[svlug] Accountability Software.

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Michael C. Robinson (plug_1 at robinson-west.com):

> Someone privately replied with just git.  That is extremely rude unless
> the person meant git the source code control tool.  Can we have a civil
> technical discussion about open source accountability software?

As a follow-up on my remarks last night, the sequence of
miscommunication was clear in retrospect, and a bit funny:

1.  Michael Robinson asks about the vague and opaque idea of
'accountability software'.  What exists in open source in Linux that
does that?  He refers readers to the makers of a proprietary package
for MS-Windows called Covenant Eyes.

2.  Greg Holmberg reads Michael's appeal for help and, like most people
on the planet, doesn't associate that vague phrase with anyone specific,
but thinks, well, the way you keep your developers accountable is to
adopt a good revision control system and require them to write
meaningful comments with their code checkins.  So, he says, 'git'.

3.  Michael misreads 'git' as a personal slur, rather than an attempt to
answer his poorly framed and unclear question as stated.


Here's the thing, Michael:  Being clear is the querent's job.  

It's in your interest to ensure we can understand what the Gehenna
you're talking about, without having to look up and understand some
obscure MS-Windows application we've never heard of and probably will
have no use for.  Sure, it saves _you_ time to just say 'Has anyone
heard of a Linux open source equivalent to [foo]?', foisting off on
readers the job of figuring out what [foo] is and how it works (code we
probably don't care about on an operating system we don't run), but
that's assigning us homework, and we don't work for you.

If you want better, quicker, more willing answers from more people 
(fewer people killfiling you, fewer people ignoring you), ask questions
that respect our time.