Hi, I don't intend to continue this conversation since you ignored the important pre-requisite issue of working on a dead project twice.
Regards, Sylvain On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:08:14AM +0300, Assaf Gordon wrote: > Hello, > > On 09/03/2014 11:43 PM, b...@gnu.org wrote: > > >The fact that Savannah data is not easily parsable is a form of > >protection, admittedly weak, but still. > > I strongly disagree with the above statement. It is not a protection, neither > by design nor by coincidence. > > >This is also a legal matter, as soon as you deal with personnal data > >aggregation. > > If you see a concrete legal problem with packaging information which is > already publicly accessible to non-logged-in users, please list it. > Otherwise I see no legal issues. > > >Let's not confuse data and aggregated data: checking what date you > >coded a feature is one thing, profiling your work-hours habits by > >aggregating your activity is another. > > Not only it is not another issue, it is one and the same. > The above sentiment is the same misconception of people sharing things online > and then act surprised when someone else can access it and make use of it. > If a person submits public information to a public website (a commit to a > source code repository or an email to a mailing list or a non-private bug > report on GNU Savannah or anything similar) - it is public. > The person has not further control over it, and should not have any > reasonable expectation of what can and can not be done with it. > > >In addition, in the current context of NSA aggregating data, I think > > it'd be a bad PR move to start shipping out most of our DB for the > >sake of it. > > Certain agencies illegally collecting private or public information is one > thing. > Me wanting to package information which is already public is another. > Hinting that the two are somehow similar is, in my humble opinion, spreading > FUD. > > Also note that the goal is not to publish the public information "for the > sake of it", > but to make hacking on GNU Savannah easier, and to encourage people to find > interesting statistics on public Free Software projects. > > >Discussion with Savannah users: yes there are a lot of users, but we > >can still initiate a discussion, e.g. on planet.gnu.org or on > >savannah-users. Covering enough users to get a representative > >feedback. > > > > I have initiated a discussion. With the people most relevant: Savannah > Hackers. > And in this preliminary discussion I have asked for a specific feedback: > Which fields/tables/projects/entries in the database do you consider private, > or even remotely sensitive? and which are public? > It's a technical question, and even as simple as it is - it hasn't been > answered. > > So to make this discussion even more public with more people who are not > familiar with GNU Savannah, and before I actually have a good feedback on > what is private in the database - I feel that would be counter productive at > best.
