On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 18:55, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe > <tshepang at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 17:51, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: >>> and I'm not sure we'd like to >>> accept code from convicted fellons (though I'd consider that a gray >>> area). >> >> This makes me curious... why would that be a problem at all (assuming >> the felony is not related to the computing field)? > > Because the person might not be trustworthy, period. Or it might > reflect badly upon Python's reputation. But yes, I could also see > cases where we'd chose to trust the person anyway. This is why I said > it's a gray area -- it can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. > The most likely case might actually be someone like Aaron Swartz. Even if Aaron submits typo fixes for documentation :) I would think that being core developer would be the only thing that would require trust. As for a random a contributor, their patches are always reviewed by core developers before going in, so I don't see any need for trust there. Identity is another matter of course, but no one even checks if I'm the real Tshepang Lekhonkhobe.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4