LXD Maintainership Being Limited To Canonical Employees

[phoronix]

Phoronix: LXD Maintainership Being Limited To Canonical Employees

Earlier this month Canonical asserted control over the LXD project. As another step in tightening up control over this container management extension for Linux Containers (LXC) is now apparently limiting LXD maintainership rights to only Canonical employees...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/LXD-Maintainership-Canonical

[Ironmask]

Why is Canonical a cartoon software dictatorship?
What is even the point of this? Why do they hate free work?

[Termy]

Oh canonical - what the fuck are you thinking half of the time?!

[anarki2]

So it seems neither these developers, nor the commenters here are able to distinguish between developer and maintainer.

https://docs.github.com/en/organizations/managing-user-access-to-your-organizations-repositories/repository-roles-for-an-organization

It's perfectly sensible for a company to restrict elevated roles to their own staff. In fact, segregation of duties and principle of least privilege are infosec must haves in any environment.

It doesn't mean in any way they reject contributions from others.

But what can we expect from this entitled breed known as "developers" who go into PTSD the moment you mention the possibility of revocation of admin rights on their machines.

[SteamPunker]

Red Hat with the CentOS/RHEL debacle, Ubuntu with LXD... What is it with this sudden hostile behavior lately, particularly from companies that owe their success to Free and Open Source Software? Not that they were ideal model citizens in the open source community to begin with, but it has clearly gotten worse recently.

[toves]

So it seems neither these developers, nor the commenters here are able to distinguish between developer and maintainer.

https://docs.github.com/en/organizations/managing-user-access-to-your-organizations-repositories/repository-roles-for-an-organization

It's perfectly sensible for a company to restrict elevated roles to their own staff. In fact, segregation of duties and principle of least privilege are infosec must haves in any environment.

It doesn't mean in any way they reject contributions from others.

But what can we expect from this entitled breed known as "developers" who go into PTSD the moment you mention the possibility of revocation of admin rights on their machines.

Good points. Supply chain attacks are a real thing these days and well defined roles and responsibilities to protect a project from these threats are pretty much mandatory.
I had a good laugh at this entitled breed known as developers ...
but I would note in this context its clearly not their machine but their employer's.
The PTSD is all theirs

[stiiixy]

So it seems neither these developers, nor the commenters here are able to distinguish between developer and maintainer.

https://docs.github.com/en/organizations/managing-user-access-to-your-organizations-repositories/repository-roles-for-an-organization

It's perfectly sensible for a company to restrict elevated roles to their own staff. In fact, segregation of duties and principle of least privilege are infosec must haves in any environment.

It doesn't mean in any way they reject contributions from

I almost didnt read the commentary for this exact reason.

[jeisom]

So it seems neither these developers, nor the commenters here are able to distinguish between developer and maintainer.

https://docs.github.com/en/organizations/managing-user-access-to-your-organizations-repositories/repository-roles-for-an-organization

It's perfectly sensible for a company to restrict elevated roles to their own staff. In fact, segregation of duties and principle of least privilege are infosec must haves in any environment.

It doesn't mean in any way they reject contributions from others.

But what can we expect from this entitled breed known as "developers" who go into PTSD the moment you mention the possibility of revocation of admin rights on their machines.

That probably would be fine if they communicated that before doing that which doesn’t sound that way. Just cutting prople off is a good way to encourage them to go elsewhere.

[EphemeralEft]

So it seems neither these developers, nor the commenters here are able to distinguish between developer and maintainer.

https://docs.github.com/en/organizations/managing-user-access-to-your-organizations-repositories/repository-roles-for-an-organization

It's perfectly sensible for a company to restrict elevated roles to their own staff. In fact, segregation of duties and principle of least privilege are infosec must haves in any environment.

It doesn't mean in any way they reject contributions from others.

But what can we expect from this entitled breed known as "developers" who go into PTSD the moment you mention the possibility of revocation of admin rights on their machines.

One way you can contribute to open source is by reviewing and merging PRs submitted by others. That’s almost entirely what Linus does these days and he’s still a huge contributor to Linux.

I’d even say that on more complicated projects, most people don’t have enough knowledge or familiarity to do that work competently; it’s one thing to make a small change somewhere, it’s another to know exactly how that change might influence everything else.

Preventing a competent person from contributing in that way is like rejecting 10% of PRs without even looking at them.

[intelfx]

It's perfectly sensible for a company to restrict elevated roles to their own staff. In fact, segregation of duties and principle of least privilege are infosec must haves in any environment.

You seem to have missed the fact that LXD was once a free software project, not a "company project" of Canonical.

The rest of the words you mention you probably don't have the idea what they actually mean.