We will be moving to GitHub

[Ben Finney]

Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> writes:

> On 1/1/2016 4:08 PM, Zachary Ware wrote:
> > There were three reasons given in Brett's decision message:
> >
> >     1. No major distinguishing features between GitHub or GitLab

It seems “complete source code available and freely licensed, allowing
the community to implement the entire tool set elsewhere, without any
need to consult the existing service provider” – i.e. community control
over their own tools – is not considered a major distinguishing feature.

> In particular, some inactive contributors who use git and github
> apparently emailed Brett to say that they might re-activate if they
> could use the process they otherwise use all the time instead of
> Python's idiosyncratic workflow.

This is a grave concern. A strong implication of “use the process they
otherwise use all the time” is that these people expect to use GitHub's
proprietary, centralised, single-vendor workflow tools. This implication
necessarily entails rejecting contributions from other community members
who don't use those single-vendor tools.

The decision to take tools that were expressly designed to escape
single-vendor centralisation, and then willingly build single-vendor
workflows around them which divide the free software community along
vendor lines, is a foolish and worrying trend. I am alarmed to see the
Python core team go further down that path.

-- 
 \       “… whoever claims any right that he is unwilling to accord to |
  `\             his fellow-men is dishonest and infamous.” —Robert G. |
_o__)           Ingersoll, _The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child_, 1877 |
Ben Finney