Re: Proposal: KDE CVS Commit Policy

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday March 31, 2003 02:05, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> On Son, 30 Mär 2003, Neil Stevens wrote:
> > 14. Lack of openness about conflicts of interest.  People abuse
> > various positions of trust to favor particular vendors at the expense
> > of the greater community.
>
> I don't know what you mean. Care to make an example?

Being unable to read minds, I cannot point to any one example decision and 
prove that it was altered by a conflict, but here are some kinds of 
potential conflicts KDE sees all the time:

The desires of certain vendors to merge KDE and GNOME possibly leading to 
undiscussed and at times large changes to KDE services.

The desires of certain vendors to have binary packages possibly leading to 
undiscussed and even undisclosed delays in KDE releases.

The desires of certain vendors to have advance notice of security problems 
possibly leading to covered-up bugs.

The desires of certain vendors to have KDE make certain use of certain 
libraries possibly leading to breakages of compatibility.

> Also, why do your 2 points belong into a CVS commit policy ?

It doesn't, any more than your point on "direction" does.  That point I 
read as you saying developers should *take* more direction, and this was 
my rebuttal of that.

- -- 
Neil Stevens - [email protected]
"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the
sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him
for the same act as the destroyer of liberty." -- Abraham Lincoln
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+iDrXf7mnligQOmERAlA3AJ4nj5cDulZJzl3rnZnNefCts8FQsgCeOTu0
WvYEFAEd5WGUjhq5RqqTYQU=
=W4+8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----