@zacchiro I agree with every single point, having witnessed it acutely over the last couple of years.

Recently I published reviews I got to show what lack of accountability (and lack of a code of conduct) could lead to:
git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix

It’s high time we moved to public and transparent review.

@civodul those reviews are *brutal* I can't believe everyone is expected to put up with this.

@dthompson That’s the thing: some arguments may be valid, others are obviously wrong, but the whole thing is written as an attack (for some of the reviews; others were fine).

@civodul

> As the paper already notes, it breaks pull-requests; the paper waves this away as not being in "the needs of the Guix project". Ironically, this workflow was created precisely to support the creation of systems like Linux, which Guix is clearly trying to support (given the extensive discussion of the trusting-trust paper).

Say what!?

This is indeed really painful to read, even partially :(

@civodul @zacchiro thanks, I wish publishing the review comments and responses would become a common trend, even linked to the paper itself.

@rdg @civodul FWIW there are scientific journals that work exactly that way, like PeerJ

@zacchiro Thanks for sharing that article, that's so much lived experience for me.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!