[Mageia-discuss] [Cooker] Re: Re: Transparency & open invitation to a united foundation..? [Was: forking mandriva]

[Maarten Vanraes]

Op dinsdag 21 september 2010 22:55:09 schreef Matthew Dawkins:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen
> 
> <peroyvind at mandriva.org>wrote:
> > 2010/9/21 Frank Griffin <ftg at roadrunner.com>:
> > > Jostein Hauge wrote:
> > >> If Laprévote invites to collaboration to make a foundation, then this
> > 
> > should
> > 
> > >> be looked into regardless of your personal feelings. I think most of
> > >> us would
> > >> love a solution like Fedora-Redhat.
> > >> 
> > >> The name Mageia and the foundation might be kept. But what good does
> > >> it
> > 
> > make
> > 
> > >> to have a new Cooker, new build system or bugzilla? If collaboration
> > 
> > between
> > 
> > >> Mandriva and Mageia is possible, then please collaborate.
> > >> 
> > >> When someone reach out a hand, don't turn your back on it. Instead you
> > 
> > could
> > 
> > >> indicate what you think would be needed in order to make collaboration
> > >> possible. Just saying 'no I wont collaborate at all' makes this look
> > 
> > more
> > 
> > >> like
> > >> a vendetta than a constructive initiative.
> > > 
> > > +1
> > > 
> > > The tone of these threads started as exciting and hopeful, but is going
> > > downhill fast.
> > > 
> > > As with any business, MDV will do what's (perceived as) good for MDV,
> > > whether or not that seems respectful to the community.  I'd be the last
> > > one to deny that without the community, MDV probably would have folded
> > > long ago.  But I doubt they tell the shareholders that, so don't expect
> > > their debt to the community to weigh heavily in policies created to
> > > please shareholders.  They probably don't know we exist.
> > > 
> > > In this case, MDV (= Laprévote) seems to think that a foundation is
> > > good for MDV, so I'd have a lot more confidence that they will back it
> > > than I would otherwise.  And once they go down that path, it would be
> > > very difficult to reverse.
> > > 
> > > No matter what your feelings about Mandriva management might be,
> > > remember the old saying: "the bread of one emperor is as sweet as the
> > > bread of another".  If MDV is willing to pony up the resources to host
> > > a foundation of the type in which you're interested, *and* are willing
> > > to let the community control it, just go forward from there.
> > 
> > You loose the fact that I raised this issue and invited for discussion
> > on this, and also there's been a general total consensus about the
> > benefits and gains of a foundation and overwhelming interest in the
> > whole thing.
> > 
> > The issue here isn't that Mandriva is only interested in the
> > foundation out of it's own interest, but rather about the fact that
> > Romain is against anything related to Mandriva out of his own personal
> > vendetta.
> > 
> > This isn't something originally coming from the management of the
> > company, it's been something first proposed around the beginning of
> > the century by Gäel Duval, and that has since been resurfaced for
> > discussion and being pushed from the community itself for quite a
> > while!
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Per Øyvind
> 
> Well from my (Unity Linux) perspective I'm hoping for an independent SCM
> repository as well. This is the perfect time to take advantage of an
> independent SCM and allow everyone to share ~90% of the same code and see
> where branching can be taken advantage of, but as mentioned before it would
> take an entity with some resources to deploy it. (Hint hint Arnaud) I heard
> a comment of about 600GB is needed to basically re-host the Mandriva svn
> and to account for growth.
> 
> Much of these nasty low blows about my past employment/employees etc, is
> just not classy nor constructive to really form a new community and from
> that, then a distribution. It just doesn't work that way. It's obvious that
> many of the nay-sayers may have no clue on what it takes to
> roll/spin/create a distro and the enormous amount of setup and
> organization that goes into it. So I'm not going to address them.
> 
> So what do we say? Can we get something going here? A comment from all?
> 
> Regards,
> Matthew Dawkins
+1