[ag-automation] OSADL Latest Stable

[Thomas Gleixner]

Robert,

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 09:49:30AM +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> > as you might know, we are packaging the RT Preempt kernel for Debian.
> > Until now, we also packaged the version which was declared as "OSADL
> > Latest Stable". Since some time, this page suggests that the information
> > about "latest stable" is now only accessible for OSADL members:
> >
> > https://www.osadl.org/Latest-Stable-Realtime.latest-stable-realtime-linux.0.html
> >
> > Which was also noticed by our automatic script which finds out if
> > something needs to be re-packaged:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 07:42:01AM +0200, Pengutronix Sisyphus Druid wrote:
> > > failed to get version of osadl latest stable from website
> >
> > So I'd like to learn about the official position of OSADL for this
> > topic: is the information about "latest stable" now considered secret
> > "member-only" information?
> >
> > If yes:
> >
> > - we would have to stop packaging "latest stable" in order not to
> >   disclose confidential information
> >
> > - As soon as this happens, we will be confronted with questions from the
> >   Open Source community regarding the status of the OSADL Lastest Stable
> >   kernel, e.g. why an Open Source organisation hides information from
> >   the public.
> >
> > Could we get an official, public statement for our website about this
> > issue?
> 
> Any news?
> 
> I'd like to avoid legal issues with our open source service because of
> this.

can you please stop this blantant abuse of a public technical
mailinglist for your private business interests? Your demanding tone
to request clarification about an OSADL internal issue is completely
inappropriate.

First of all, you are well aware of the background of this issue by
virtue of being a member of OSADL and even a member of the OSADL
supervisory board!

So, instead of making fuzz on a public _technical_ mailinglist I'd
have expected the sensitivity and courtesy of discussing this on the
member level communication channels. As a member of OSADL I consider
your behaviour detrimental to the OSADL interests.

Now I'm putting my community RT maintainer hat on!

You're claiming that:

> > - As soon as this happens, we will be confronted with questions from the
> >   Open Source community regarding the status of the OSADL Lastest Stable
> >   kernel, e.g. why an Open Source organisation hides information from
> >   the public.

Let me rebut that.

#1 As the maintainer and main developer of RT I can only express my
   thankfulness to the OSADL QA farm project.

   I'm not trying to devaluate the efforts RedHat, IBM, Sony and
   others are putting into RT testing, but the OSADL farm is
   delivering by far the most valuable feedback of all RT testing
   efforts.

   Quite contrary to that, your so called community service of
   packaging RT kernels has a ZERO feedback value so far.


#2 As the maintainer and main developer of RT I consider the OSADL
   latest stable definition, which I heavily influenced, a value add
   service for the member companies.

   The criteria for an "OSADL lastest stable" kernel are way more
   restrictive than the community notion of a production stable RT
   kernel release.

   That's not a bad thing at all versus the community.

   Did you read and understand what the webpage you are complaining
   about is saying?

    "Access to the following pages currently is restricted to OSADL
     members and kernel developers"

   So why do you claim that OSADL is trying to withhold information
   which is valuable to the community? The community who is working on
   this has access to _ALL_ the data. 

   Aside of that OSADL still provides an awful lot of information on
   the public web pages for free and there is a very understandable
   (non community damaging) interest of OSADL to reserve certain
   information to its member companies who fund these efforts. 

   Hint #1: This is a very common practice inisde other organizations
   	    which foster FOSS development (linuxfoundation, CELF,
   	    Linaro, just to name a few).

   Hint #2: If you have a problem with that interpretation, please
   	    contact the relevant member communication channels instead
   	    of propagating FUD in the public.

   Hint #3: As any other community service OSADL latest stable can
            change its rules without notice.

As the maintainer and main developer of the RT patch set I can't
remember a single _significant_ contribution by you or your company
within the 8 years RT has been developed. You're neither a
contributing member of the RT community nor do you have any insight
into the relationship between this community and OSADL.

So on which grounds are you making assumptions about this community
and the expected complaints against OSADLs decision to temporary
restrict access to some information?

The conclusion and the sad truth is that you are complaining about
information which is not longer available for you to exploit for your
companys benefit under the disguise of a community service. This has
nothing to do with the community who is driving this effort and as the
project lead and main contributor I'm disgusted by your bumptious
attempts to abuse this very community for your own personal interests.

Regards

	Thomas