[wp-hackers] Plugin update & security / privacy

[Jamie Holly]

I never said he was profiting or gaining from it - I said it "gives a
sense". Sorry but saying something makes me feel a certain way in no-way
constitutes libel or defamation. If that was the case then the already
over-crowded dockets in the courts around the U.S. will explode.

Oh and did you know accusing someone of defamation and libel can also be
considered defamation and libel (that is from my wife, who is a civil
defense attorney)?


So your standards means someone has to "prove contributions" in order to
raise concerns on an open-source product? Well in my 30+ years - now my head
is exploding. I guess John Doe can't complain to Chevy because of a problem
with his truck if he doesn't work for GM. 

Yes I have contributed patches. Yes I have helped with tickets. Yes I try to
help out on WPMU forums. I will now be reevaluating the donating the limited
time I already have considering your "standards". I suggest others do the
same. 

>In closely, let me say, people often ask - how do we build more
>contributors
>in our open source projects? As a "just off the top of my head"
>response,
>might I suggest we not attack key contributors - at least so viciously?

I'm sorry but you missed the entire point. When people are asking about
concerns (especially ones of security or privacy), a "key contributor"
should not respond by saying "fine go fork it or use something else". That
is exactly what occurred (and I think another developer even commented on
the tone of that statement). So attacking the people who also try to help
out, or use the product is a way to develop a community? Not in my book.


Jamie Holly
http://www.intoxination.net


>-----Original Message-----
>From: wp-hackers-bounces at lists.automattic.com [mailto:wp-hackers-
>bounces at lists.automattic.com] On Behalf Of Amy Stephen
>Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 5:17 PM
>To: wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
>Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] Plugin update & security / privacy
>
>On 9/24/07, Computer Guru <computerguru at neosmart.net> wrote:
>>
>> Transparency is the key to trust. Also the strong
>> resistance to this transparency, given by Matt (who is more or less
>the
>> voice of WP), is actually making a stronger argument for this
>> transparency.
>> When Matt said if you don't like it then "use another product, start a
>> fork", it really gave a sense that he has something personally to
>> profit/gain from this feature.
>>
>> Now for a question.
>>
>> I haven't looked into the code enough yet, but how effective will this
>> plugin to remove it be? You can't install the plugin until after you
>> install
>> the product. By that time hasn't a check already been done, or does a
>wait
>> a
>> predetermined amount of time after an install/upgrade to check for
>> updates?
>>
>> Jamie Holly
>> http://www.intoxination.net
>
>
>Well, let's be fair, Jamie Holly. Matt is not just the voice behind WP,
>he's
>actually put a bit of his back into it. I'm not aware of your
>contributions.
>Would you mind a little sharing, even at the risk of self promotion?
>
>I must say, it catches my breath to hear this accusation "it really gave
>a
>sense that he (Matt) has something personally to profit/gain from this
>feature." within FOUR WORDS of an admission that "I haven't looked into
>the
>code enough yet."
>
>*breath, Amy, breath!*
>
>It is not uncommon to run into people who do not get the concept of
>"freely
>offered." Open source is still so new, we are all learning the rules.
>Yes, a
>fork is a legitimate choice and one should not take that as a negative
>option. It's not like we are "forced" to use WordPress, lest anyone
>forget!
>
>What isn't legitimate is for end users to develop a sense of entitlement
>where we start to believe we have the right to call the shots and
>developers
>must respond lickity split to what we say. They freely offer their code.
>We
>can choose to use it. We can choose not to use it. If we like most of
>it,
>but not all of it, we can even change it! We can even distribute our
>changes
>to others. Get this - we can even charge for that distribution. I kid
>you,
>not.
>
>25 years in Information Technology and I pinch myself each and every
>single
>day.
>
>Now, I also want to warn against wandering into close proximately with
>defamation
>and libel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel>. When ill
>intent
>for personal profit is suggested, without evidence that such accusations
>are
>actually true, one's reputation can be damaged. If such claims turn out
>to
>be false claims, nearly every country in the world will find the victim
>was
>defamed. In written form, the impact is considered to be more permanent
>by
>the courts, resulting in a judgement of libel.
>
>So, one must be very careful to not falsely accuse someone, and even
>then,
>to never do so without having all of your ducks in a row - before
>committing
>such an accusation to electronic form and distributing it broadly to
>those
>on a mailing list and to anyone else who happens upon the Piper mail
>website
>- whether that happens as a result of intentionally going to that site,
>being linked there by others, or by scooping up the accusation in an
>innocent Google search. Just try to delete it! There are Google
>archives,
>too! Today, when we press send, it's forever!
>
>Anyway, food for thought.
>
>In closely, let me say, people often ask - how do we build more
>contributors
>in our open source projects? As a "just off the top of my head"
>response,
>might I suggest we not attack key contributors - at least so viciously?
>
>Cheers!
>Amy :-)
>_______________________________________________
>wp-hackers mailing list
>wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
>http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers