@EC_OSPO Since @EC_DIGIT doesn't reply, maybe you know the answer: what's this idea behind making EU login mandatory for the GitLab, but then not permitting logged in people to do anything?

@EC_OSPO @jens

First of all I'd like to show my appreciation and delight to see this come about.

As for the procedures to become active on the platform.. they could be explained in more details, imho.

Now it says: "Software developers who wish to interact and collaborate with the development teams of the projects: please, get in touch with these projects, this will help with your registration on the platform."

But I also see that more detailed guidelines will be added still :)

@humanetech @EC_OSPO It is not in the spirit of open collaboration that makes FOSS so powerful if any interaction, even raising an issue, is gated behind an approval process. You will find that this will turn people away from contributing.

@jens @EC_OSPO

Sure. I don't know the intended procedures and also the objectives of this Gitlab installation. I basically just encountered it based on seeing your toot 😀

@jens @EC_OSPO

The objectives matter a lot. I can understand if EU on their first experiments don't provide an open space for anyone just yet.

And likely all the different projects that are hosted, if they are EU #Eureca ones, have different teams from independently operating EU institutions (not used yet to FOSS procedures and culture), with different amount of resources and internal goals for their project. So some vetting isn't that strange at an early start.

@jens @EC_OSPO

Also think of different audiences than the average FLOSS contributor. There are gazillions of companies offering consultancy, private services, supported by their proprietary in-house codebases. Now the EU can say "Wanna do this? Nice. Add it your contrib to this (FL)OSS project on our instance".

@humanetech @jens @EC_OSPO It is fairly new so time will tell.

These things do take time to setup and it also depends on the overall objectives for this platform.

But you need an ID to comment on EU feedback mechanisms, so I don't see this as a blocker.

Hopefully it will be fully accessible in its documentation and its onboarding processes. Because that will lessen participation if it isn't.

@onepict @humanetech @EC_OSPO After you use the ID to log in, you *then* get a message that your login is pending approval. It's properly gated.

@onepict @humanetech @EC_OSPO Don't get me wrong, I'm happy something is happening at all.

But this seems to reinforce the story I hear over and over that government institutions don't "get" FOSS.

It's not as if everyone should be able to create repos there. It's not as if everyone should be able to merge their changes into main.

But to gate even opening an issue is just throwing code over the wall and claiming it's FOSS, AOSP style.

@onepict @humanetech @EC_OSPO Openness isn't a license and a git repo, it's the process. And this process is closed.

@jens @humanetech @EC_OSPO forges in general have mild gatekeeping issues when it comes to code contribution, either on purpose or merely accidentally.

It's also why campaigns like #giveupgithub and projects like forge fed are important. Perhaps the question to ask is, when forge federation is available will DGIT consider allowing other IDs?

@jens @humanetech @EC_OSPO of course one of the first challenges is that the EUs code forge is gitlab and the initial stages are for federation between gitea instances.

So starting a constructive discussion in the near future would be nice if possible.

@jens @humanetech @EC_OSPO I've encountered community gatekeeping issues as have other folks just with accessibility access, or even when we had github as a home, folks not wanting to contribute even an issue there.

So I don't think we can say in FOSS we have the answers either. What we do have is a willingness to do better. I also hope we can help the EU to continue to improve and work with FOSS.

@onepict @humanetech @EC_OSPO The reason this lip service FOSS bothers me so much is that we know how the story will go from here, unless it changes to a properly open process.

First, there will be far fewer contributions to these repos than one would like. Then, at some budget review meeting, the entire thing will be declared a failure. And then it'll be used as the example why new efforts aren't worth launching.

This is a case of...

@onepict @humanetech @EC_OSPO ... either get it right *fast*, or it'll do more damage to EU funded FOSS than help.

There are places like NLNet who have all the experience explaining this stuff. I can personally recommend some folks who have decades of experience with this, and work on government projects. The knowledge is at your fingertips.

But you *have* to use it and fix this.

@jens @onepict @EC_OSPO

> there will be far fewer contributions to these repos than one would like. Then, at some budget review meeting, the entire thing will be declared a failure

That is a risk to manage and likely one where a strategy is present already.

I mentioned all those proprietary parties working for EU. EC can basically *dictate* they be contributors. Different audience, different purpose and objectives of the initiative.

Let's not declare a fruit rotten when its still a seed :)

@humanetech @onepict @EC_OSPO There is no need for FOSS for such an audience. And the tagline is "public money, public code".

The intent is communicated clearly, and the process doesn't match this communicated intent. So one of the two requires a fix. I chose to believe the communicated intent, so I'm zeroing in on fixing the process, that's all.

@humanetech @onepict @EC_OSPO And I'm not speaking about this from just a FOSS advocacy perspective. It's one of my jobs to analyse tech departments to figure out whether they're set up to reach their stated goals.

Of course I'm only scratching the surface here, but my alarm bells are *already* ringing at the discrepancy here.

It's all fixable, absolutely. And who knows what lurks beneath, good or bad. But waiting is not a strategy.

@humanetech @onepict @EC_OSPO So if I'm raising this a tad noisily, it's because even just *thinking* about this would be good. From the published information, we can't even decide whether the need for it has been recognized.

@jens @humanetech @EC_OSPO Well it isn't the first system have some kind of gateway to accessing a system nor will it be the last.

I certainly hope that the EU provides further guidance on this.

Especially if it wants to foster community participation, but this could also simply be part of the European works tender system as well. So if you get a contract to do work with an EU entity the code goes there.

@humanetech @jens @EC_OSPO of course we need to look at the EU ID and ask questions about the process for getting it. We also want to ensure there's transparency about the process. From creation to data deletion. But that's part of being Open.

We should be asking questions and hoping there's a way we can all contribute and work constructively for a better EU FOSS ecosystem.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
EU Voice

EU Voice is the official ActivityPub microblogging platform of the EU institutions, bodies and agencies (EUIs). Together with EU Video, it is part of an alternative social media pilot program proposed, and provided by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS).