Agreed with this (my thoughts exactly), I will check in from time to time to make sure faif is mentioned. In the mean time we can monitor here: https://medium.com/doteveryone/re sponsible-tech/home Andres (he/him/his) On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 11:16 -0200, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > Just for informational purposes: I thank Mx. Piniella and also those > from Doteveryone who replied. > > However, I do hope that either: > > - the suggestions and notes presented are implemented or discussed > explicitly; > > - they discuss the importance of free/libre software > philosophy/movement > explicitly during the related programs/tracks; > > - they put the related free/libre software philosophy/movement and > its > projects as important/necessary/rquired part of the process; > > - they foster people getting in touch with the related free/libre > software activists and non-profit and charity organizations. > > These points are important because, at least in the groups I observed > from afar/far here in Brazil, I noticed that even though a free/libre > software activist takes days of his life to write ellaborated reply > or > suggestions to this regard, little is done from the affected > organizations in regards to discussing the issues explicitly. Most of > the times, in the organizations here in Brazil we have only some > basic > mention of "accessibility", "privacy", "security", "development", but > almost no explicit mention and discussion on the free/libre software > philosophy and its movement, its principles, and relations with > sustainability (which goes beyond the environmental pillar), > democracy, > politics, federation, economics (which deals with the effects of > resource scarcity, limits, overuse or underuse; not to be confused > with > finance and chrematistics), capability-based approach/theory of > political philosophy, the conflict between competition (and > "competitive > advantage") and collaboration, ethics (and moral dilemmas), and how > non-exclusive and non-rival naturally-public goods with zero > transaction > costs and which can have positive externalities behave different than > other goods. > > Finally, during the discussions, care must be taken so that > free/libre > software isn't framed as "required to be gratis". While in some cases > one can acquire a copy of free/libre software or free/libre system > distribution by paying nothing for it, there are costs associated > with > maintainance, training costs, development, customization for specific > needs, adapting previous customizations after getting updates > (because > someone has to keep the pieces, or do even better by contributing > them > to the original project). All these costs also exist in the case of > non-free software, but they are felt and paid for in other ways > (which > the public wouldn't agree with if told exclicitly beforehand). By > making > these needs and costs explicit, it's possible to open oors for > fostering > the local/municipal, regional, national/federal, and international > economies. > > Respectfully, Adonay. > > Andres Muniz Piniella <a75...@alumni.tecnun.es> writes: > > > > > On Thu, 2017-11-09 at 18:22 -0200, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > > > > Anyways, while that message doesn't come, here is the message I > > would > > send to the organizations involved. > > > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > > This message can be passed on to the organization involved. > > > > Andonay: Your feedback has been forwarded on and Laura James, > > technology > > principal at Doteveryone. Has said: > > > > "thanks for the feedback! (...)Also useful to have feedback on the > > Trustworthy tech partners handbook and the thinking therein - this > > is the > > first serious feedback we’ve had on that :slightly_smiling_face: > > will think > > about this as we work through the program and refine our ideas" > > > > So thank you! If anybody else wants to review any more documents I > > can send > > the odt of the google doc and pdf document (I have asked for a link > > on that > > one). > > > > A related coop that is out is: https://diglife.com if worth > > discussing I can > > create a separate thread for this. -- Andres (he/him/his)
HUG Director RML Founding Member
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion