The current phrasing states "Truly open source software is not feature
or performance limited and is not crippled."
Crippled in that context means it is not disabled or limited in any
manner by the fact the software is open source. As a non-native English
speaker, the first impression on looking up that adjective on the
internet is that it is an English word used to describe people with
disabilities, sometimes in a pejorative manner. Its translation to the
Portuguese word 'aleijado' which does not seem respectful, translating
back to 'crippled', 'lame' or 'gammy'.
As it led me to confusion, it may lead others too, specially in a
community where almost every country in this planet is represented.
This patch suggests the removal of that part of the sentence, leaving
"Truly open source software is not feature or performance limited."
which still has the same meaning that is clear and thus does not need
to be emphasized by that adjective.
Change-Id: I29b6cea609ae9db9c9ff678c28744de4570486ca
The value and meaning of the word "meritocracy" has been a source of
much debate in many communities, open source and otherwise. For many
people it is considered exclusionary and something of a hallmark for
not being in tune with its negative connotations. Rather than
presenting our defenses against those negative connotations and
being more explicit about the local definition of a subjective term,
we can remove it in favor of something that is more direct.
The intent, in the past, has been that "meritocracy" is supposed to
be indicative of a community where the people who get on and do
things and get stuff done are the ones that become become leaders.
The problem with this is "meritocracy" is defined by those who are
already in positions of leadership and thus implicitly excludes
those who may be leading or attempting to lead (or "do") in styles
that are different from existing leaders or who come from
backgrounds different from the norm. These styles may have just as
much "merit" as any other.
The change here simply states what is the case: one of the ways we
achieve openness is by technical governors being elected from
members of the community, rather than being imposed from elsewhere.
Also in this change "technical leads" is adjusted to "team leads" to
reflect the current expansion of "PTL".
Change-Id: Ifdadaad9e616c0ee3ce59f3c1da323ed458c0bc7
The version of the "4 opens" that was in the wiki had been
refactored when copied to the Project Team Guide, to get
rid of the "we follow this principles" section which was
partially redundant and not really one of the "opens". Some
bits were moved to the corresponding sections, and redundant
text was removed.
Now that the wiki version has been imported in governance,
re-propose this same refactoring for inclusion in the reference
document.
Change-Id: I4da77173ce64b1e64106d48c7d9e3262dde561f8
The project's stance on the Four Opens is currently in the wiki, which
isn't a great place for such an important piece of information. We
should make it a bit more official.
Change-Id: I96ccb0ef823aca95b1fd0e7c2e1be3207ad52d00
Samuel de Medeiros Queiroz