<div dir="auto">One thing that may be worth adding on to this: Silverblue's tracker and docs to GitHub, and that's also where a lot of Project Atomic / SB-related projects are hosted (bubblewrap, rpm-ostree).</div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:58 AM Alexander Larsson <<a href="mailto:alexl@redhat.com">alexl@redhat.com</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 11:26 AM Michael Gratton <<a href="mailto:mike@vee.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">mike@vee.net</a>> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Oct, 2019 at 10:53, Alexander Larsson <<a href="mailto:alexl@redhat.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">alexl@redhat.com</a>> > wrote: > > > > > Now, to the issue at hand. As I said, I disagree with (some of) ICE > > current policies, however, I don't believe us immediately dropping > > github is an efficient way of causing these policies to change. > > Well, I guess that's where I disagree. There's only going to be one way > to convince them to drop what is otherwise an easy $200k, which is > start costing them money because of it. Its already costing them money. They did a $500k donation to "offset" the $200k causing it to be a net loss deal, and thats not even considering all the bad PR they are already getting over this from various sources. > You see how effective this is when (say) bigoted news readers say > something particularly heinous, such that people start contacting their > advertisers and getting them to cancel ad their ad spend the show - > there's always a quick reversal. Well, cancelling ads is very easy to do, and easy to reverse. A large infrastructure reboot is not that easy, so it has to be considered much more carefully. And there is also the question of what guarantees that the new host is any better (see the link to gitllab policy in my other mail). In fact, am I any better? I'm currently employed by the company that literally tabulated the holocaust... My personal opinion about this is: I find what ICE is doing reprehensible, and I would prefer if github dropped ICE as a customer. But I realize the complexities of business, and this contract is imho not something fundamental or defining of the github organization either in terms of money or in moral values, nor is it (I assume) a major thing for the ICE operational capabilities. I also think that flatpak moving elsewhere will not really add a significant effect to this particular case as this is already being fought in a lot of ways. So, currently I don't think there is an urgent need to switch from github to something else. However, long-term we should maybe look at options for infrastructure that are not directly tied to any particular company. For example, <a href="http://freedesktop.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">freedesktop.org</a> is pretty closely tied with flatpak in terms of values and goals. Of course, other developers may have different opinions. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc <a href="mailto:alexl@redhat.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">alexl@redhat.com</a> <a href="mailto:alexander.larsson@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">alexander.larsson@gmail.com</a> _______________________________________________ Flatpak mailing list <a href="mailto:Flatpak@lists.freedesktop.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Flatpak@lists.freedesktop.org</a> <a href="https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/flatpak" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/flatpak</a></blockquote></div>