On 05/17/16 05:46 AM, Michael Kruger wrote:
On 05/16/2016 02:43 AM, Nikola M wrote:
Posting any "guides" and "roles" inside Openindiana without consultation
of others and wider audience is simply arrogant and destructive to
Openindiana and that represents TROLLING of Openindiana.
Anyone wanting to make OI a prison for "roles" and "policies" in
privately handled conspiration-like consultations behind closed doors is
doing things against OI's and OI's users personal freedoms.
Nikolam,
My identification and specification of contributor roles is purely for
the sake of organization. It is not meant to limit anyone's personal
freedoms.
Prescribing "organisation" is arrogant way to enter the community.
Precisely everything OI hipster represents is avoidance of complicated
procedures and functions, roles and being efficient with less people.
Not only that, but putting yourself in the center of the
universe/processes you are self-proclaming yourself with roles no one
supported you to have, and since I recognize such behavior as arrogant,
will not be supported.
Identifying roles helps contributors better understand the different
ways in which someone can
As said numerous time already.
You ar enot making segregation roles at this time.
That is a currently regarded as a sick concept and the moment not
applicable to current state of affairs.
Moreover, without hearing what I am saying for several weeks and
ignoring everything including technical details, you are ignoring
well-being of OI in general.
You even tried putting in danger even a discussion process in OI ,
"complaining" about people instead of ideas. Putting people's roles in
front of ideas and people's freedom of communication, is clear violation
of community process based on non-segregation, decentralization and a
positive attitude toward people in the sake of community.
You can't form anything if you don't have positive attitude toward
people and segregating them is using negativity and in a bad way.
contribute. For example, most people may wish to limit their
activities to the role of content creator (author).
No, you are wrong. People tend to expand their horizons and this is
delusional idea that average people are content with being someone's
slave, puppet or employee.
We are not promoting crashing anyone's freedom to contribute just
because some might like it that way.
Even discussing about limiting people's scope and freedom makes me
thinking of your capabilities of even comprehend organizing anything.
They may not be interested in performing tasks associated with the
role of 'website developer' (one who extents the capabilities of the
site), nor tasks associate with the role of 'content reviewer' (one
who reviews pull requests).
I am to inform you that you are not to decide who has what role.
And also that there is simple too little people at the moment to be.
And that you are not the guy who have recognized qualities to mandate roles.
All these roles are necessary for the site to succeed. Think of them
simply as organizational definitions to help guide the documentation
effort.
You are not by any means connected with OI site.
Any "role" that you think or maybe want to have on OI site is
self-proclamed , and it is simply disgusting to see you filling any part
of OI site with shit like this.
You are not excellent writer and proved don't accept suggestions and you
tend to seek confrontation instead of collaboration.
You are talking about "owning" OI site and proclaiming "victory" over it
for your ideas that are not applicable to small number of people, and
even destructive as we are seeing from this dialogue over weeks.
Yet you forcefully peruse ideas that is explained to you numerous times
that are bad from multiple standing points, social, organizational,
technical, personal..
You are not going to single-handed destroy positive community process
with the reviews, good intention to everyone, without isolationist
policies, freedom of contribution and a good will in general.
You are not allowed to police Openindiana contribution process.
If documentation resides in a GitHub repository,
And it is not, not yours.
then someone has to review the pull requests.
And it's not you. Not even close at the moment.
It does not necessarily have to be me performing this role,
No and if we don't have "prescribed" roles atm, not at all..
although I am the most likely candidate....
No you are most likely self proclaimed (enter the word of anyone's likings).
Not only you are not a good candidate,
but by still not accepting real Opensolaris docs PDL licensing and any
guidance provided up to now, you pretty much excluded yourself from any
role in a long time.
unless someone else wishes to do it.
And that is getting back to "bad roles" idea proclaimed and controlled
by you.
It is just a shame that this discussion put roles as themselves in a bad
way. Roles should not be bad.
it's the way of choosing bad organizational structure putting
incompetent on the top that is the problem.
While on the subject of content review, the lack of such review is
unfortunately one of the shortcomings of the OI Wiki.
That is NOT shortcoming of OI, but shortcoming of your ideas and the
fact you don't have enough slaves to be subjected to your ruling over
them on Github.
You received numerous reviews by me for your text that ended up on Oi
site as "FAQ" (that should be on Wiki frist anyway..) , without
consulting the wider audience before posting on the site (not your fault
actually but site maintainer).
So this is simply not true. I first responded in aid for you in every
step as you were first appearing and asking what to do onward etc.
So you were mostly covered with all possible support by me at any time
(and that includes this writing tpp as a meaning of support for OI in
general).
I was fixing your text at least 4 times in a row with extensive comments
that you choosed to accept or not... that is not quite a review per se,
where reviewer could edit the text itself and the reviewer is to accept
the text or not, but you received your review.
For some reason, you stopped accepting them anymore, dismissing my
reviews and end result surfacing without final checks.
But the moment you went to work on things _alone_ consulting maybe
outside the public view and planning in private, you stopped receiving
input and believed your ideas are sound.
Well sorry, they are not. Merely an idea that you are always "writing
for the site directly" is again, arrogant in the first place.
Personal freedoms should not equal chaos.
Well please don't make the chaos by forcing people to accept rigid
organization at the moment.
Personal freedoms are most important for starters.
What I mean is....for a user guide to be useful and considered
credible, there needs to be a methodical consistency
There needs to be a sane writer first who don't try to crush people's
personal freedoms for starters.
in how content is written, styled, and organized. A project leader (or
in this case, a content reviewer) is a required element of the process.
After all, people do not submit source code to the mainline branch
without at least some degree of review.
Articles are not source code , but that is not the point.
Why should documentation be any different?
Because the level of technical knowledge needed for some tasks is lower
then for other tasks.
Articles (as distinguished form "documentation") require less technical
skills.
You are the one who asked (rephrasing) "I don't have this and this
skill, what should I do" and I responded "You could work on docs".
Meaning Articles, Manuals, Wiki, editing existing docs etc, not "Making
specialized site out there and meditating on organisation".
No one told you EVER that it is a good idea for a newcomer to start
writing articles from "scratch" and certainly not at the first time. And
not at all to think that one can call that "OI docs", they are not.
Real "OI docs" are made by editing existing docs and after content have
be ALREADY reviewed through Wiki and by other means (Articles on blogs
etc) numerous times,
so idea of dismissing existing tons of Opensolaris docs, whole Oi and
illumos (and other distro) wikis and write it form the beginning,
(dismissing ALL the work put in tons of documents we still have from
opensolaris) and starting on is as a crusade as one-man army is ,
clearly bad idea.
It is not good to work on things alone in general and it is best not to
recommend that to anyone.
In fact, the FreeBSD project has a review process. The OpenSolaris
Project had one too. What
As numerous times repeated: we are not FreeBSD and dont'intend to be
one. Comparing with it is not useful and could be said to distract us
from everyday things.
Opensolaris had tons of payed people and very large international community.
Openindiana in contrast, even internation itself, by not having updated
"old" /dev releases, and making a new /hipster one, at the same time
killed wider community but at the same time now resurrected as an active
project.
OI is doing very well right now.
prohibits the OpenIndiana project from adopting such a process as well?
there is still low number of people active, limited time for existing
dedicated people,
the there is the burning need to accept more people in, without limiting
their scope of use (one guy doing several things in everyday contacts is
a norm).
Actually, such processes are already existing and are in affect all the
time.
Your problem is that you are saying "they do not exist" is partially
wishful thinking, trying to support your idea of hard segregation where
you are on top...
It's a problem that "hard" infrastructure can not hold itself without at
least 50 active people.
And we are far from that and we will be more far from that if you
continue to insist on it.
In summary, lack of organizational process = chaos, and chaos is
unlikely to ever result in FreeBSD quality systems documentation.
If you follow your way, sure. Lack of quality is evident in every step.
I am trying to explain that lack of quality is not acceptable by any means.
And there IS organizational process, but you are not "the king" in it,
so to speak.
You are actually continue to bash Openindiana and people here with words
like "chaos" and other bad words you choose to proclaim that anything in
OI is bad and I don't like it.
That brings us back to the fact you are here for "recreational" purposes
or "venting" as already concluded before? And from that one does not
bring much of a care for the project and could say such things you say.
I asked for
OI has and surely has and have right to make and expand it's
organisation, but not as you prescribe in all wrong ways and
shortcomings I already explained.
You ignored ALL availble suggestions and also you refused to accept
Opensolaris Docs PDL license that you need to accept before working on
them.
I don't understand why you keep mentioning this.
Because accepting license is the beginning of any work in a free
software and open source project.
It is a moral foundation.
When have I refused to accept the PDL license?
http://openindiana.org/pipermail/oi-dev/2016-May/004320.html
On 05/ 1/16 03:13 PM, Michael Kruger wrote:
> All contributions to OI's docs must follow it's license and can't be
> re-licensed (Marguger asked weither he can re-license Opensolaris docs
> to some other docs, answer is:no.
Licensing is something which should be discussed further. In particular
we should talk about what we need to do to ensure we're in compliance
with whatever license applies to each work.
That said I am not convinced the PDL should be applied to new works that
do not contain any previously PDL licensed content. New works could for
example use an MIT license.
It is the question wether you accepted , but wether you didn't accept it.
I don't see a point of accepting other licensed work when expanding
existing already licensed PDL.
There is no point of using permissive licenses, like BSD license etc,
because they can be used in proprietary products and don't require for
works to be available to ther people after you (e.g. final result can be
proprietary, closed owned etc)
and that is not in the spirit on free software that wants to remain free.
Mare choice of PDL allowed us to have something to start working with
and that is a fully positive chan of events. If opensolaris license was
not PDL, e.g. not free documentation license, no one would have
obligation to make it available, so we probably would not have it etc.
This is not 100% accurate description, but since CDDL is also copyleft
and we are distribution based on freedoms reserved by copyleft, it is
best to accept copyleft as a way to move further.
Plus one needs to accept PDL for he's work (_not limited to_) to extend
PDL files and documents.
And you did not clearly accept it, but argued replacement with some
other license and started writing new articles as I acknowledged as a
PDL-avoidance maneuver.
And you did not accept expanding documents aether, for that matter.
Truth is that one always keep it's copyright as a holder on anything
he/she writes and should actually not worry about licensing, because no
one in all eternity can take credits for your work away, and even not
mentioning the author doesn't mean he is not credited, because credits
can stay i logs etc.
I simply questioned whether the PDL was relevant to new documentation
Don't confuse your articles with documentation.
it is truly free to choose whatever you want, but as suggested, to be
included in OI documentation, real one, it clearly PDL had to be also
covered.
And you haven't accepted PDL when asked.
and whether new documentation really needed to follow it (or whether
some other license might be more appropriate).
Again it is not a "documentation" but your articles. For to become
documentation, it needs revision process (that you already talked as
supporting it), but surely you can not revise it by yourself , for yourself.
New articles surely do not need to do that, but poster must not dismiss
PDL and should respond positively when asked about it.
Plus "All rights reserved by ___"(including Openindiana) is proprietary
license and that is what makes such thinking of licensing not acceptable.
Even if OI can re-license it to anything Oi likes (including PDL),
merely stating proprietary license like that is deeply disturbing and
can stop people from making derived work, and that is against free
software principles and is not in line with open source and open and
free articles and documentation.
In regards to the PDL, to whom does one submit a signed contributor
agreement?
To Openindiana and illumos surely.
This is a good question and needs to be worked out (and could be worked
out 4 weeks ago or so if not being so dismissive before).
And did you (or anyone else) ever sign a contributor agreement before
you began writing content for the Wiki or anywhere else on
OpenIndiana.org?
These are good questions that can be discussed in another topic or line
of discussion the other time.
As I said that is why I have posted licenses, explanations, introduction
documents and existing (PDL licensed for PDFs too) Opensolaris docs, to
be worked upon them and for reference.
*But you, Makruger, asked for /docs folder to be deleted fully with all
it's contents , so it can't be referenced in a process. *
Plus you served us with self-invented "licensing problem" that is
non-existant, becasue all Opensoalris docs, including Html and compiled
PDFs are clearly stated to conform to PDL, too,
therefore that was FUD toward Opensoalris docs..
Under what license is this content licensed, or is it even licensed at
all?
You need to ask Alasdair Lumsden who create Wiki and made accounts.
But surely it can be used in PDL-licensed extending of docs.
Or you might inject us with another FUD regarding Wiki, and request we
delete our Wiki too?
If the content is in fact PDL licensed, who manages this process and
where are these contributor agreements stored?
You requested for them to be deleted form dlc.openindiana.org/docs and
now you asked where they were stored.
The were in the process and you acted toward destroying it.
These are all valid questions.
Of course they are.
Not every question needs to have an answer.
_______________________________________________
oi-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
