Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] help needed with savannah

[Mario Castelan Castro]

"help needed with savannah" in address@hidden

> Depends on what your priorities are. In my view, letting pass 10
> projects that shouldn't is better than blocking 1 project that should.
> Likewise, keeping submissions open for an indeterminate amount of time
> is quite worse than a quick approval or denial. So Mario, I would ask
> you to not block submissions with lots of philosophical questions
> about attitude or about the spirit to share, but just stick to facts.
> [...]

It would be clearer to consider your suggestion in context.  Could you
please point an example of a project I blocked with lots of
philosophical questions?.

We shouldn't neglect the philosophical foundations of free software and
the GNU project.  I usually *point* philosophical issues, it's not my
intention to block the project by doing so.

> Allow me to point out two GNU documents which emphasize this point:
>   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#VerbatimCopying
>   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpinionLicenses
>
> Once we establish that we only need to check facts (can the project be
> redistributed freely with modifications), things get easier. Facts are
> easy to machine-check. When time is precious, better solve the issue
> for the 90% that can be checked automatically (even if it takes a
> little longer to get there) than go one by one for 100% of projects.
> You save time in the end.

I don't understand what do you mean.

> Alexander sufficiently apologized for the honest mistake, I don't
> think a knee-jerk reaction like that is in order. After all github is
> a perfectly legitimate place to host code (and they give a great
> service too).

Thanks for pointing my mistake.  However I totally disagree with your
opinion of github.

Alexander: Please excuse me.  I accidentally skipped the aforesaid
message (Found it now in the archive).

pgpysLQrK9xV4.pgp
Description: PGP signature