More than a month to give CVS access

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Thursday 02 April 2009, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> I personally don't think new technologies should be developed as fd.o,
> since it looks like it's mandated. Instead, it should be the other way
> around: technologies that are de-facto shared get the fd.o stamp -- or
> technologies that are developed in collaboration to solve a common problem.

yes; there are enough free source code hosting services out there on the 
Internet that fd.o doesn't need to play host to speculative development.

on the other hand, it's almost impossible to get a sane resolution to software 
add requests on fd.o due to the fact that there is:

* no clear mandate on how the selection process should work[1] or what the 
criterion for inclusion are

* no stakeholder participation in the selection process; instead we have a 
couple of self-appointed gatekeepers which simply does not reflect the goals 
of freedesktop.org

* no process of documenting what software is where and used by whom

this is on my list of things to fix in fd.o after the specs thing is sorted 
out. in fact, i hope to use the specifications process of documenting the 
usage data as a template for how to address this problem as well.

[1] i say "should work" because right now, to be perfectly frank, it doesn't

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Software

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20090402/8c37b629/attachment.pgp