|
|
|
@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
|
|
|
|
|
+++ |
|
|
|
|
title = "Commented link: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model" |
|
|
|
|
date = 2020-12-13 |
|
|
|
|
updated = 2020-12-14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[taxonomies] |
|
|
|
|
tags = ["links", "google", "fuchsia", "open source"] |
|
|
|
@ -31,6 +32,16 @@ pull requests? No, they are just creating a maillist and writing down how one
|
|
|
|
|
can get permission to submit patches or become a committer. How open is a |
|
|
|
|
project that you need to have badge to be able to be part of the project? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me try to explain this by using an analogy: Imagine a house with a |
|
|
|
|
huge, sound-proof window. Sure you can look inside the house, but |
|
|
|
|
there is no way you can tell people that the sofa looks better if |
|
|
|
|
facing the other wall, that a vase is about to fall down and break or |
|
|
|
|
even get in and help them move the sofa to the other side of the |
|
|
|
|
room. You wouldn't call that an "open" house, would you? Well, that's |
|
|
|
|
the current model for Google projects: Look, but we won't listen to |
|
|
|
|
you and we won't let you get in to move the sofa the way we actually |
|
|
|
|
want. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In addition, we are also publishing a technical roadmap for Fuchsia to provide |
|
|
|
|
better insights for project direction and priorities." Remember the first point |
|
|
|
|
about making easier to the public to contribute? Well, how can it be a |
|
|
|
|