Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (317 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
[opensuse-project] Re: SOPA blackout - I don't think openSUSE ought to be making political statements.
- From: Jim Henderson <hendersj@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:16:18 +0000 (UTC)
- Message-id: <jf7gbh$2o9$1@dough.gmane.org>
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:52:53 +0100, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
There's a question of degree of impact. I don't think it's very
arbitrary and I think the 'slippery slope' argument gets a little tired,
though I'm certainly one who uses it when it seems appropriate to me.
If such a law were passed in, say, Guatemala (not that there is, I'm just
picking up a small country that isn't 'front and center' on the world
stage - to my knowledge - in this regard at the moment), it would be
concerning (as it would be anywhere), but the degree of impact to the
openSUSE project if it passed there would be relatively small.
To ignore the relative impact and employ the 'slippery slope' argument
along with absolutist "all or nothing" language misses the broader point.
Things that impact the viability of the project *are* important to us
all. And the board (at least in my view) is responsible for helping
ensure the long-term viability of the project. I have an expectation
that their focus is on that, and when they see something that's a threat
to the project, I see it as one of their responsibilities to act on
behalf of the project.
That's not to say that I think they handled it perfectly. But that's the
nature of things - you're not always going to have a perfect
implementation, and you're not always going to have all the people
involved in discussing/implementing that perhaps you'd like to have seen
involved. Hindsight is always 20/20 and all that.
For my own part, I'm glad they did.
Jim
--
Jim Henderson
Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
I was trying to point out that the reasoning behind taking part in this
protest promoting a certain politica agenda (no matter how well
intended) is rather arbitrary and the said slippery slope.
There's a question of degree of impact. I don't think it's very
arbitrary and I think the 'slippery slope' argument gets a little tired,
though I'm certainly one who uses it when it seems appropriate to me.
If such a law were passed in, say, Guatemala (not that there is, I'm just
picking up a small country that isn't 'front and center' on the world
stage - to my knowledge - in this regard at the moment), it would be
concerning (as it would be anywhere), but the degree of impact to the
openSUSE project if it passed there would be relatively small.
To ignore the relative impact and employ the 'slippery slope' argument
along with absolutist "all or nothing" language misses the broader point.
Things that impact the viability of the project *are* important to us
all. And the board (at least in my view) is responsible for helping
ensure the long-term viability of the project. I have an expectation
that their focus is on that, and when they see something that's a threat
to the project, I see it as one of their responsibilities to act on
behalf of the project.
That's not to say that I think they handled it perfectly. But that's the
nature of things - you're not always going to have a perfect
implementation, and you're not always going to have all the people
involved in discussing/implementing that perhaps you'd like to have seen
involved. Hindsight is always 20/20 and all that.
And I'm rather surprised the board is even entitled to make decisions
about such matters which are at best peripherally related to openSUSE on
behalf of the project.
For my own part, I'm glad they did.
Jim
--
Jim Henderson
Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| < Previous | Next > |