Including FTOSX in KDE list ...

Andreas Pour pour at
Fri Jun 6 03:41:36 UTC 2003

Rob Kaper wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 05:29:54AM +0800, Jason Bainbridge wrote:
> > How exactly is it going to have an adverse effect on KDE if we list them as
> > providing binary packages? Fair enough this means they are likely to need an
> > FTP account but surely this would be locked down to their own directory, so
> > how is that such a risk?
> Well, apparently there have been some clashes between the KDE League and
> the FT company.

Not really.  The clash was between the KDE people who dealt with FT and FT.  FT
wrote to me as an officer of the League to complain about it, as they were a
pseudo-member at the time, but that was the extent of the League's involvement. 
Since I send you that email privately you should know that :-(.

> But since the KDE League doesn't represent KDE, I don't
> think that can count as argument as long as the reasons are disclosed - even
> if done for legal reasons.
> This kind of secrecy is the exact thing that some people dislike(d) about
> the League.. a project like KDE shouldn't have to place its trust in a group
> of insiders. Regardless of whether those insiders are right or not.

It is always an issue of trust.  Even if the reasons were presented to you in a
court of law and you were the jury, you still would need to trust if the
testimony is true or not.

The question is, are decisions made by consensus, or some majority vote, or how
are they made.  Personally, I think this decision probably should be made by the
release coordinator, who generally maintains that page, so I would simply ask
him to write sysadmin (which is another "secret" list so I guess that's out of
the question) or the release coordinator (who also thinks in private, oh-oh).



More information about the kde-www mailing list