loop.  I've been a part of the
dev mailing list for some time now.  The dev list hasn't been asked to
vote on the people who have commit on the realXtend server.

A fork in git is an action that allows you to keep your own copy that
you distribute.  Where you get your copy from is really irrelevant in
a distributed source control management system.  The point is..   you
manage what goes in to your copy and what doesn't.   This establishes
that you have control over that 'fork'.     Once again, you can't
claim that you don't have control over Taiga.   You can choose to
merge or not.   You can even knit pick specific commits.

"Also, since we have no reX-specific modification, it's more like an
svn:external"
Does that mean that you're no longer using Ogre mesh in the realXtend Server?

>No, we use a web of trust system, ie. each current contributor gets to
> decide on their own who gets commit access to SVN -- if we used git
> even that distinction would become meaningless.

We accept patches the same way.   The patches are reviewed by a core
member, and committed as is appropriate.
For example: here's a recent patch by Snowcrash that was committed by dahlia:
http://opensimulator.org/viewgit/?a=commit&p=opensim&h=182693628ca1b81c90f3f0296418437eda406bb5

> I think this is a case of not understanding what I'm talking about.
> It's also not the first time you've done that to attack me publicly
> even though you have my IM.

I'm not attacking you publicly.  I'm simply saying that I don't think
it's fair for you to call OpenSimulator core on 'keeping people out of
the loop' when you're not 100% 'community inclusive'.   Come back and
make that claim when you are.

> You seem to have profoundly misunderstood my words yet again. I'm not
> sure where you get "negative" from...
It's possible.    However, when I receive advice like

>In that case, unless core is comprised of lawyers, or confidential
>legal advice is being directly quoted, it might be healthier to
>discuss in public -- at least so it's readable by those who have a
>stake in the community.

>Every community/OSS book that mentions private lists for limited use,
>in the next breath cautions against over-use.

in an e-mail thread where you exclaim

"
Fourthly, the email is not just about one mailing list, it's about the
entire concept of a monolithic core in open source, especially given
we're on a DVCS like git. If core is not interested in examining
itself as it grows, then so be it.
"

Is it any wonder that I interpret the next statement, "Thanks for all
the information -- it makes one feel in the loop an
having a voice.", sarcastically?

Regards

Teravus

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Ryan McDougall <sempuki1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Teravus Ovares <teravus at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You seem to have some negative feelings about us.   You have your own
>
> You seem to have profoundly misunderstood my words yet again. I'm not
> sure where you get "negative" from...
>
>> fork though that you manage..   called Taiga.   Are you saying that
>
> Taiga is comprised of OpenSim (although we now track JHurliman's
> branch of ScienceSim), cable beach, and ModreX.
>
> Given JHurliman's branch of opensim is a temporary git branch, calling
> it a fork is quite a stretch. In fact it's quite my point that "fork"
> is meaningless with DVCS.
>
> Also, since we have no reX-specific modification, it's more like an
> svn:external.
>
>> you involve the community for all decisions about Taiga including who
>> gets commit rights?    I seriously doubt it.
>
> No, we use a web of trust system, ie. each current contributor gets to
> decide on their own who gets commit access to SVN -- if we used git
> even that distinction would become meaningless.
>
> Ie, if you want commit access -- let me know, I'll set you up asap.
>
>> This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
>
> I think this is a case of not understanding what I'm talking about.
> It's also not the first time you've done that to attack me publicly
> even though you have my IM.
>
>> Regards
>>
>> Teravus
>
> Cheers,
>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Ryan McDougall <sempuki1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Dr Scofield <DrScofield at xyzzyxyzzy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ryan McDougall wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Frisby, Adam <adam at deepthink.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Commit Rights - those discussions cannot occur in public (although the discussion archives are open to committers after being invited), the reason for this is no-one can be frank & honest without hurting people's feelings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Firstly, I did waive discussion for commit access. I also waive money
>>>>> and legal matters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, I disagree with the logic of the link, as it's premised
>>>>> entirely on being honest might hurt someone's feelings. Honesty is not
>>>>> a function of secrecy.
>>>>
>>>> i think honesty can be a facilitated by a discussion remaining confidential.
>>>>
>>>>> And the case of "there was a long drawn out
>>>>> discussion about me in which I was not able to represent my myself"
>>>>> causing hurt feelings is not considered.
>>>>
>>>> i can see that point, but i can also see the points made by adam respectively
>>>> the points made in the F/OSS guidebook --- in balance (my personal one) i'd
>>>> rather have core committers discuss whether i should have voting rights in private.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thirdly, I don't think snowcrash thing is about giving him commit
>>>>> access. I don't think things are as neatly compartmentalized as is
>>>>> told (though I could be wrong, it's hard to guess from a secret
>>>>> mailing list).
>>>>
>>>> no, you are right on that one. it's a discussion about our understanding of
>>>> licensing issues and whether there is indeed an issue here or not.
>>>
>>> In that case, unless core is comprised of lawyers, or confidential
>>> legal advice is being directly quoted, it might be healthier to
>>> discuss in public -- at least so it's readable by those who have a
>>> stake in the community.
>>>
>>> Every community/OSS book that mentions private lists for limited use,
>>> in the next breath cautions against over-use.
>>>
>>>> re compartmentalized: they are, at least we try very hard to.
>>>>
>>>>        DrS
>>>> --
>>>> dr dirk husemann ---- virtual worlds research ---- ibm zurich research lab
>>>> SL: dr scofield ---- drscofield at xyzzyxyzzy.net ---- http://xyzzyxyzzy.net/
>>>> RL: hud at zurich.ibm.com - +41 44 724 8573 - http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~hud/
>>>
>>> Thanks for all the information -- it makes one feel in the loop an
>>> having a voice.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>>> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>