Re: [Gnu-arch-users] community spirit

[Thomas Lord]

    > From: Andrew Suffield <address@hidden>

    > On Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 07:36:41PM -0800, Thomas Lord wrote:
    > > They did not make even the slightest attempt to alert me before
    > > announcing a fork.  Whether they describe that fork as "friendly" or
    > > not, the creation of the fork was not only not conducted in a friendly
    > > manner, it was not conducted in a civil manner, given the way they
    > > have presented it on the GNU Arch lists.

    > This is SOP for Canonical. I don't think anybody outside Canonical
    > really takes them seriously on that "community focus" and "friendly"
    > stuff (any more than they do for, say, redhat, mandrake, or suse, who
    > all claim the same stuff and act in more or less the same way). It's
    > just another vendor running around forking everything to avoid having
    > to deal with upstream authors.

At the risk of contributing to a cult of personality: nah -- mark is
weirder and, one hopes, saner than that.  You can't be as much of a
statistical outlier as he without aquiring at least /some/ beneficial
world weariness.

The announcement message had a noteworthy virtue which I've neglected
to note: complete submissiveness with respect to "the arch protocol".
/That/, more than anything else, is why there is no crisis here.
Respectable playas is doing their level best to play nice -- good
enough for me.  It's just all the details that suck and would benefit
from some cleanup.  I think they are a negative example, as things
stand, of "how to form a truly friendly corporate fork".   Let's see
if we can't clean that up a bit.

-t