If they’re not the same, why are they both listed as URLs for the free software foundation?
https://twitter.com/samphippen/status/1177563160506748928 …
Show this thread
-
Question: Should people that have committed a crime, or are social pariah not be allowed to commit code to projects that are funded by entities you care about? Or have technical roles in such projects?
Or seen the other way - should organizations refrain from e.g. code hosting for public code that is partially written by such people?
-
-
If you do think this, does this extend to orgs? I.e. should Linux never have allowed SE Linux and other patches from the NSA, given their track record?
-
It’s about leadership roles.https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1177647111166291968?s=21 …
-
Well, my questions still apply, if the leadership role is strictly tech lead, not managing people. So, i'd still like you to answer them!
-
"Head of project" by its nature includes managing people? Any programming above junior level involves a lot of communication with people; there are no "strictly tech" roles.
-
The difference is whether you have control over their lives in any way, or only the code they submit. If no money is involved, only code and emails, things are by necessity different. Yes, I work in the field, and I am involved in FOSS projects.
-
Both situations are a problem. I also work in the field, and have been involved in (in one case co-founded) FOSS projects.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This of course assumes that the FSF does not pay RMS for his work on the GNU project. If that's the case, that's a very different thing.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.