[Governance] Declare Easter-Eggs as a group of interest in Forgejo #180

fsologureng commented 2023年02月28日 00:10:25 +01:00

In order to establish transparency according to one of the Forgejo's value and based on verifiable and public information, I propose to officially declare Easter-Eggs as an incumbent in decisions taken in the workflow of Forgejo.

This is not an objection to their influence, is just an official record in order to avoid use of the general public interest argument as a justification of particular interests and to avoid use do-ocracy as a justification of individual articulated contributions.

In order to establish transparency according to [one of the Forgejo's value](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/src/branch/readme/MISSION.md#values) and based on [verifiable and public information](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/86#issuecomment-806131), I propose to officially declare [Easter-Eggs](https://easter-eggs.com/) as an incumbent in decisions taken in the workflow of Forgejo. This is not an objection to their influence, is just an official record in order to avoid use of the general public interest argument as a justification of particular interests and to avoid use do-ocracy as a justification of individual articulated contributions.

earl-warren commented 2023年02月28日 00:58:14 +01:00

Maybe that deserves a discussion before a pull request?

Maybe that deserves a discussion before a pull request?

Ghost commented 2023年02月28日 01:19:24 +01:00

I'm not sure what is the intention here, can we discuss this and figure out what kind of agreement would be sensible? Did you notice that Easter-Eggs is already mentioned as being my employer in the sustainability repository?

I'm not sure what is the intention here, can we discuss this and figure out what kind of agreement would be sensible? Did you notice that Easter-Eggs is already [mentioned as being my employer](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/sustainability#2023) in the sustainability repository?

wxiaoguang commented 2023年03月05日 18:24:34 +01:00

I know that many Forgejo people criticized Gitea Ltd.

Now I guess Forgejo is heavily controlled by Easter-Egg.

Some people only allow themselves to earn money, but do not allow others to get paid, that's really ridiculous.

I know that many Forgejo people criticized Gitea Ltd. Now I guess Forgejo is heavily controlled by Easter-Egg. Some people only allow themselves to earn money, but do not allow others to get paid, that's really ridiculous.

oliverpool commented 2023年03月16日 09:38:22 +01:00

@wxiaoguang one big difference is that Easter-Egg does not own the name Forgejo or any of its domains.

Gitea Ltd was criticized in the open letter for taking ownership of the domains and trademark. It was not criticized for earning money. The letter asked:

• The name of the company is changed to avoid any confusion with the non-profit.

It didn't ask for the company to be closed or that it shouldn't earn money.

---

@fsologureng Regarding the PR:

This is not an objection to their influence, is just an official record in order to avoid use of the general public interest argument as a justification of particular interests and to avoid use do-ocracy as a justification of individual articulated contributions.

• if someone proposes something because of "public interest" it must be justified, independently from the person proposing it (being a volunteer or a paid contributor).
• I don't see how listing a company on a meta document would avoid anything.

If you think that the https://codeberg.org/forgejo/sustainability repo is not visible enough, then we could either add more links to it or move some of its documents elsewhere.

@wxiaoguang one big difference is that Easter-Egg does not own the name Forgejo or any of its domains. Gitea Ltd was criticized in the [open letter](https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social/) for taking ownership of the domains and trademark. It was not criticized for earning money. The letter asked: > - The name of the company is changed to avoid any confusion with the non-profit. It didn't ask for the company to be closed or that it shouldn't earn money. --- @fsologureng Regarding the PR: > This is not an objection to their influence, is just an official record in order to avoid use of the general public interest argument as a justification of particular interests and to avoid use do-ocracy as a justification of individual articulated contributions. - if someone proposes something because of "public interest" it must be justified, independently from the person proposing it (being a volunteer or a paid contributor). - I don't see how listing a company on a meta document would avoid anything. If you think that the https://codeberg.org/forgejo/sustainability repo is not visible enough, then we could either add more links to it or move some of its documents elsewhere.

wxiaoguang commented 2023年03月16日 10:28:17 +01:00

@oliverpool Thank you for the details. I remember that we had cooperated on some PRs before and I feel your PRs are high quality and the cooperation is smooth (at least, from my view), thank you for your work (hopefully this open discussion only focuses on the this special topic, and won't affect our personal relations).

Gitea Ltd was criticized in the open letter for taking ownership of the domains and trademark. It was not criticized for earning money.

I am not a participant for that event, in my mind, the belonging/attribution of the domain/trademark was never clarified before, so I don't think it could be called as "taking over". Even if some people do want to fork, that's their right and free to do so, but I do not see why the Ltd should be criticized.

Even more, since "taking over of something" should be criticized, now Forgejo is taking over the "action" feature, I guess some contributors of such large a feature are paid by Ltd, but Forgejo uses the upstream feature as propaganda, declares as its own feature, never mentions upstream, is it a kind of "taking over"? Should this behavior be criticized?

@oliverpool Thank you for the details. I remember that we had cooperated on some PRs before and I feel your PRs are high quality and the cooperation is smooth (at least, from my view), thank you for your work (hopefully this open discussion only focuses on the this special topic, and won't affect our personal relations). > Gitea Ltd was criticized in the open letter for taking ownership of the domains and trademark. It was not criticized for earning money. I am not a participant for that event, in my mind, the belonging/attribution of the domain/trademark was never clarified before, so I don't think it could be called as "taking over". Even if some people do want to fork, that's their right and free to do so, but I do not see why the Ltd should be criticized. Even more, since "taking over of something" should be criticized, now Forgejo is [taking over the "action" feature](https://forgejo.org/2023-02-27-forgejo-actions/), I guess some contributors of such large a feature are paid by Ltd, but Forgejo uses the upstream feature as propaganda, declares as its own feature, never mentions upstream, is it a kind of "taking over"? Should this behavior be criticized?

earl-warren commented 2023年03月16日 12:00:31 +01:00

@wxiaoguang if you have criticisms regarding the Forgejo project, please open a separate issue on the matter. Your comments are off-topic here.

@wxiaoguang if you have criticisms regarding the Forgejo project, please open a separate issue on the matter. Your comments are off-topic here.

fsologureng commented 2023年03月17日 03:32:23 +01:00

@oliverpool

• if someone proposes something because of "public interest" it must be justified, independently from the person proposing it (being a volunteer or a paid contributor).

I think that the scope of "public interest" was not finally addressed, as you can remembered from this agreement proposal about paid staff, working for the general public in which you and I expressed opinions about it.

However, is not necessary that I expose evidence (and expose me in a kind of very unpleasant witch-hunt) about the people involved economically with Easter-Eggs, apart from the person that all we already know, because all that relationships are public information.

So I thought that any person in this position (now or in the recent past) is perfectly able to recognize that it is a conflict of interest by existence, no matter the good intentions behind or well deserved payment. That attitude, as far as I understand, is a standard expected from people involved in any institution without profit interests.

• I don't see how listing a company on a meta document would avoid anything.

My main concern, is that I came here with the promise of a statement: "The community is in control, and ensures that we develop to respond to the needs of the community", but in the end my decisions have not been taken into account in the issues concerning the team I am part of, the Accessibility team, no matter whether my work is paid or voluntary, no matter how much time I can contribute. Therefore, I would like to warn anyone who has come here with the willingness to contribute, as I have, that their contributions will eventually be handled by an agenda that is not hidden. I will repeat once again: I am not against Forgejo pursuing that agenda as long as one enters into those conditions under consent, which means, explicitly. That is fair play for me.

@oliverpool > - if someone proposes something because of "public interest" it must be justified, independently from the person proposing it (being a volunteer or a paid contributor). I think that the scope of "public interest" was not finally addressed, as you can remembered from [this agreement proposal about paid staff, working for the general public](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/122) in which you and I expressed opinions about it. However, is not necessary that I expose evidence (and expose me in a kind of very unpleasant witch-hunt) about the people involved economically with Easter-Eggs, apart from the person that all we already know, because all that relationships are public information. So I thought that any person in this position (now or in the recent past) is perfectly able to recognize that it is a conflict of interest by existence, no matter the good intentions behind or well deserved payment. That attitude, as far as I understand, is a standard expected from people involved in any institution without profit interests. > - I don't see how listing a company on a meta document would avoid anything. My main concern, is that I came here with the promise of a statement: ["The community is in control, and ensures that we develop to respond to the needs of the community"](https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social/#forgejo-beyond-coding-we-forge), but in the end [my decisions have not been taken into account in the issues concerning the team I am part of](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/284#issuecomment-834732), the Accessibility team, no matter whether my work is paid or voluntary, no matter how much time I can contribute. Therefore, I would like to warn anyone who has come here with the willingness to contribute, as I have, that their contributions will eventually be handled by an agenda that is not hidden. I will repeat once again: I am not against Forgejo pursuing that agenda as long as one enters into those conditions under consent, which means, explicitly. That is fair play for me.

tallship commented 2023年03月17日 05:40:07 +01:00

@oliverpool

@wxiaoguang one big difference is that Easter-Egg does not own the name Forgejo or any of its domains.

That is unequivocally not true @oliverpool

Loïc Dachary is a full time employee and principal of Easter-Eggs on assignment from that corporate entity to contribute intellectual property belonging to whom? That is unclear, and leaves the provenance of his contributions in an ambiguous state until such time as there is a contributor agreement signed by principals of that company specifying that they hold no encumbrance of any contributions by Loïc Dachary! Period!

Any first year law school student can tell you that.

There have been (many) grave allegations raised as to the the motive and intentions of Loïc Dachary as a principal of Easter-Eggs to that point and he has categorically dismissed those concerns as frivolous - and that is only feeding more into the fire that the media is taking interest in... A great big scandal and capture as a facade contrary to that which our web page states.

I realize you're not an attorney. I also note that Loïc Dachary has stated in issue #86 that with respect to licensing, any developer here knows more about the ramifications of licensing than any attorney, but that just goes to cement in his ignorance of international law as well as his arrogance that he is smarter than people whose entire educations and experience in their professions as doctors of jurisprudence are ignorant of intellectual property law - he is no lawyer, has no legal practice experience, and is hiding something that prohibits him from submitting a very simple freaking document as a principal of Easter-Eggs that relinquishes any claims to intellectual property by virtue of their full time employee contributing efforts to this project while on the time clock!

Unless there are ulterior motives, what is so darned difficult for that man to submit a signed document as a principal of that corporation to that effect?

Answer; nothing. And again...

Answer, nothing! Unless there are indeed ulterior motives in his design by dismissing such requests as either unfounded, as he puts it, or irrelevant - both of which are most certainly NOT the case.

If he refuses to submit such documentation, especially now that Forĝejo is an AGPL licensed project, then I submit that it is time he tender his resignation from the project itself.

Both requests are, IMO, reasonable - he can choose which one works best for himself, and no one will miss him if he chooses to resign and turn over his keys to the org ownership.

If you have any questions, then i suggest you retain and consult legal counsel (coz this is where things are going very quickly) to make what I just said abundantly clear to you, because i already have, and the media is interested in this scandal as we speak.

⛵

.

@oliverpool >@wxiaoguang one big difference is that Easter-Egg does not own the name Forgejo or any of its domains. > That is unequivocally not true @oliverpool Loïc Dachary is a full time employee and principal of Easter-Eggs on assignment from that corporate entity to contribute intellectual property belonging to whom? That is unclear, and leaves the provenance of his contributions in an ambiguous state until such time as there is a contributor agreement signed by principals of that company specifying that they hold no encumbrance of any contributions by Loïc Dachary! Period! Any first year law school student can tell you that. There have been (many) grave allegations raised as to the the motive and intentions of Loïc Dachary as a principal of Easter-Eggs to that point and he has categorically dismissed those concerns as frivolous - and that is only feeding more into the fire that the media is taking interest in... A great big scandal and capture as a facade contrary to that which our web page states. I realize you're not an attorney. I also note that Loïc Dachary has stated in issue #86 that with respect to licensing, any developer here knows more about the ramifications of licensing than any attorney, but that just goes to cement in his ignorance of international law as well as his arrogance that he is smarter than people whose entire educations and experience in their professions as doctors of jurisprudence are ignorant of intellectual property law - he is no lawyer, has no legal practice experience, and is hiding something that prohibits him from submitting a very simple freaking document as a principal of Easter-Eggs that relinquishes any claims to intellectual property by virtue of their full time employee contributing efforts to this project while on the time clock! Unless there are ulterior motives, what is so darned difficult for that man to submit a signed document as a principal of that corporation to that effect? Answer; nothing. And again... Answer, nothing! Unless there are indeed ulterior motives in his design by dismissing such requests as either **unfounded**, as he puts it, or irrelevant - both of which are most certainly NOT the case. If he refuses to submit such documentation, especially now that Forĝejo is an AGPL licensed project, then I submit that it is time he tender his resignation from the project itself. Both requests are, IMO, reasonable - he can choose which one works best for himself, and no one will miss him if he chooses to resign and turn over his keys to the org ownership. If you have any questions, then i suggest you retain and consult legal counsel (coz this is where things are going very quickly) to make what I just said abundantly clear to you, because i already have, and the media is interested in this scandal as we speak. ⛵ .

crystal commented 2023年03月17日 06:38:21 +01:00

I believe this entire discussion is being fueled by baseless conspiracism and I am profoundly disappointed by this community's insistence upon relitigating it in spite of the extremely obvious detrimental impacts it has had on many of the project's key contributors. This, in confluence with other recent community drama, is slowly killing my passion for the project and I can tell that I'm not the only person who feels that way. We, as a community, need to do better, to treat each other with respect and avoid casting aspersions on contributors who have dedicated a lot of resources and effort to improving the project and ensuring it's sustainability.

I believe this entire discussion is being fueled by baseless conspiracism and I am profoundly disappointed by this community's insistence upon relitigating it in spite of the extremely obvious detrimental impacts it has had on many of the project's key contributors. This, in confluence with other recent community drama, is slowly killing my passion for the project and I can tell that I'm not the only person who feels that way. We, as a community, need to do better, to treat each other with respect and avoid casting aspersions on contributors who have dedicated a lot of resources and effort to improving the project and ensuring it's sustainability.

tallship commented 2023年03月17日 14:52:38 +01:00

@crystal

I believe this entire discussion is being fueled by baseless conspiracism and I am profoundly disappointed by this community's insistence upon relitigating it in spite of the extremely obvious detrimental impacts it has had on many of the project's key contributors. This, in confluence with other recent community drama, is slowly killing my passion for the project and I can tell that I'm not the only person who feels that way. We, as a community, need to do better, to treat each other with respect and avoid casting aspersions on contributors who have dedicated a lot of resources and effort to improving the project and ensuring it's sustainability.

That doesn't address the topic of the issue @Crystal . Please remain on topic, please?

@crystal >I believe this entire discussion is being fueled by baseless conspiracism and I am profoundly disappointed by this community's insistence upon relitigating it in spite of the extremely obvious detrimental impacts it has had on many of the project's key contributors. This, in confluence with other recent community drama, is slowly killing my passion for the project and I can tell that I'm not the only person who feels that way. We, as a community, need to do better, to treat each other with respect and avoid casting aspersions on contributors who have dedicated a lot of resources and effort to improving the project and ensuring it's sustainability. That doesn't address the topic of the issue @Crystal . Please remain on topic, please?

crystal commented 2023年03月17日 15:58:33 +01:00

It absolutely does address the topic of the issue. That's the only thing it addresses. I have never in my life been so laser-focused on the topic of a particular given issue.

It absolutely does address the topic of the issue. That's the only thing it addresses. I have never in my life been so laser-focused on the topic of a particular given issue.

oliverpool commented 2023年03月17日 16:05:15 +01:00

@tallship you quoted to my comment

Easter-Egg does not own the name Forgejo or any of its domains.

That is unequivocally not true @oliverpool

And yet I didn't see in your (lengthy) comment any mention of name Forgejo or domain. You wrote about the copyright of the code, but never about the name or the domains.

intellectual property belonging to whom?

Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage.

I think you are referring to copyright in this case (but as you noted I am not a lawyer. Are you one?)

Wouldn't a Developer Certificate of Origin be enough? Why the need for a contributor agreement?
AFAIK this DCO is enough to contribute to the Linux Kernel. Why not Forgejo?

@tallship you quoted to my comment > > Easter-Egg does not own the name Forgejo or any of its domains. > > That is unequivocally not true @oliverpool And yet I didn't see in your (lengthy) comment any mention of `name Forgejo` or `domain`. You wrote about the copyright of the code, but never about the name or the domains. > intellectual property belonging to whom? [Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html). I think you are referring to copyright in this case (but as you noted I am not a lawyer. Are you one?) Wouldn't a [Developer Certificate of Origin](https://developercertificate.org/) be enough? Why the need for a contributor agreement? AFAIK this DCO is enough to contribute to the Linux Kernel. Why not Forgejo?

fr33domlover commented 2023年03月18日 10:30:54 +01:00

I'd really like to support the project's purpose by resolving this painful PR and allowing energy to flow more into the actual software work.

• I updated the meta repo's README to mention the sustainability repo.
• I verified that the forgejo repo has a link to sustinability in CONTRIBUTING.md.
• I believe it's enough visibility to move forward.

Therefore I'm closing this PR now. If any concern here remains unresolved, please open an issue.

I'd really like to support the project's purpose by resolving this painful PR and allowing energy to flow more into the actual software work. - I updated the meta repo's README to mention the sustainability repo. - I verified that the forgejo repo has a link to sustinability in [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/CONTRIBUTING.md). - I believe it's enough visibility to move forward. Therefore I'm closing this PR now. If any concern here remains unresolved, please open an issue.