Re: GNOME Speaker Guidelines
On 6/26/10 5:45 PM, "Stormy Peters" wrote: > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Stone Mirror wrote: >> Again, very well said, and I couldn't agree more. Thank you, Alan. >> >> It honestly baffles me that some people seem to have such difficulty grasping >> what seems so transparently obvious to me. > > *Stop* making it personal. Stop thanking individuals. Stop insulting > others' intelligence. > > (Saying you agree is one thing. Thanking them like they did you a > favor is another.) Stormy, at this point, I frankly haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about. I didn't make _anything_ personal, other than my thanks to Alan. Please stop. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
One _Final_ Comment (Seriously)
I'm actually pretty bored by the completely futile rehashing of the same ground on this matter, over and over, to no resolution. Clearly, RMS will never feel anything other than "proud" about his ridicule of religion and women. Clearly, Patryk and like-minded others, will never change their minds about the "humor" of this. Further discussion really _is_ pointless. At GUADEC 2008, in Istanbul, I got into a conversation with Behdad about my impressions of the conference and the city. He liked what I said, and asked me to repeat it, on stage, at the closing of the conference. I spoke about how, in my various travels, I'd never made it to Istanbul before, and how thoroughly different it was from anyplace I'd been previously. I talked about how terrific our hosts had been. Mostly, I talked about how the GNOME community seemed to be a sort of little "United Nations", bringing people from vastly different cultures, with very different outlooks, together in love of some common goals. I talked about what a wonderful and amazing thing I thought that was. I would not have been able, in any honesty, to make the same statements last year. I could not, I think, make them this year. The community I see today is not the community I saw then. If anything, the situation for women (and minorities in general) seems to have worsened; there's more discord over silly issues, more hatred, more intransigence, less willingness to live-and-let-live, and vastly greater polarization. There's sprung up a whole contingent of apparently-otherwise-non-participating monomaniacal "free software advocates" harassing and defaming others over differences of opinion on _software_. I cannot express just how much that saddens me. However, communities get what they ask for. This is what we've asked for, people. == 30 == ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Speaker Guidelines
On 6/26/10 7:09 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: > > The GNOME speaker guidelines were at least partly a reaction to my > Saint IGNUcius comedy routine. So if I don't have a beef with these > guidelines, why should anyone else? Good question. It seems some folks are intent on "defending" you, whether you're looking for defense or not. I've had a bunch of 'em email my managers, our clients, and uninvolved members of my family, over my disagreements on this issue. You may recall that I wrote you privately about this about three months ago, and you saw no problem with it at the time, but perhaps you've reconsidered that. Asking them to knock it off seems reasonable to me, certainly. > I am proud of my Saint IGNUcius routine. I am, in all honesty, sorry to hear that. I feel that's a shame, myself. > Thousands of people have laughed at it. Keen student of world history that you are, you're surely aware that tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, laughed (and cheered and applauded) at each and every beheading conducted during the Reign of Terror. I guess by this metric, if a speaker wants to throw in a guillotining or two, well, why not? As long as people laugh, right? > The routine makes fun of people, especially Emacs > users, but does not insult or attack anyone, not even Emacs users. As I've shown, opinions varied. Celeste Lyn Paul felt insulted. Chani Armitage felt more at risk of being attacked. I felt offended. Thanks for making it clear that our various feelings in this matter were in fact groundless, and should not be considered as being material to, or indicative of, anything. See, from where I was sitting, the routine _seemed_ to be making fun of women in particular as some sort of technical ignorami, helplessly waiting around for some big, strong _male_ hacker to explain to them the wonders of EMACS. Surely, "virginity" is a small, even insignificant, thing to trade for some awesome knowledge and power. It's easy to see why such a message would achieve a level of popularity with your typical "FLOSS community conference" audience. By the same token, I personally _believed_ (mistakenly, apparently) that I could well imagine why a woman in attendance, outnumbered by men at perhaps a ratio of 40-to-1, might be made just a _wee_ bit uncomfortable by that notion. Evidently, however, that's a lot harder for yourself, and others, to envisage, thus conclusively demonstrating my (and Celeste's, and Chani's, and Matt's, and Matthew's, and Andre's, and Sandy's, and...) error in this matter. > It > doesn't advocate doing anything to people by force -- not even > teaching them Emacs (which is how one loses Emacs virginity). Well, see? That's why I keep asking for a handout. I've never heard of "relieving" a woman's "virginity" through teaching her how to use a 40-year-old text editor. I'm also unclear how a unilateral "Holy Duty" to impose something, anything, on some nonconsenting other doesn't amount to "doing something by force". As I've said, I was taught to always say, "May I?" first. There was no mention of anything like that at GCDS. Just your "Holy Duty". > I don't think there's anything bad about it. I'd intuited that, yes. Again, a shame, in my view. > But it does refer to sex and religion. Well, at least we're on the same page there. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Speaker Guidelines
Patryk seems to want to continue to pursue this discussion. I hadn't been planning to, after Sriram's message, but since there's an obvious interest... On 6/26/10 12:58 AM, "Patryk Zawadzki" wrote: > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: >> >> Is it _that_ difficult to distinguish between the sort of offense that >> someone like Celeste Lyn Paul, a KDE board member, expressed when she wrote >> ( http://identi.ca/notice/6304540)... >> >> "Do men really think RMSs virgin joke at #gcds was not sexist? Very >> disappointed in FLOSS comm chatter about this." > > I'd say it was more stupid than sexist. He planned it to be a > religious joke but ended up with a pile of crap. Well, Celeste and Chani and Matt and Matthew and Andre and Sandy and I and a whole bunch of others would say it was more sexist that stupid. Did you have a point in there? While we were unaware of his "plans", we certainly became aware of the "pile of crap", as Chani and Celeste's comments have shown Ah, wait: I see. You're saying that Celeste, and Chani and I and all the rest of us were _mistaken_ to be offended! Not having your keen insight into Mr. Stallman's _plans_, nor sufficient grasp of the history of Western religion in general, and Catholic doctrine in particular, we weren't sharp enough to get what Mr. Stallman was _really_ ridiculing, and―silly us!―we reacted in a totally inappropriate way! Wow. Thanks for clearing that up, Patryk. Will you be at the upcoming GUADEC to assist in interpreting the subtextual meanings of any presentations being given there? Clearly, I, and others, incapable of figuring out what people actually mean without your assistance. Silly us, to rely on what they _say_ rather than what they had _planned_. In light of this, I'd like to make a formal complaint to the Board against myself for being insufficiently psychic. I would, however, again like to ask the Board to add a guideline to the speaker's rules insisting that speakers must provide a detailed outline and bibliography describing what they're actually saying and what their "plans" are, so as to "avoid misunderstandings" in the future. As an example, a handout describing the "Cult of Mary", the Catholic Church's views on virginity, the history of "Saint INGUcius" and the "Church of EMACS" along with an explanation that―since if you're ridiculing religion you _can't_ be offensive to women, as people persist in explaining to me―despite appearances, anyone who might feel that the jokes were somewhat "sexist" would be mistaken, with a rundown of the reasoning behind it, and the advice that they should develop a sense of humor if they happen not to think the jokes funny. In fact, including some testimonials from some of the "thousands" who have laughed at this routine could have been quite helpful in convincing those of us who _did_ mistakenly feel offended that we were thoroughly in error for feeling that way! This could have saved a lot of discomfort and unhappiness last summer. I See A Great Need. Let's get serious: whether you say it was "more stupid", "more sexist", "more Lithuanian" or whatever, is fine for you. However, the fact is that the reactions I'm describing were not unique to me, nor are they any less relevant that your assessment―if you weren't present, they're likely _more_ relevant. Plenty of people felt similarly to the way that I do. You'd seem to want to either deny that we felt the way we did, or get us to somehow "admit" that our feeling the way we did was somehow "in error". Now, unless you want to stand up and tell all of us that we were simply _wrong_, that we cannot trust the evidence of our own senses and should rely on yours instead, I'm not sure what relevance your individual impressions have to do with anything. Just for clarity: were you actually present at GCDS? > Are you trying to start a flame war, or are you just bored? Stop > trying to convince me that I'm defending bad behavior as I'm not. No, and I'm not suggesting that you are, either, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. I'm not trying to convince you of anything: I'm trying to explain to you that your perceptions of the situation (First-hand? Second-hand? Third-hand?) are not authoritative with respect to others. You'd seem, however, to be trying very hard to convince _me_ (or others, I suppose) that I was completely wrong-headed in taking any offense at all. > I said the rules were too vague to be considered a policy. A person > hating Mono or C# is just as covered as a person who is a target of > racist comments. That's why the rules are bad. If someone is &qu
Re: GNOME Speaker Guidelines
On 6/25/10 4:25 PM, "Joanmarie Diggs" wrote: > > I agree with this: > >> I also don't think the ending is appropriate: "These guidelines do not >> constitute censorship since you have many other forums and >> opportunities to say whatever you wish." I pretty much agree with _you_. However, experience has shown that the very first thing some people who want to avoid staying within guidelines will do is cry "censorship". It's incorrect, it's silly, it's inane, and for a variety of reasons, the chief of which are cited in that section: you can go _someplace else_ and say whatever you want, if you feel you must, and the guidelines won't allow it. (I shudder, somewhat, to think what that might amount to, looking at the guidelines again. "The Beloved Prophet, GNUhammed"? I _hope_ not.) I'd be happy to see it moved to an "annotated version" or comments or something, but I fear that without it, we'll be continually explaining to people that "freedom of the press doesn't actually mean that _you're_ free to use _my_ press as you see fit". ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Speaker Guidelines
On 6/25/10 4:15 PM, "David Schlesinger" wrote: > On 6/25/10 3:50 PM, "Brian Cameron" wrote: >> >> I can't imagine that anybody would take a complaint about someone giving >> a talk and using a MacBook seriously, unless the situation were somehow >> extraordinary (e.g. if a speaker had a "GNU/Linux Killer" sticker on >> their MacBook, that might warrant some concern and discussion). > > I agree... I need to clarify: we are in agreement in both apparently finding a situation such as you and Patryk describe improbable. A sticker such as you describe would personally bother me no more than a Microsoft t-shirt would. People are entitled to their opinions on such matters, and I don't care to restrain their expression of those opinions, personally. "Free" speech and all that. I'd be much more concerned about a "Looking for EMCS virgins!" sticker, myself. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Speaker Guidelines
On 6/25/10 3:50 PM, "Brian Cameron" wrote: > > If it isn't clear already, the Speaker Guidelines are not intended to be > used in frivolous ways. It's certainly seems clear enough to me. It appeared, though, to be unclear to Patryk. > If people think that this needs to be spelled > out more clearly in the guidelines, then please propose improved text. Actually, I'd suggest "thinking some more" first. > I can't imagine that anybody would take a complaint about someone giving > a talk and using a MacBook seriously, unless the situation were somehow > extraordinary (e.g. if a speaker had a "GNU/Linux Killer" sticker on > their MacBook, that might warrant some concern and discussion). I agree, and I can't really imagine such a situation, either, especially having seen how many MacBooks there actually are at GCDS and FOSDEM. However, Patryk says he knows one, if not more, people who are simply offended, apparently, by the mere _presence_ of MacBooks (and/or Microsoft t-shirts). I expect they must have bleeding ulcers by this point, so the issue has at least the potential of containing its own resolution, but... > There is no need to discuss Apple or Microsoft or any other specific > company. If you have concerns about how the guidelines might be applied > about topics concerning free source vs. open source vs. proprietary > technologies, then let's please talk about this without naming specific > companies. I don't personally think we need to talk about it at all, any more than we needed to talk about it with regard to the Planet. If it wasn't clear, I believe that equating an "offense" at MacBooks with the "offense" that Celeste describes is...interesting, to say the least. I might even say that I found _that_ rather offensive if doing so weren't so self-referential. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Speaker Guidelines
On 6/25/10 3:39 PM, "David Schlesinger" wrote: > > ( http://identi.ca/notice/6304540)... > > "Do men really think RMSs virgin joke at #gcds was not sexist? Very > disappointed in FLOSS comm chatter about this." By the way: Celeste wrote this while sitting in the auditorium at GCDS, listening to Stallman express his notion of what constitutes "gentle humor". ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Speaker Guidelines
On 6/25/10 8:30 AM, "Patryk Zawadzki" wrote: > > I bet > at least one person in the audience is offended when they see the > presenter using a Mac. Or sporting a Windows t-shirt. Or using an > iPod. Or mentioning that Apple did something better than GNOME. > "Security, seize and escort the speaker out of the building." :) By the way: I would certainly recommend that anyone who's offended by a presenter using a Mac, wearing a Windows t-shirt, or both at the same time, to take their concerns directly and immediately to the Board of Directors. I would suggest that the Board of Directors tell them to "Get a grip." Is it _that_ difficult to distinguish between the sort of offense that someone like Celeste Lyn Paul, a KDE board member, expressed when she wrote ( http://identi.ca/notice/6304540)... "Do men really think RMSs virgin joke at #gcds was not sexist? Very disappointed in FLOSS comm chatter about this." ...on the one hand, and the "offense" that someone who feels a speaker is not being "pure" enough, or something, by using a "non-free-software- movement-approved" piece of hardware, or wearing a t-shirt bearing the logo of a "non-free-software-movement-approved" company, on the other? Do you see no distinction between the two, Patryk? (I am, admittedly, making the assumption that the reason your "at least one person" is taking offense is because the "free software movement" has a deep dislike, at the very least, for both Apple and Microsoft. Correct me if they're taking offense on color choices, style/industrial design or some other score.) As I recall, there was no shortage at all of MacBooks in the _audience_ at GCDS, and that's been pretty typical. There were plenty at FOSDEM as well. Do you think someone would be reasonable for your "at least one person" to "take offense" at the members of the community who happen to like Macs? What do you think he-or-she should do about this? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Speaker Guidelines
On 6/25/10 3:06 PM, "Sergey Panov" wrote: > > Exactly! For instance, > I am offended almost every time Lefty or Philip Van Hoof say something ... > almost anything nowdays. - Perhaps you should find some other mailing list to read if you're finding this one that distressing. It's interesting that you'd drag a third party, who's had nothing to say on this, into the discussion. Dave Neary recently gave me a good definition of "trolling": "making inflammatory remarks without actually adding anything to the discussion." Thought I'd just toss that out there. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Speaker Guidelines
On 6/25/10 1:57 PM, "Brian Cameron" wrote:
>
> {a completely sensible response}
Thanks, Brian.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Speaker Guidelines
On 6/25/10 8:41 AM, "Alan Cox" wrote: > >> That's completely irrelevant. Do we need to write a list of "no bag >> stealing", "no puppy strangling" etc.? Sexual assaults are supposed to >> be dealt with using law enforcement, not speaker guidelines. No, because coming up with a "detailed list of rules", as I said earlier, does not really help address the issue at hand here. Sexual assaults should indeed be dealt with by law enforcement. "Jokes" presented in the course of a keynote at a major technical conference which are tantamount to encouraging or even advocating sexual assault, or providing some sort of bizarre justification for it (i.e. "holy duty"), are another matter entirely. There is no law against them, nor should there be, but that doesn't make them the least bit acceptable in this context. > Assault is - but where for example would you draw the line given a > speaker appearing in a swastika t-shirt and making jewish jokes (which in > most of the world would merely be very offensive not a crime) and "not > being our problem" > > That is the same question but put in blunter terms about an issue over > which there is more consensus and awareness. Thank you, Alan. My point, if it was somehow unclear, is that "jokes" like Mr. Stallman's can't possibly _discourage_ someone like this would-be rapist. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME Speaker Guidelines
On 6/25/10 2:21 AM, "Patryk Zawadzki" wrote: > > It would be better if GNOME defined a precise set of rules (ie. "don't > mention religion"). As for the hazy areas, common sense is a better > judge than a set of written rules. If someone does something grossly > inappropriate just don't invite them to further events. The difficulty with "precise sets of rules", is that anything that someone didn't manage to explicitly think up in advance is "fair game" as long as it doesn't _precisely_ run afoul of one of those rules. And when someone _does_ manage to find something which actually offends everyone in the audience, but which wasn't envisioned beforehand, there's no basis for complaint at all: it's not "against the rules". ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
(By the same token, if this particular bit of self-congratulatory revisionism is suddenly fair game, I'd obviously be interested in knowing that as well.) -- Sent from my iPod ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
On Jun 18, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: Saying "GNU/Linux" is a simple and effective way to teach people about the real history of the system that many of them have been taught to call "Linux". It is also very efficient, since it takes so little work. I was under the distinct impression that the moderator had called a halt to this discussion and that no further messages on this topic were being entertained here. Why is this continuing to be pushed here? Either it's appropriate or it's not. If it's not, then it's equally inappropriate for all parties. Let's attempt to provide at least a convincing semblance of even-handedness here. -- Sent from my iPod ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: question for candidates
On 6/4/10 7:30 AM, "Bastien Nocera" wrote: > > People and corporations will not choose Free Software (or Open Source, > or any derivative flavour) because it's free. > > First, you'll choose it because it's better, cheaper, and more > customisable (not the "I can have checkboxes" kind, but the "it would > only take a small effort to make it do exactly what I want to"). > > So I'd rather see us advance the "better" part, and the libre software > philosphy will flow from that. I don't think it requires that much > attention from the GNOME Foundation itself. Or, rather, it would not be > my focus if elected to the Foundation Board. I want to thank Bastien for an _incredibly_ sensible response here. I totally agree: if we spent more time making _better_ software, then there'd be more _free_ software in people's hands. Personally, I don't _want_ the Board of the GNOME Foundation spending their efforts pushing "software freedom": that's the FSF's lookout. As Bastien notes, people (generally) don't choose software for its "freedom" any more than people choose chisels based on the dietary habits of the people who made them. _I_ want the Board spending their time pushing "getting _better_ open source software into the hands of _more_ people". If people get "educated" about "software freedom" (i.e., about the FSF, essentially) but don't use the software we produceeither because it compares unfavorably with non-"free" alternatives, or simply because they _can't_then the Board has, in my view, utterly failed. (This offer not good for the 50 million owner/users of iPhones, at a bare minimum, at least as far as GPL software goes.) ((AND YES, I'M POSTING USING ENTOURAGE. GET A GRIP, ALREADY.)) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
On 6/1/10 10:01 AM, "Xavier Bestel" wrote: > > Err .. nothing, except my extraordinary ability to mix their names ? :) You're displaying quite a host of "extraordinary abilities" this morning. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
On 6/1/10 9:49 AM, "Claudio Saavedra" wrote: > > I wouldn't > be happy to see this kind of sarcasm being used by people running the > Foundation, if they happen to disagree with other > members. Happily for everyone, I'm not one of the people "running the Foundation", I'm just another member. Are you happy to see irrelevant header checks being publicly performed in order to apparently attempt to invalidate, solely on that basis, the comments of other GNOME members? I'm not, as should be fairly clear. See, I have a this thing called a "job". My job involves video editing, among a variety of other things. I do my video editing in Final Cut Pro, which runs solely on OS X. The notion that I'm going to go and start up a completely different system in order to send my comments from a Linux (pardon me: _GNU_/Linux) box, using an approved, "free" email client, to satisfy the sensibilities of Xav and those like him, is rather absurd. I'm sorry, but in the world I live in, people learn to coexist with all sorts of things that might be less than ideal. I find the fact that there's no "free" equivalent for Final Cut Pro less than ideal, but there it is. I'm not about to stop editing video and wait around for some more "appropriate" program to arrive. And no, I wasn't "waiting" for this. I'm disturbed that we're continuing to play this childish game, frankly, and especially in this context. I simply sent an email message using the client I typically use on the system which I am currently using. Xav's suggestion that he was somehow "set up" is as absurd as his harping on message headers here. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
On 6/1/10 9:18 AM, "Xavier Bestel" wrote: > User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205 > Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 08:41:19 -0700 > Subject: FW: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy > From: "Lefty (=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQFA2QBsoQg==?= )" > > I find it quite amusing that you're using a Microsoft client on an Apple > pc to defend your GNOME candidacy. > Kudos for your sense of humor (or is it just plain provocation ?). > > Xav > For my part, I find it quite funny (not "funny ha-ha", but "funny weird") the way that people subject others to pointless litmus tests, something we're unfortunately way to prone to do in this community. Rather than judge the content of an email message, Xav apparently needs to examine the headers first for evidence of lurking "shill"-hood or something of that sort. By doing so, we ensure that GNOME can become as insular and inwardly-looking as possible. After all, we certainly wouldn't want to let just _anyone_ into our little club here! They might use OS X on occasion or even _Windows_! They might have an iPhone, or be unable to run sed from the command line or something, and _then_ where would we be? The purity of the GNOME community is at risk! I'd call for the immediate institution of filters on the mailing list so as to dump any messages which someone might have had the temerity to send from an unapproved email client, or via an unapproved operating system right in the bit bucket so as to spare Xav, and others who feel similarly, any future agonies of this sort. Let me be very frank with you, Xav: this sort of behavior was definitely a contributing factor to ACCESS' leaving the Advisory Board this past January, and for our lack of sponsorship for GUADEC this year and last. It was a directly contributing factor to my rescinding my offer to provide media training for potential GNOME spokespeople at GUADEC this summer. Well played, Xav. Well played. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
FW: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy
Sorry, "reply" rather than "reply all"... -- Forwarded Message > From: David Schlesinger > Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 08:39:59 -0700 > To: Iain > Conversation: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy > Subject: Re: Candidacy: Seif Lotfy > > On 6/1/10 7:38 AM, "Iain" wrote: >> >> It seems to me that your underlying belief is that there is too much >> (large) corporate influence in GNOME. Would you say that you might >> have some conflict of interest here given that your project >> (Zeitgeist) was ignored/shunned by the GNOME Shell developers? > > Iain, this seems unreasonable to me. Is anyone who decides to run for the > board who's ever had a disagreement with some group of GNOME developers or > other going to be subject to the suggestion that they have a "conflict of > interest"? > > If that's the case, I doubt we can really find a single qualified candidate. > > Everyone's got their interests and views, and (hopefully) the candidates are > candid about what their views are. I think these suggestions of "conflicts of > interest" are, honestly, a little out of line. > -- End of Forwarded Message ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME
On 3/5/10 10:18 AM, "Miguel de Icaza" wrote: > > I could help Richard and we could work together, but he has decided > that I am a traitor of the movement. Thanks for posting this, Miguel. It would seem to confirm that I'm not incorrect in finding this baffling. As someone who's reportedly been publicly described (at the last "Software Freedom Day" in Boston) by Mr. Stallman as an "enemy of the free software movement", I can at least feel as though I'm in good company here. If I'm an enemy of anything, it's closed-ness, and insularity, and rumor-mongering, and restraint of free expression. However, we seem to prefer all of those here. That being the case, it's not my intent to belabor this list further, only because doing so is clearly a waste of time and electrons. This will doubtless come as a vast relief to the multitudes who are subject to motion-sickness due to boat-rocking, and gratify the numerous folks who have asked me in private email whether I can't simply ignore these sorts of things, "like everyone else does". So, "have fun and make GNOME rock", whether by removing support for anything particularly having to do with Facebook and the like, warning users if they try to use such "harmful" sites, and by providing better command-line integration with the GUI; or by simply "ignoring" such suggestions. I'll attempt to restrain my enthusiasm from this point on; if the former set of initiatives represent the directions we're taking, it shouldn't be very difficult. Me, I'm going back to getting storytlr working the way I want it to. It's a heavily server- and web-based project, tying into many social media sites, including Facebook, Flickr, YouTube and Twitter, and very arguably "promotes the use" of such sites. Clearly not of any interest here. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME
On 3/5/10 9:55 AM, "Stormy Peters" wrote: > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: >> >> Perhaps it would have been better if someone from the Board had responded to >> the initial message from Mr. Stallman with regard to Facebook, saying >> >> 1) Attempting to rework or redefine GNOME 3 plans at this point, now that >> they're pretty well set, is not reasonable on this list, especially since >> there were no such criticisms raised while the process of defining GNOME 3 >> was actually going on. >> >> 2) Spreading what amounts to unfounded rumors regarding third-parties, even >> if they happen to produce proprietary software, is not acceptable on this >> list. > > Why didn't you just say that at the beginning of this thread? Because I shouldn't have to. More to the point, why didn't _you_? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME
On 3/5/10 9:19 AM, "Jonathon Jongsma" wrote: > > With all of the recent comments about how horrible foundation-list has become, > and how people are unsubscribing because of endless and pointless > argumentation, you *still* can't get yourself to refrain from adding more and > more heat to the thread??? Can you please stop now? Please? Jonathon, if you find discussion of points that have been raised so disturbing--and that's all I'm doing here--I'm not sure what to tell you. Perhaps it would have been better if someone from the Board had responded to the initial message from Mr. Stallman with regard to Facebook, saying 1) Attempting to rework or redefine GNOME 3 plans at this point, now that they're pretty well set, is not reasonable on this list, especially since there were no such criticisms raised while the process of defining GNOME 3 was actually going on. 2) Spreading what amounts to unfounded rumors regarding third-parties, even if they happen to produce proprietary software, is not acceptable on this list. Much of the subsequent discussion could have been completely avoided. I certainly wouldn't have had anything to say at that point. For my part, I don't think that demanding that discussion be stopped, especially when directed to a single person out of many on the thread, is particularly productive. Or respectful, for that matter, but I've come to understand that "respect" is a pretty elastic commodity around here. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME
On 3/5/10 8:44 AM, "David Schlesinger" wrote: > > "If everything gets done inside or through your browser, it would make > toolkits such as GTK and desktop environments such as GNOME obsolete, > except as platforms for a browser." Just so we're completely clear here, I'd suggest that "If everything gets done inside or through EMACS, it would make toolkits such as GTK and desktop environments such as GNOME obsolete, except as platforms for EMACS." is neither less true, nor less unreasonable, than the statement I've quoted. I'd gently point out that the EMACS project has been generally attempting to do pretty much precisely this for going on four decades now. That doesn't provide any more support for the position that using EMACS is detrimental to GNOME than the original statement does for the position that using a browser is detrimental to GNOME. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME
On 3/5/10 8:18 AM, "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote: > > "Lefty (石鏡 )" writes: >> the answer is [] not [] :avoid anything that runs on "a server". > > No one's suggested that. "Let's not be in a rush to invite users to use servers -- even our own -- instead of their own computers. That is the _wrong direction to go_." (Emphasis added.) "Some services are SaaS and some are not. The ones that aren't, don't pose this problem, and it is ok to implement them using servers. But even in that case, _it's better to avoid the server_ if possible." (Emphasis added.) >> This "desktop good/web bad" thinking is terribly broad-brushed. > >Nobody's suggested that either. See the above quotes. Also: "If everything gets done inside or through your browser, it would make toolkits such as GTK and desktop environments such as GNOME obsolete, except as platforms for a browser." "It is a bad idea to replace a program you can explicitly install on your own machine -- and which you can therefore also decide not to install -- with a program that either gets installed implicitly or remains on a server outside your control." For extra credit: "...any time we consider developing software to work with a certain web site, we should ask ourselves whether we want to single out that web site for the special endorsement and promotion that is _implicit in releasing such software_." (Emphasis added) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME
On 3/4/10 10:32 PM, "Liam R E Quin" wrote: >> >> Well, given this wide coverage, which I've somehow completely missed, there >> shouldn't be much challenge to your producing an actual citation > > I was a little looser than I should have been in my wording. Oh, indeed? > For media > coverage of "warrentless wiretapping" (which includes monitoring of > internet usage) see e.g. [1] and [2]. This has nothing to do with Facebook, particularly. I'm not happy with these particular laws, but the answer is to try to get the laws changed, not huddle in one's closet for fear of Facebook, nor to avoid anything that runs on "a server". > In addition, a subpoena from the > FBI is different from a search warrant - it does not need to be signed > by a judge[2]; supposedly "reasonable suspicion" is required, but no > supporting evidence seems to be required, merely a claim. Similarly, > financial transactions (I think in the US over $1,000) are reported > automatically to the NSA. I believe that this is all pretty standard stuff in the US, for better or worse, and again doesn't apply especially to Facebook in any way. If this is your reason for staying off Facebook, you shouldn't be on the Internet at all. (And you might want to consider building a Faraday cage around your house to ensure that no one from the NSA can capture your keystrokes.) The gateway on financial transactions is $10,000, the same threshold at which you have to declare the currency you're carrying going through US Customs. To the best of my knowledge, every country, including EU members, Japan, etc., institutes such a threshold to curtail money-laundering activities. Again, nothing to do with Facebook. If this sort of thing worries you, then perhaps staying off the internet entirely would be the best thing. > Facebook does have a stated 90-day data retention policy for IP logs, > and I found a policy document relating to subpoenas [3] although it's > not clear to me that it's authentic. If it's not on Facebook's site, I don't see that it's authenticity can be established, and I wouldn't rely on it. That said, this document would seem to support what I've been saying, rather than the claims that you and Mr. Stallman have been making: a warrant or subpoena or the equivalent is indeed required to get user information out of Facebook according to this document. I'm not sure what you intended by referring to this, but it surely doesn't support the claims made here. > There are (I discovered today) rumours that facebook was started by > the CIA, because of indirect links from the original venture capital > people [4], but that was not on my mind when I wrote (or meant to write) > that information is indeed handed over without warrants. And here we are, back to where we started. "Facebook is a front for the CIA". The support for this claim, for those who care to read the story, is excruciatingly sketchy. By the sort of reasoning found in the articles cited (someone involved with the funding of Facebook once worked with someone who once worked for the CIA's venture capital arm), I suppose we could draw the conclusion that the FSF is a CIA front as well, and "probably shares all your information with them". Specifically: 1) IBM has historically had close ties to the CIA, the NSA and governmental agencies of the less-attractive sort, going back to pre-World War 2 days, when they sold punch cards tabulators to the German authorities which went on to see significant use in record-keeping at Dachau and other concentration camps. 2) IBM is a top-line corporate patron of the FSF, and provides significant funding to that organization. QED. If you'd care to go this route, perhaps we should encourage GNOME to avoid using the Internet entirely "since the NSA reads everything you write". Frankly, this stuff strikes me as being on the same level as "the US government blew up the World Trade Center so they could _blame_ it on AL-Qaeda." I note, in passing, that the FSF has no apparent privacy policy at all, outside of a very sketchy one applied solely to donations. > Facebook's privacy statement is specific that they do not require a > warrant [5]: > > "We may disclose information pursuant to subpoenas, court orders, or > other requests (including criminal and civil matters) if we have a good > faith belief that the response is required by law" [...] "We may also > share information when we have a good faith belief it is necessary to > prevent fraud or other illegal activity, to prevent imminent bodily > harm, or to protect ourselves and you from people violating our > Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. This may include sharing > information with other companies, lawyers, courts or other government > entities" The initial clause indeed says that they require a warrant or the equivalent. The second clause refers, in my reading, to cases in which a Facebook user attempted to use Facebook to defraud other users, at which point I'd think Facebook
Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME
On 3/4/10 6:08 PM, "Liam R E Quin" wrote: > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 17:45 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > >> In any case, I'm under the impression that a search warrant or similar order >> is generally required in the US to get information regardless of whether >> it's from a hosted service or from your personal computer; certainly the >> police can't simply call up Facebook and ask for information on random >> people and expect to get it. > > They can and they do, as has been widely covered by the media. Well, given this wide coverage, which I've somehow completely missed, there shouldn't be much challenge to your producing an actual citation to support the existence of this kind of activity (specifically Facebook handing over information on users to law enforcement without a subpoena or a warrant). I only ask because it seems in complete contradiction to their stated privacy policy. >> The vast majority of people who use computers--and I'm not referring to >> people who download source and build their own versions of things--are quite >> happy to, for example, have Wordpress or Livejournal maintain their blogs >> for them, and there's absolutely no reason for them to attempt to host it >> themselves. > > They are also happy to use Microsoft Word, and other proprietary > software. But that does not mean we should abandon GNOME. > Instead, we need to make it easier for people to follow the more > open path. Nobody's suggested that anyone "abandon GNOME". In the case of Microsoft Word, there are credible and workable open source alternatives readily available. In the case of a Wordpress blog that one doesn't have to host and administer on one's own (along with the overhead of maintaining a domain registration, a web server, security issues, etc.), or a Livejournal, or a Flickr site, or Facebook, there's no alternative that we can offer, other than "Don't do that!", it would seem. Correct me if you feel I'm mistaken here. I don't see "Don't do that! Do whatever you can manage from your personal computer as best you can" as being a terribly compelling message, myself. Rather than making it "easier for people for follow the more open path", you encourage them to find other means to do the things they _want_ to do. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME
On 3/4/10 3:00 PM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: > > Let's not be in a rush to invite users to use servers -- even our own > -- instead of their own computers. That is the wrong direction to go. That's a pretty black-and-white statement. Shared servers make a great deal of sense for shared information; effective sharing with just your own computer--particularly if you're not a developer, a sysadmin, a web designer, or the like--is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the vast majority of people who use computers. I doubt that as many as 10% of the people who maintain a blog or share pictures on Flickr or Picasa could do it if they had to run their own server to support those activities, and it seems unreasonable to suggest that they should. (I find it a bit ironic to contemplate that when I started programming professionally in the mid-70s, I was using EMACS on a DECsystem-10, a time-sharing computer; in effect, a "virtual computer server".) > Many commercial server operators abuse the users in various ways. > They find it profitable to do so. A nonprofit operation could decide > to make less money and not commit such abuses. I am sure the GNOME > Foundation would have a higher standard of respect for the user than > Facebook has. That would solve part of the problem of using servers. Many commercial supermarkets abuse their customers in various ways. They find it profitable to do so. Should we all start growing our own food while awaiting the spontaneous arrival of a non-profit grocery store of some sort? I'm also not sure what you're actually referring to when you refer to Facebook's supposedly low "standard of respect for the user". If your idea of a "low standard of respect for the user" means "probably sharing the user's information with the CIA", I'd have to remain unimpressed with that... > But some of the problems of using a server are unavoidable. For > instance, under US law, it is easier for police to seize your data > from a service you use than to seize them from you. The operator of > the service has no choice in the matter. Facebook's privacy policy (http://www.facebook.com/policy.php), which all users of the service should certainly read, says, "We may disclose information pursuant to subpoenas, court orders, or other requests (including criminal and civil matters) if we have a good faith belief that the response is required by law." Have you read this document? It's quite detailed and explicit. In any case, I'm under the impression that a search warrant or similar order is generally required in the US to get information regardless of whether it's from a hosted service or from your personal computer; certainly the police can't simply call up Facebook and ask for information on random people and expect to get it. I'm likewise not aware that, being presented with a search warrant to seize one's personal computer in order to search it for evidence, one has any particular "choice in the matter" other than handing it over. Maybe I'm missing something. > Synchronizing and sharing the notes are not SaaS, though editing might > be SaaS. So at least some of this service is basically ok, provided > Gnote can also use it (because Tomboy's dependence on C# is a problem). Again, I must certainly be missing something here, but if C# represents such a problem in and of itself, how is it that gnu.org develops, maintains and supports the DOTGNU project, which "aims to be for ... C# programs what GNU/Linux is rapidly becoming for desktop and server applications"? Either C# is a problem or it's not, and if it is, why is there a GNU project to support it? If it's not, what exactly are we talking about? (http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/) > Even better, can Gnote be adapted to communicate these data via email, > I wonder? Then it would not need a server at all. People could > optionally encrypt the email using GPG for full privacy. I'm not sure that Hub is working actively on Gnote any longer; he got quite tired of being used as some sort of poster child by the anti-Mono crowd. See http://www.figuiere.net/hub/blog/?2009/07/27/680-why-i-did-write-gnote > This approach would require some programming, but that would only have > to be done once; it would spare GNOME the continuing effort of running > a server, and enable users to avoid depending on one. By all means, program away. I believe it to be a misguided effort, but I wouldn't discourage you from pursuing it, if that's your choice. The vast majority of people who use computers--and I'm not referring to people who download source and build their own versions of things--are quite happy to, for example, have Wordpress or Livejournal maintain their blogs for them, and there's absolutely no reason for them to attempt to host it themselves. In the case of social media such as Facebook and the like, at least until such time as there's a widely-used and workable distributed scheme for dealing with one's social graph, shared servic
Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME
On 3/4/10 9:07 AM, "Gian Mario Tagliaretti" wrote: > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > >> But, just so I'm sure I'm clear here, Mr. Stallman, it's my understanding >> that you don't even actually _use_ the web, in any realistic sense, relying >> instead on some congerie of email and a back-end rendering server to view >> static images of individual web pages. > > can you stop being an ass just for the sake of being an ass? Okay, just for the record, that would be an unmotivated public personal attack here. In case anyone's keeping score. Please note that I haven't called anyone names, just requested a clarification of what I understand to be the facts here. My understanding is that Mr. Stallman doesn't use a web browser, instead mailing individual URLs to a server, which renders a static page image and mails that back. I would take the position that this sort of "interaction" with the web is unrepresentative of the way that people in general, even just GNOME people in general, actually use it (is this surprising?), and that someone whose sole interaction with the web is through this sort of mediation might well not "get" what it's actually about. Is this actually a controversial suggestion? I'm surprised, frankly. If you were to give me advice on how to conduct a telephone conversation, when you'd personally never used anything other than a telegraph and Morse code, semaphore flags, or smoke signals, I'd probably feel much the same way. > You can disagree with what RMS says of course, is the attitude that > makes people tired, in the sentence here above you are not criticizing > a point of you that you might not like, you are just being a smart ass > thinking "wow I'm fighting Mr. Stallman" what a hero. I'd suggest that you attempt to avoid making assumptions about my "attitude", something which email communicates very poorly. (For your part, you might even be capable of disagreeing with me without recourse to pointless insults, but this particular message sadly provides no evidence one way or the other.) For the record, my "attitude" is largely one of dismay and disbelief. I'll try to remember to point out these things, to avoid misunderstandings. So no, I'm expressing a serious concern over a conversation which has touched on the general subjects of "social media" and "web-based services" in which we've seen claims that the CIA controls Facebook and probably shares all its users' information with them, just for starts, as well as the notion that software running on a web server is somehow inherently less "free" than software running on a desktop. I'm frankly having difficulty making sense of that, which is what led to my question. > Stop this non-sense on this list please? In all fairness, I didn't start the nonsense, I'm simply attempting to make some sense of it. It is, after all, a discussion list. If people don't want things actually to be discussed here―and let me again point out that, of the two of, one is actually discussing things, and one is simply indulging in personal attacks and name-calling; I'll let you work out who's who―they probably shouldn't post them in the first place. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME
On 3/4/10 7:22 AM, "Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier" wrote: > > Somewhere in there should be a self-sustaining model to raise money > for the hosting and GNOME, and provide Free as in Freedom services for > users in the bargain... It's a nice idea, but I don't see any "self-sustaining model" that's appreciably different than "buy a cloud server from Amazon, hire someone(s) to administer and support it on behalf of a million different users with a million different applications, and then charge those users a premium over what they'd pay Amazon individually to make up the administration and support costs and, ideally, leave a little money left over for GNOME." I'm not sure that's realistic; I am, however, pretty well-convinced that there's little likelihood of saving anyone any money there. For what it's worth, I pay under $200 a year for what amounts to unlimited bandwidth hosting for multiple domains on a virtual server with up to 20GB of space. (A co-located, dedicated server will typically run anywhere from $200 to $1000 a month, and up, exclusive of administrative costs, etc.) I'm likewise not sure that simply having an interested group get together and purchase their _own_ virtual server for their own uses is any more or less "free" than another alternative... ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME
On 3/4/10 5:46 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: > > If everything gets done inside or through your browser, it would make > toolkits such as GTK and desktop environments such as GNOME obsolete, > except as platforms for a browser. And if everything gets done on your desktop, it would make browsers and the web obsolete. Except it wouldn't. I don't believe your statement is any more accurate than mine, actually. > "Web technology based application" is a very broad term. It can > include applications that are installed into a browser (they can be > nonfree; see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html), and > it can include servers. But if the server substitutes for a program > you could run on your own machine, that makes it Software as a > Service, which is equivalent to proprietary software. So, an open source program running on a serverif it "substitutes for a program you could run on your own machine"is (by virtue of running on a server, I suppose) "Software as a Service" and hence, proprietary? I'm not following that reasoning. Surely the open-ness or closed-ness of an application depends on the terms under which it's made available, not where it runs. > It is a bad idea to replace a program you can explicitly install on > your own machine -- and which you can therefore also decide not to > install -- with a program that either gets installed implicitly or > remains on a server outside your control. Perhaps highlighting that > will show people why they should continue to install and run local > applications, which would then use GNOME. This is, again, unfortunately short-sighted and not really in touch with the way people use computers. There are plenty of good reasons to have an application on the web and there are plenty of good ones to have an application on the desktop, but it depends on the application. This "desktop good/web bad" thinking is terribly broad-brushed. If one's application lives on a web site, one can just as readily decide to visit or not to visit that web site. In contrast with a local app, a web-based app generally makes no changes to your system, and doesn't require the addition or deletion of anything. But, just so I'm sure I'm clear here, Mr. Stallman, it's my understanding that you don't even actually _use_ the web, in any realistic sense, relying instead on some congerie of email and a back-end rendering server to view static images of individual web pages. Would it be correct to imagine that you haven't used anything like a dynamic web page, or a "Web 2.0"-style AJAX or Ruby application? If that is indeed the case, as I've been led to understand, it's unclear to me why one might take cues on how GNOME should or shouldn't interact from the web from someone with no actual, practical experience there, any more than I'd expect guidance on how to write an iPhone application from someone who's never so much as picked up an iPhone. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
On 3/2/10 4:39 PM, "Stormy Peters" wrote: > > Philip, I think a lot of people are saying they'd rather not see these > arguments on the Foundation list. That's not what I'm seeing. What I'm seeing are personal attacks and loose rhetoric (e.g. "pissing contest") in response to pretty reasoned attempts to take issueonce againwith the pronouncements of the FSF as they should presumably apply to GNOME. In every instance, no matter how silly or harmful the statementand I personally view this claim that Facebook is somehow a front for the CIA to be bothno actual disagreement is tolerated. > We've had several threads in the past month that go on and on without being > productive at all and you are one of the most frequent posters to each of > them. I don't know whether they were productive or not, but shutting them down after the shouts of "troll!" or "pissing contest!" have broken out, and then castigating the folks getting yelled at, guarantees that nothing productive will come out of them except yet another disagreement over a pointlessly provocative statement swept under the rug. > I believe the way you respond often takes the thread off topic and turns it > argumentative. I'd say that the way that a _lot_ of people responde.g. the subthread on the "pvanhoof problem"is off-topic and argumentative. Please don't single out Philip here (again). There are at least four other people you should have spoken to first. > When I've asked in the past, you've been good about stopping the personal > insults. Now I'm asking you to seriously consider each post you make to the > Foundation list and ask yourself whether each part contributes productively to > the conversation. Maybe you should ask the same of some others as well. Once again, if we want to improve things with respect to some of the more important "communities" outside of our own, the way to do it is to engage with them in a positive way. Vilification won't do it, repeating unsupported and tenuous gossip won't do it, calling them names won't do it, insisting that using their site, service or product is a "harmful practice" won't do it. I don't think that sort of thing "contributes productively to the conversation". Why do we tolerate _that_ so well? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
Okay, I had hoped this might simply die out, but instead, it's becoming increasingly absurd as well as increasingly personal in tone. First, Philip didn't ask anyone to stop saying things, he expressed some dismay at what was being said, and not without reason. Beyond the suggestionwhich Philip has notedthat GNOME programmers were generally in need of "ethical" guidance from the FSF on matters involving "freedom", this thread included the suggestion that GNOME behavior should be predicated on unfounded and unsupported rumor (i.e. that Facebook is "probably" sharing all of your information with the CIA). I'm surprised that a suggestion that a specific site be singled out by GNOME for extra-special treatment, including warning messages, based on what amounts to unsourced gossip, is being treated with even a moment's serious consideration. This Facebook rumor seems to be not much different from last year's equally unsupported claim that Apple maintained a secret "back-door" in OS X, for which an apology was extracted from the FSF, presumably on the instigation of Apple's Legal departmentand I note, without much amusement, that the sole citation offered in support of this latest claim regarding Facebook leads to a non-existent web page. I do not believe that the GNOME Foundation should sign up to be in a position to have to apologize to Facebook, nor do I think it should be an official position of the GNOME Foundation that "using Facebook is a harmful practice". If the GNOME community is hoping for better engagement with Facebook and the like, want to encourage their meaningful participation in our efforts, and hope to cultivate some appreciation on their part of community concerns, surely claiming that they're in the business of routinely breaking Federal lawwithout compelling supporting evidenceisn't the way to be going about it. For my part, I don't believe that spreading defamatory gossip in the name of "freedom" is especially "ethical". Perhaps I've misunderstood Mr. Stallman's intention in making such an apparently irresponsible claim here. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
I hesitate to reopen this discussion, frankly. Look at the archives for December and January. On 2/22/10 1:12 PM, "Alberto Ruiz" wrote: > 2010/2/22 Lefty (石鏡 ) : >> Well, we've certainly managed to place GNOME at an enormous disadvantage >> with respect to an alternative, quasi-open-source platform, like Android, >> largely through a couple of years' worth of inattention and, more >> importantly, an ongoing failure to engage with the commercial mobile >> ecosystem in any positive and meaningful way. Hopefully, some efforts might >> be made to correct that in the coming year; whether or not that actually >> happens, or will be effective if it does, is very much up in the air in my >> mind. > > Do you have any examples of the GNOME community being negative or > hostile towards the commercial mobile ecosystem? > >> The viewpoint held in some quarters which is directly hostile to such >> engagement has been a negative factor for us in the past and continues to be >> one. Google, for all that its Android efforts have been competitive to >> GNOME's interests in the mobile space, has done a much better job here. >> >> >> ___ >> foundation-list mailing list >> foundation-list@gnome.org >> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list >> > > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
On 2/22/10 11:27 AM, "Dave Neary" wrote: > >> * It seems we have lost the mobile battle. Can we do something about it >> or simply retreat?. I like the idea of creating more components and some >> of this components can be added to the GNOME mobile platform. > > Have we lost the mobile battle? We seem to have forfeited a sizeable chunk of it to date, unfortunately. > It certainly appears that GTK+ has lost > the mobile battle, but all of the hard work that GNOME hackers have put > into the middleware platform and components like Gstreamer, Dbus, > Telepathy and Pulseaudio are now cornerstone parts of both the free > desktop and the mobile platform. Well, we've certainly managed to place GNOME at an enormous disadvantage with respect to an alternative, quasi-open-source platform, like Android, largely through a couple of years' worth of inattention and, more importantly, an ongoing failure to engage with the commercial mobile ecosystem in any positive and meaningful way. Hopefully, some efforts might be made to correct that in the coming year; whether or not that actually happens, or will be effective if it does, is very much up in the air in my mind. The viewpoint held in some quarters which is directly hostile to such engagement has been a negative factor for us in the past and continues to be one. Google, for all that its Android efforts have been competitive to GNOME's interests in the mobile space, has done a much better job here. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Survey: GUADEC and Akadamy co-location in 2011
On 2/1/10 8:11 AM, "Vincent Untz" wrote: > > ...I'll just publish what I > have and the raw results, so people could take a look and produce more > interesting stats. Sounds like the "open source way". =) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: GNU hackers meeting & GUADEC 2011 colocation?
On 1/26/10 4:56 PM, "Andrew Cowie" wrote: > On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 21:43 +0100, Andy Wingo wrote: > >> (/me thinks of Vilanova) > > Which was a bloody awesome GUADEC, in no small measure because of the > Ice Cream shop, and fluendo's Beach Party. They're _all_ awesome, but yes. That. > Oh? Internet access. Did we need that? The first day or so at Birmingham, we all got onto the Internet using one attendee's Nokia S60 phone, which he turned into a WiFi access point I'm not sure which is more frightening: that we did it, or that we _could_. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/18/10 2:32 PM, "Dominic Lachowicz" wrote: > >> Can someone please fix that? > >Perhaps it would be sufficient to link to the FSF's list of GPL-compatible >licenses and recommended documentation licenses? That would clear up any >possible confusion. I gathered from what J5 said that this was a determination which was the responsibility of the release team. It's unclear to me, at least, that there's anything which needs fixing here. Nor am I aware of any particular confusion on anyone's part which needs to be "cleared up". Are we aware of anyone's actually being confused by this...? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/17/10 9:30 PM, "Jonathon Jongsma" wrote: > >As far as I an tell, there has been essentially no controversy whatsoever about >any of this until you and Philip seemingly started trying to drum one up. What >exactly are you even trying to change? Is there an official GNOME position >statement that you object to? Something on a gnome.org website somewhere? What >exactly are we actually talking about here? I'm sorry, Jonathon, I thought that was clear. Stormy proposed the following statement on behalf of GNOME in her message of this past Friday on this thread: > The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software but > that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. We believe, > promote, use and write free software. > > We are excited when companies and individuals use GNOME technologies because > we believe it brings us closer to our mission and vision of a free desktop (or > mobile interface) accessible to everyone. Sometimes those companies are > proprietary software companies and while we hope that they move closer to free > software in the future (and that we are helping them do so with the use of > GNOME), we are delighted that they have chosen to use GNOME and will help them > and their customers. I've suggested that the first sentence should instead read something like "The GNOME Foundation believes in and promotes free/open source software..." Hope this clarifies things. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/17/10 5:20 PM, "Luis Villa" wrote: > > The FSF is welcome to give their advice; and should be treated with > respect when they do give it, the same as anyone else. This is > particularly true in this area, where we know we are walking a > difficult line between freedom and conciliation with proprietary > software, and we have a lot of influences pushing us in the direction > of proprietary software and not all that many pushing us in the other > direction. If anyone feels that I've been less than respectful in this particular discussion, please let me know; I'll certainly apologize if that seems to be the case. Again, that hasn't been my intention. I don't disagree with what you say, Luis. However, I don't see the term "open source" as "pushing us in the direction of proprietary software" in any way: the Open Source Definition wouldn't support that. It's a neutral term, in my view, and in the view of others. We use the terms "open" and "open source" elsewhere, and it hasn't created particular controversy, or visibly "pushed us in the direction of proprietary software", as far as I can tell. Why is it controversial here in particular? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/17/10 12:37 PM, "Luis Villa" wrote: > > To the best of my knowledge, that policy has never been written down. > That is because there is and always has been a very, very, very clear > and common understanding that this is the policy. It takes almost > willful ignorance of our history, culture and policy to suggest > otherwise. I don't believe that I actually _did_ suggest otherwise, Luis. If I somehow created an impression that I believe that "non-free"/"non-open source" software would be acceptable as a GNOME project, that was certainly not my intention. Can you point out where I might have done so, if you feel that I did? As the page that Shaun points out agrees--and thank you for that reference, Shaun--a component must be "free/open source software" to be eligible. If we're willing to use the term "open source" in our policy, why should there any controversy about using it in a statement which describes what we are? I'd certainly have referenced that page earlier, had I been aware of it. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/17/10 12:48 PM, "Shaun McCance" wrote: > >> To the best of my knowledge, that policy has never been written down. >> That is because there is and always has been a very, very, very clear >> and common understanding that this is the policy. It takes almost >> willful ignorance of our history, culture and policy to suggest >> otherwise. > > Perhaps less official because it's just on the wiki, but: > > http://live.gnome.org/ProjectPrerequisites > > "The project must be free/open source software." Ah. That's fine. "Free/open source software". I have no issue with this, and it would, in fact, seem to support what I've been saying. > But yes, Luis, I wholly agree with you. I can't imagine why > anybody would ever think it's OK to host non-free software > on gnome.org. Did anyone say that they thought it was "OK to host non-free software on gnome.org"? I'm pretty sure I never suggested anything like that. Please let me know where I might have inadvertently created such an impression, if indeed I did. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/17/10 6:52 AM, "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote: > > GNOME has a policy (written or not) that prohibits importing non-free software > into its repositories. I'm not personally aware of a written policy to this effect. If there's an "unwritten policy", I'd encourage the Board to write it down in clear and explicit terms and get it agreed to by the membership, since there's not necessarily any actual common understanding of what such a policy "says" or means, if that's the case. > "Open source" doesn't imply any reason or policy for rejecting > proprietary software... I'm afraid I really have to disagree here: "open source software" is software which is made available under a license which satisfies the Open Source Definition which can be found at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Clause 1 of that definition states, in part, that "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." Clause 2 states that "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form." Clause 3 states, in part, that "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." I could go on, but I think this demonstrates that there's no actual basis for your claim, Ciaran, unless you're using the term "proprietary" in some unusual sense. If you can give me a concrete example of software which is proprietary, in the usual sense of the term, while still being available under a valid open source license, I'd be very interested in hearing about it. > ...GNOME is a project that doesn't develop non-free software... In your preferred terminology. I'd say is doesn't develop "non-open-source software" in mine. We'd both be correct. I would never suggest that your view was invalid, should be unrepresented, or that you weren't entirely entitled to hold it. I'm only asking the same. As I've said--and I think there's general agreement--there's no consensus on which term is "correct" among the membership. Plenty of GNOME members use the term "open source", myself included. Why should their choice of terminology be denigrated in a statement that purports to represent them as well as you? I'm a member, you're a member, Philip's a member, and RMS is a member. We have differing views here, and the statement should treat all parties fairly. I'm not asking that the term "free software" not be used, in spite of _my_ not using it, nor do I believe is Philip. I'm simply asking that, since the terminology _is_ debatable--and there has been no shortage of debates about it, none of them terribly productive, and certainly none of them decisive--a statement which represents us all not "settle the matter" by fiat. > A quick comment on the survey. I think the main flaw is that it tests > for word-for-word agreement with one person (RMS). A somewhat less-quick response: I had intended the survey to test the positions of the "free software movement" as expressed by the FSF on the one hand, versus the actual attitudes of the community at large on the other. I have to believe that RMS' statements on proprietary software can be taken as being representative of, and authoritative with respect to, that organization. If that's not the case, I'd appreciate some concrete details of where I've missed the actual views of the FSF, and how they differ from what I understand them to be. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/16/10 1:10 PM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: > > See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html > for an explanation of the difference in philosophy between free > software and open source. I'm pretty sure most people on the list have read the essay and understand your view. Any who might not have certainly should. > GNOME is a GNU package, and was founded specifically to fight for > users' freedom. It is on the free software side. However, people are > welcome to contribute to GNOME regardless of their views on this or > any subject. You use one term exclusively, and see a distinction between the two; I use another, and see a somewhat different distinction, perhaps; some, as Dave, see them as synonymous, and might use either one. We're all members, and we hold a variety of viewpoints. Since there's evidently no settled view of the matter, and no likelihood of there being one soon, it seems to me that a statement which represents the Foundation (which is, as Stormy has pointed out, no more than its members) should not affirm only one of the two viewpoints to the exclusion of the other. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 3:17 PM, "Stormy Peters" wrote: > > I disagree quite strongly. > Fair enough, let me be clearer: my stated views do not necessarily represent the views of the GNOME Foundation or the GNOME community. GNOME comprises a variety of viewpoints, of which mine is one; there are plenty of others. This is one of its strengths. > I have a bit of a concern, however, that on the strength of this statement, one might find oneself confronted with the suggestion that one is ³damaging GNOME² somehow by simply expressing a point of view: in fact, such a suggestion has been made in this thread at one point. Again, thisto meseems to demand a sort of self-censorship. Who¹s to make the judgment of what constitutes a ³good job representing GNOME²? Am I doing a ³good job representing GNOME²? (This is intended as a completely rhetorical question, lest anyone misunderstand me here; I am not requesting a ³performance review², and I¹ll look askance at anyone who tries to deliver one on this list.) Some may feel so, but I¹d bet any amount of money that you¹d get some distinct disagreement to that suggestion if you asked around. Not that this bothers me, especially. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 1:58 PM, "Dave Neary" wrote: > > Having gone through 10 years of "Open Source" vs "Free Software" > debates, I know that (like emacs vs vim, bsd vs linux, gnome vs kde, bsd > vs gpl, reply-to for mailing lists, code indentation styles, and other > religious debates) that nothing will come of it. One further comment on this: I stand by my view that Stormy's mission statement should not use the terminology "free software" to the exclusion of the term "open source software". In fact, in light of what you've said, I believe I feel even a little more strongly about it: Since it _is_ a "debate", as we agree, there must be a minimum of two sides to it. To simply use "free software" in that statement would constitute an endorsement of one of the two opinions to the detriment of the other(s). (I'd note in passing that, from the point of view of an "open source developer", "free software" is a subset of "open source software"; to a "free software developer", they're mutually exclusive sets.) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 1:58 PM, "Dave Neary" wrote: > > So proposing that GNOME as a project adopt one or the other amounts to a > troll, in that it will create an endless discussion with no result. Well, I'll be sure not to propose that, then. Again, my impression has been that there are unquestioned and unexamined beliefs about the attitudes and views of the FLOSS community at large; I happen not to think that those beliefs are true. I'm attempting to test that hypothesis, and I went to some pains to try to do so even-handedly. >> If you're suggesting that _this_ survey is somehow biased, as your example >> question would appear to, I'd appreciate more specific information. > > Not at all. I even voted in it. I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of > Phillip's suggestion that the only way to "respect" a survey is to > implement whatever results from it. Okay, that was unclear to me. I personally haven't asked anyone to implement anything. I've limited myself to saying (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) that I found the results interesting and worth thinking about. As I said to Owen, there's no way to single out "GNOME respondents" from any other respondents in this particular survey. Thus, I'd personally hesitate to say that any particular results were indicative of anything have to do specifically with GNOME: without a relevant cross-tabulation, the data won't support that. If we _want_ to survey GNOME members, we certainly can. But let's be clear that this isn't what I'm doing here, not to the exclusion of KDE members, NetBSD advocates, Microsoft employees or Bronx zookeepers (should any members of the latter two groups choose to participate: they're more than welcome to). >> I'm most certainly not proposing that the Board necessarily do or not do >> anything based on the results. I do, however, think they're worthy of >> consideration. Note that I have not suggested that anyone "respect" the >> results. I do think that people should consider them, but that's entirely up >> to them. > > Absolutely - the results are a useful data point. If nothing gets done > with the results, because our leaders adopt a stance on behalf of the > project, I hope that the people who voted don't feel disrespected. I certainly hope not, especially since the survey was never intended by me to lead to any specific action on the part of anyone in particular. I certainly haven't represented it as having that intention. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 1:22 PM, "Owen Taylor" wrote: > >> I think you may be reading quite a bit more into this than I'd intended. Do >> you have an objection to the questions in the survey simply being _asked_, >> Owen...? > > It's very hard not to take the survey as a continuation of the recent > discussions on this list, which I felt at the time to be highly > unproductive. It was long and acrimonious discussion largely about > changes to planet.gnome.org policy that hadn't actually been proposed. That may be, but I can only encourage try not to take it in that fashion. > I don't think I'm at all alone in taking the survey that way. The > purpose of the survey seems to be to collect data to support (or > possibly refute) your position. I have an _opinion_, but since the other matter was, in fact, fairly well-settled by the editors, I'm not staking out any "position" here. Assertions were made which I don't personally happen to believe are actually the case. My goal with this survey is to test my hypothesis. If people feel that reporting the results would be unhelpful here, I certainly won't report them. I find them quite interesting, myself. > I also feel that the survey is quite flawed, and after going through > most of it decided not to submit my answers because by submitting it I > would be misrepresenting my opinion on proprietary software. I'd be interested in knowing how a less "flawed" survey to get some concrete data on these issues would be constructed. I got feedback in comments that an "Other" was needed on the "illegitimate"/"immoral"/"antisocial" questions, so I added one. > Imagine that somebody wrote an article based on the results of your > survey. The results would show that: > > Many "FOSS" developers don't consider proprietary software >immoral, or illegitimate. > > Many "FOSS" developers sometimes use proprietary software. All I've pointed out so far is that, apparently, many "FOSS" _users_ also use proprietary software, by choice. I've done no cross-tabulations on "developers", and I won't for a while yet. Now, if in fact, the survey _were_ to show that, say, many FOSS developers actually _don't_ consider proprietary software to be "immoral" and use it by choice, that's significant, I'd say. Facts are facts. If they're _inconvenient_ facts, I can't really help that, but to proffer fictions instead is simply deceitful. You would seem to be suggesting here that I should not conduct the survey for fear someone might report the results. I may be misunderstanding you. > And in fact I'd up in both of those categories. And somebody reading the > article would get the impression that "FOSS" developers don't think > there is a moral dimension to Free Software. Yet I strongly believe: > > - That picking Free Software over proprietary software is the right >thing to do even when there is a cost to me such as less >functionality. > > - That a world where a task can't be done with Free Software is a >worse world. Then you can choose "Other" and say precisely that. > And that wouldn't be represented at all. See immediately above. Problem solved. Go; be represented, please. > In that way, it felt a bit like > the sort of surveys you see taken by political action groups with an > agenda. That may well not have been your intent - but I think we have to > be aware that survey construction is hard, and the very construction of > a survey and reporting of survey results is not a neutral activity; it's > a form of public relations. Again, I'm open to suggestions as to how it could be improved; none have been forthcoming here. If the suggestion is, "Don't _do_ that!", then I'm afraid I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. > And none of us can escape the fact that by being a GNOME member, by > speaking on GNOME forums like foundation-list and planet.gnome.org, and > by being part of GNOME bodies, whether the sysadmin team, or the > advisory board, we speak as part of GNOME. I speak as "part of GNOME", perhaps, but I don't speak _for_ GNOME. The distinction is critically important. "Speaking _for_ GNOME" is a job for Stormy and the Board, and those to whom they might choose to delegate that responsibility. My opinions don't reflect the views of anyone other than myself. The notion that one should have to change or hide one's own opinions because one is "speaking as part of GNOME" seems to me to run directly counter to the goal of GNOME to encompass a diversity of views, approaches and opinions. > That doesn't mean self-censorship, but it does mean that we have to > watch what sort of conversation we are part of, and whether they are > productive, or entertaining at the cost of being damaging to GNOME's > image. I have to disagree, Owen. If the conversation does not run afoul of the Code of Conduct, then that's all that's required as far as I'm concerned. Anything beyond that _is_ "self-censorship". If you feel someoneand that includes meis "damaging GNOME's imag
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 1:05 PM, "Alan Cox" wrote: > >> 2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by law or custom. > > I don't see what the fuss is about. I don't know that there _is_ a "fuss". That's one of the things I hope to determine via the survey. > "Not sanctioned by custom" precisely describes Richard Stallman's belief > that Free Software as a concept does not include considering proprietary > software as acceptable in most cases. I understand that. What I'm interested in, however, is the degree to which that belief is reflected in the community. It's an open question, in my mind, whether this view is, in fact, "customary" in the broader community. Early results would seem to suggest otherwise. If, in factas the survey results apparently showamong the virtually 100% of respondents who use free/etc. software on their own time, about two-thirds also use proprietary software on their own time (i.e. by their own choice), this would seem to suggest that the actual "custom" may be rather different than what it's being represented to be. > The EU uses "Free, Libre and Open Source Software " when it wants to talk > about the general space and ensure that the usual misinterpretations of > 'free' do not occur and that nobody is offended, mislabeled or wastes all > their meeting time with stupid arguments. I provided "FLOSS" as a choice, as well as "FOSS" and "Other", with a comments box. I don't want anyone to feel as though they're unrepresented. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
My Apologies to Owen
I inadvertently replied publicly to what had been a private message from Owen, and for that, I apologize. It was accidental, and I apologized to Owen offline as soon as he pointed my error out to me. As I was getting ready to send it off, I noticed that Owen was the sole recipient, assumed I'd hit "Reply" rather than "Reply all", and added foundation-list to the cc, rather than going back and taking a look at the original message. My bad. Sorry, Owen. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 11:10 AM, "Owen Taylor" wrote: > > We certainly all know that RMS believes that. Some other GNOME community > members may as well, though probably not a large number. It, is however, > your choice to focus on it, and I don't understand what you are trying > to achieve by doing that. > > - Are you trying to argue down RMS? I've certainly never seen that >work in 15 years. No, that would be futile, I suspect. I _am_ trying to discern how well RMS' views reflect the views of the "free software"/"open source software"/FLOSS/FOSS community at large, an effort I believe to be completely legitimate. > - Are you trying to create a split between the Free Software Foundation >and GNOME? How would that be helpful to GNOME? No, I don't have the power to do that, nor is it up to me. > - Are you trying to get some change made in how the GNOME project >does business? What? No, as I said, I'm trying to see how the community views these issues. > By posting something on foundation-list, I feel that you are pretty > explicitly saying it is related to GNOME. I can't help how you feel, Owen. I _can_ assure that its only relation to GNOME is that members of GNOME are most certainly members of the target audience I'm seeking. I would point out, again, that given the construction of the survey, there's no way to pull out response from Foundation members as opposed to the public at large. Given that there's no possible cross-tabulation on that factor, it's flatly impossible to draw conclusions regarding GNOME on the basis of these particular survey results. That was, as I mentioned, fairly deliberate. That said, if some future survey were to demonstrate that the views expressed by the FSF represented the views of only a minority of the members of the Foundation or the GNOME community at large, then that would represent data to which the Foundation and the Board should give serious consideration, in my view. I am NOT claiming that this is the case, by any means, see the preceding paragraph. Now, I've similarly posted announcements of this survey on Twitter, identi.ca, Facebook, the FOSDEM general mailing list, the FSF-Europe's Legal & Licensing Network mailing list, and I forwarded the information on the survey to Simon Bridge, one of the moderators of the FSF Community Response Team list. I am, similarly, not trying to create splits between FOSDEM, FSF-Europe, or the FSF Community Response Team and the FSF, nor am I trying to change how any of them "do business". I am simply seeking a broad cross-section of respondents. I think you may be reading quite a bit more into this than I'd intended. Do you have an objection to the questions in the survey simply being _asked_, Owen...? If anyone wants to put notice of this survey out anywhere where it'll get uptake from members of the "free software"/"open source software"/FLOSS/FOSS community, I'd appreciate their doing so. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 9:57 AM, "Dave Neary" wrote: > > Please stop trolling. Dave, I think this is unhelpful. If you must, maybe you should do it privately, rather than publicly. > How about I do a poll whether people think PCs should run Windows or > another desktop environment? If we respect the results we should stop > developing GNOME. This survey is not specifically related to GNOME, as I've said. I mentioned it here mainly in order to ensure getting the broadest participation. I am conducting it mainly for my own interest, in order to see how well expressed beliefs reflect actual realities. If you're suggesting that _this_ survey is somehow biased, as your example question would appear to, I'd appreciate more specific information. > Isn't leading by survey one of the issues you had with the Bush & Blair > administrations? I'm most certainly not proposing that the Board necessarily do or not do anything based on the results. I do, however, think they're worthy of consideration. Note that I have not suggested that anyone "respect" the results. I do think that people should consider them, but that's entirely up to them. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 10:10 AM, "Stormy Peters" wrote: > > I have no objections to "free and open source" other than it's awkwardness. (I > too have used it quite a bit.) > As I point out in my previous message, I¹d say we have to use it, awkward or not. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 10:01 AM, "David Schlesinger" wrote: > >> Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free >> software' you aren't including all the OSI definitions which GNOME also >> endorses. > > This is actually an excellent, and an important, point. Having poked around a little bit, I think this needs to be stated more strongly. We certainly have software in GNOME that's being made available under the Apache license. (The keyring is an example a little Google'ing turned up...) With respect to the v2 GPLand we still don't accept v3 GPL software as GNOME components, last I heardsoftware under the Apache license can't be reasonably described as "free software", since it is incompatible with what is uncontrovertibly a "free software license", i.e. the v2 GPL. It is, regardless, unequivocally "open source software". Given this, we cannot legitimately simply use the term "free software" to describe what's included under the GNOME umbrella. Doing so would exclude any software which is licensed under terms which the FSF says are incompatible with the GPL. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 9:45 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote: > > I think it's a great idea to (at least) use both. I'd favor this as well. What it gains in possible awkwardness (which doesn't bother me, I used to say "free and open source software" all the time) it also gains in clarity, I think. > Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free > software' you aren't including all the OSI definitions which GNOME also > endorses. This is actually an excellent, and an important, point. > What about the companies and people, like me, who don't feel attached to > free software ideology and yet develop for and with GNOME technologies? Also an important point. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 9:05 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > > Like you say, the survey's data seems to suggest a broader "uptake" > among the respondents for open source. I don't know but I'm inclined to > believe that the consensus among the members is open source, not free > software then. I didn't put a discriminator on the survey to allow me to cross-tabulate GNOME members; that was fairly deliberate at the time, I was looking for as much of a community-wide response as I could get. In retrospect, I wish I'd asked, though. It may be better to look for data on this in a survey that is presented by the Foundation Board to the members in a more official fashion, rather than by me on my own. That said, if the Foundation would like me to conduct a survey on that, or other matters, I'm more than happy to take the questions and responses, etc., from them and implement it on SurveyMonkey. (Last time I mentioned this, I think I was told that the Board had some survey system on hand already; I don't know that we've used it so far...) > Free software vs. open source isn't a matter of just picking words, in > my opinion. I think we should get this right. Well, I would have to say that the reason it's something to consider at this point in time is that some of the terms seem to have gotten a little "loaded" with additional meaning. That is to say, that if there's an equivalence in people's minds between the phrases "favors free software" and "thinks proprietary software is illegitimate" for example, that's a problem in my view. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote: > > I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open > source. I have some sympathy with this view. "Open source" is my preference as well and (based on the survey data) seems to have broader "uptake" among the respondents. That said, I can personally live with "free" (in spite of it not being the terminology I personally use) if that's the consensus among the members here. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 8:34 AM, "Stormy Peters" wrote: > > The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software but > that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. We believe, > promote, use and write free software. > > We are excited when companies and individuals use GNOME technologies because > we believe it brings us closer to our mission and vision of a free desktop (or > mobile interface) accessible to everyone. Sometimes those companies are > proprietary software companies and while we hope that they move closer to free > software in the future (and that we are helping them do so with the use of > GNOME), we are delighted that they have chosen to use GNOME and will help them > and their customers. > That certainly strikes me as a lot more sensible than an unqualified, blanket statement that proprietary software is ³illegitimate², etc. I very much do not want to see GNOME sending out, standing behind, or otherwise subscribing to statements that would effectively create a group of ³second class citizens² within the community, or create a context where people felt they somehow less valued (or valid) members of the community based on their own use of proprietary software (and again, 2 out of 3 respondents to the survey used proprietary software on their own time.) I likewise very much do not want to see an impression created the GNOME is hostile to organizations that earn some portion of their revenues from the sale or use of proprietary software, or that it views them as somehow criminal or ³unethical² or whatever. As Voltaire advised: ³Never let the best become the enemy of the good.² ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 5:38 AM, "Xavier Bestel" wrote: > > Giving one definition of a word, then asking if someone else's sentence > containing that word is true is at best partial. Xavier, without defining the term beforehand, I'd be open instead to accusations that I wasn't being fair somehow by not defining what I meant clearly. > Feel free to disrespect me. Well, if people are inclined to find fault beforehand, they'll usually discover that they've found it at the end of things. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On 12/15/09 4:09 PM, "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Dave Neary wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Lefty wrote: >>> Given the proposition that proprietary software is "illegitimate", and >>> the statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and >>> community should distance itself from companies which produce proprietary >>> software? >>> >>> Specifically, should the Advisory Board be dissolved, and should the >>> Foundation refuse further financial support from the companies that >>> are currently on the Ad Board? >> >> I for one am interested in Richard's position on this. Mine is clear: I have >> no problem at all working with companies who want to improve GNOME or the >> GNOME platform, even if they develop proprietary software. And the money they >> give to GNOME gets used to improve GNOME, so as long as there are no strings >> attached, I don't care particularly why they give it. >> >> On the other hand, I feel under no obligation to promote their non-free >> software offerings, or guilt in encouraging free equivalents of their >> proprietary components & products. > > I fee like you took thoughts out of my mind but unlike me were able > to express them very nicely. :) I'm actually still hoping to get a response on this... ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Thanks, and a Brief Survey
Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for some reason to be on the same list of new members as my friend, Jim Vasile. On a different matter, I am currently conducting a brief (< 5 minute) survey on attitudes and viewpoints on FLOSS and proprietary software and I invite all to participate in it. We have on the order to 400 respondents so far, but I¹d like to get as broad a level of coverage as possible. The survey can be found at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/F8DG25Q A summary of the responses received so far can be found at http://bit.ly/74WQBI Thanks in advance for your participation. I¹ll be making a formal report of the results in a few weeks. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum
Typically, you work with a public relations firm. Media training is mostly a
bunch of pointers ("Never say, 'No comment'"; "Never cite specific numbers,
unless you are confident you can back them up") and a bunch of structured
practice in question-and-answer situations, confrontational and non-.
We should probably collect a list of those who are willing (and able).
On 12/16/09 3:51 AM, "Dave Neary" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
>> On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, "Miguel de Icaza" wrote:
>>> Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger
>>> connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses
>>> properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting.
>>
>> Actually, this is something I'd suggested in the Marketing BoF at the last
>> GUADEC: GNOME needs people who (ideally) have been media trained, have
>> appropriate contacts, and are willing and able to talk to press
>> representatives when needed. I volunteered to be one, I don't know whether
>> that are others, but we haven't followed up on it so far...
>
> I've done this in the past, and would be happy to again. Can't speak for
> anyone else.
>
> How do you get media training, by the way? :)
>
> Cheers,
> Dave.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum
On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, "Miguel de Icaza" wrote: > > Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger > connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses > properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting. Actually, this is something I'd suggested in the Marketing BoF at the last GUADEC: GNOME needs people who (ideally) have been media trained, have appropriate contacts, and are willing and able to talk to press representatives when needed. I volunteered to be one, I don't know whether that are others, but we haven't followed up on it so far... ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: > > ...I would not encourage anyone to use > non-free software even to get money to give to a worthy cause. I apologize to all, but given this, there's a question that _really_ has to be asked: Given the proposition that proprietary software is "illegitimate", and the statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and community should distance itself from companies which produce proprietary software? Specifically, should the Advisory Board be dissolved, and should the Foundation refuse further financial support from the companies that are currently on the Ad Board? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum
On 12/14/09 11:35 PM, "Sergey Panov" wrote: > > Nothing personal, but I never trusted those corporate "Open Source > Advocates" ... . No offense taken, I'm sure... I fear you distrust a fair proportion of the Foundation's Advisory Board. > Besides, Lefty does not work for ACCESS Inc. anymore > -- he is a director of the "Open Source Technologies" > http://www.blogger.com/profile/08971976622291862537. I do, indeed, work for ACCESS. My _title_ is "Director of Open Source Technologies". > I did not know the threshold was dropped that low. It's that pesky "open and welcoming" thing, I'm afraid. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum
On 12/14/09 8:28 PM, "Behdad Esfahbod" wrote: > > My proposal is mostly about recognizing that some discussions are > better done among contributors only, and not the public. And only if a > reasonable part of the community thinks that it's a good idea. I understand the motivations, but I tend to agree with the folks who think this is, on balance, a bad idea, largely because it's doubtful that anything that you wish would stay private actually will. As Benjamin Franklin observed, "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead." (The numbers are smaller for mailing lists...) In any case, journalist-impersonators like Mr. Varghese are going to write a load of smack, no matter what, even if they have to simply invent it. After all, they have in the past. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum
On 12/14/09 7:14 PM, "Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier" wrote: > 2009/12/14 Stormy Peters : >> Are there people on this list that are not GNOME Foundation members? If so, >> can you speak up? It would be good for everyone to know why you subscribe to >> foundation-list and the value you see in it. Actually, I'm in the same situation as Zonker, mostly through bad prioritization on my part (i.e., I've been meaning to do it). Application's in now. As a member of the Ad Board for a fair while, having both sponsored and presented at GUADEC more than once, participating in things like the GNOME Mobile effort, marketing, etc., I've got a definite interest in what goes on within the Foundation... ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
In the interests of a broader collection of data, I've shelled out of my own pocket to set up a professional-level SurveyMonkey account (the use of which I will happily share with the Foundation, at least until the annual subscription runs out, if it wishes to conduct surveys of its own). I've set up a survey to collect some data on how people view the suggestions that have been made regarding the governance of Planet GNOME, and I encourage anyone who's interested to participate. The survey can be found at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Z7WHPDF So far, we've gotten over 170 responses, and public opinion doesn't seem to be generally running in favor of Mr. Stallman's proposal, at a rate of roughly four against to one in favor, in the best of circumstances. The survey attempts to probe a little more deeply, but if the results are indicative of anything, Mr. Stallman's views here represent a minority opinion. As a specific example, to the question, "Do you agree that viewing proprietary software as 'illegitimate', 'immoral', 'antisocial' and/or 'unethical' should be a pre-condition for syndication on Planet GNOME?", so far 151 respondents have answered "No", only 19 have answered "Yes". That's about an 8-to-1 ratio. I'll publish more detailed results before the week is out. On consideration, I now believe there's no need to call for a vote of the Foundation membership. Since the problem doesn't seem to exist, there's no need to do anything with Planet. Similarly, I see no need to expend any further energy on the GNOME's community's part on dealing with this. If the GNU Project finds the current level of expression on Planet GNOME intolerably unsupportive of the free software movement, for whatever reasons, they can certainly take whatever steps they feel are necessary. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation-list Digest, Vol 68, Issue 13
On 12/13/09 8:49 AM, "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote: > > Yes. You said that no one's yet demonstrated a problem, and you gave a > solution for if the problem was demonstrated. You're solution was 100% > compatible with Richard's solution. Except that we now seem to have had the (non-existent) problem redefined for us: rather than the previous "_promotion_" (which I take to mean "marketing") "of proprietary software" (as I've said, I'd prefer not to see "promotion" in that sense of _any_ software on the Planet, it's neither a marketing nor an advocacy organ), now it's simply "_favorable mention_ of proprietary software"--apparently exclusive of any context whatsoever--that requires comment (denunciation?) from the Foundation Board. Not at all the sort of "bridge" I was looking for. I hope the Board has better things to do than to police the "purity" of Planet GNOME at the FSF's behest to spare us from seeing non-negative mention of non-free software being made with impunity. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: > That's where the cash for things like my FSF-E > Fellowship, EFF membership, Creative Commons membership, etc., come from, > see? > > These are worthy causes, but I would not encourage anyone to use > non-free software even to get money to give to a worthy cause. I knew you'd feel that way, which is why I send my money to FSF-Europe, rather than the FSF. > However, the issue here isn't about what you use or what I use, it's > about what GNOME should say to the world about proprietary software. One more time: Planet GNOME <> The GNOME Foundation <> GNOME > I don't know how often proprietary software is mentioned favorably > there. If the problem happens at intervals of years, maybe very > little response is needed. Maybe the GNOME Board should respond by > posting a response when non-free software gets favorably mentioned. Non-free software can't even be "favorably mentioned"? A discussion of the relative merits of GIMP and Photoshop is inadmissible if it admits, however grudgingly, that Photoshop has some advantages or features that GIMP does not...? We're disallowed from saying that Xcode on OS X is, in fact, an excellent development environment...? No one can comment in a positive way on a new cell phone or digital camera, without the Board of Directors of the GNOME Foundation coming down on them? Wow. You and I have extremely different ideas about "freedom", Mr. Stallman. > I don't know how often proprietary software is mentioned favorably > there. I see. Do you actually ever _read_ Planet GNOME, Mr. Stallman...? Perhaps you should call for a ban of the use of the term "open source" there, or of "Linux" unless it's in specific reference to the kernel, as a "minimal" requirement to "support free software". Those happen a _lot_ more often. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On 12/13/09 8:22 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: > > "Unable to come up with" and "too dumb" are your own additions, > which clearly were not present in the events themselves. Clearly, a lot of "misunderstanding" was "present in the events themselves". To what do you attribute this wide-spread "misunderstanding", if not stupidity, ignorance or a general lack of adequate erudition on the part of the audience? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation-list Digest, Vol 68, Issue 13
On 12/13/09 7:24 AM, "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote: > > That's a rule (a policy), which is mild and doesn't involve jumping straight > to blocking a whole blog. And it was suggested in heated opposition to this > comment: No, Ciaran: you've removed the entire surrounding context, and recast the sense of the statement to suit your rhetorical needs. I am _not_ calling for a new rule, a new policy, or anything of the sort, and in fact, I'm adamantly against any such thing as I've clearly stated. A more accurate summation of my position is: "There is not a problem here, and no one has managed to demonstrate that there is one. Accordingly, this suggestion of Mr. Stallman's should be ignored and no action whatsoever should be taken on it. If the situation described ever _does_ become a demonstrable issue, deal with it then, but let's not do _anything_ about it now." This is obviously not Mr. Stallman's position. Don't attempt to minimize the distance between our respective views when you have to do violence to one of them in order to accomplish this. Philip raises an excellent point as well: _I_ don't subscribe to the notion that proprietary software is, by necessity, "illegitimate", "antisocial", "immoral" or _any_ of those things. Like Philip, I believe it's a choice, and a choice that an author is entirely entitled to make. I do not want to see changes to Planet that require people to "sign up" to positions they don't hold, or that make it appear that they necessarily espouse such positions. Bottom line: Mr. Stallman's proposal is divisive, unnecessary and literally uncalled-for. If the issue continues to be pressed, maybe Philip is correct and the best thing to do _is_ to put it to a vote. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation-list Digest, Vol 68, Issue 13
On 12/12/09 1:49 PM, "Brian Cameron" wrote: > > However, since this problem seems to really happen only on rare > occasion, and since it does not seem that any non-free organizations > are really trying to use GNOME Planet to do any real advertising, > then perhaps a disclaimer link to highlight the GNOME community's stance > on the issue, and to provide educational links to people who want to > learn more about the importance of free software, would be a reasonable > improvement. I have an alternate suggestion: since there seems to be general agreement that there's not actually any sort of a real-world problem here, why don't we just drop the entire discussion, do nothing at all, and simply leave the Planet alone? Sending out annual "Are you still interested in being syndicated?" notes seems reasonable; some may not want to be. Beyond that, if any instances of "promotion of non-free software" should actually occur, they can be dealt with when they do, on a case-by-case basis. This approach has the advantage of requiring no effort whatsoever, which seems commensurate with grappling with an issue which doesn't actually exist. "I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Means 'No'."~Geoffrey Rush as "Barbossa" in _Pirates of the Caribbean_ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On 12/12/09 5:33 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: > > What happened there is that some people misunderstood a joke in my > speech, and others mistakenly accused me of intentionally disparaging > people. I personally find it telling that you somehow managed to find it within yourself to provide an apology to Apple for talking unsupported nonsense about OS X, but have been unable to come up with one for those of us who were too dumb to be able to adequately comprehend your humor at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit. I'd suggest providing a detailed explanatory handout in advance next time, in order to avoid any future misunderstanding. (I can only assume that Apple's legal department is at least as grim, humorless, and error-prone as I am.) I don't think there's anything more to be said on this score. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On 12/12/09 5:34 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: > > I think GNOME activities should not grant legitimacy to non-free > software. You're entitled to your opinion, but not to impose it on unwilling others. > This is a minimal form of support for the cause of software > users' freedom -- minimal in the sense that anything less would hardly > be support. Again, in your own terms, perhaps, but not (it seems) in the terms of the actual contributors to Planet GNOME. No one (other than yourself) is calling for "rules" governing contributions to the Planet, and no one can (apparently) point at any actual instances of the sort of thing you claim to be attempting to address here. Bottom line: Planet GNOME does not exist for the sake of "supporting" your, or the FSF's, agenda, and you're attempting to solve a non-existent "problem". > You're also stretching the term "censorship" and related terms to an > area where it does not pertain. For an organization to stand by its > values, and not say things which conflict with those values, is not > censorship. Fine. We can simply call it "prior restraint" if you prefer, then. The irony of your attempts to throttle people in the name of "freedom" is a marvel to behold. > I would not trade my freedom for convenience like that. No one's demanded that you do so, happily for you. Nor is it a question of "convenience", Mr. Stallman: it happens that it's my _job_. It's one of the things I get _paid_ to do. That's where the cash for things like my FSF-E Fellowship, EFF membership, Creative Commons membership, etc., come from, see? I wouldn't trade your _idea_ of "freedom" for that, as I happen to quite enjoy what I do. (I suppose that a complete inability to do film editing, since there's no "free" equivalent of Final Cut, and the consequent failure to do what I'm paid to do, followed by my subsequent dismissal and unemployment would indeed constitute an "inconvenience" for me, yes. Few of us enjoy the luxury of being president-for-life of some foundation or other.) > However the > issue here is not what you use, or what would I use; it is what GNOME > should advocate. The Planet is not "GNOME" and it is not an "advocacy" organ; it doesn't "advocate" anything, other than its various contributors' various interests and activities, whatever they happen to be. You have utterly misunderstood its purpose: to provide a window into the activities of people involved in GNOME; not just the "free software" activities; not just the activities of which the FSF chooses to approve. > Thus, GNOME should not present a program as legitimate if it requires > users to choose in that way. You're conflating "GNOME" and "Planet GNOME" in an unreasonable fashion. One more time: Planet GNOME is not presenting anything as anything. It does not have an editorial stance to espouse, nor a political position to promote. It's about people, not polemics. That the FSF would attempt to impose its own politics on the multiple, various and diverse contributors to the Planet--among which it must be noted that you do not number, Mr. Stallman--demonstrates that the FSF has no problem with monoculture, just so long as it's the monoculture the FSF endorses. As I've said, the GNOME Foundation doesn't support, endorse or stand behind any posting on Planet GNOME, and no one seems to be under the impression that it does, other than, possibly, yourself. The Planet, in my experience, seems to be quite amply self-policing; in any case, no one's asked for "help" in this area. If you, or the FSF, feel a need to express your opinions on Planet GNOME, get a blog up and have it syndicated there, just like everyone else. Please don't attempt to impose policy in an area where you don't even participate. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On 12/11/09 10:13 AM, "Les Harris" wrote: > > His position as I understand it is that it is bad publicity for the FOSS > movement if such a public facing venue like Planet GNOME is used to promote > proprietary software. I have not noted "promotion" of proprietary software on Planet GNOME. Can anyone point me to some instances of what's causing this great concern? For that matter, has there actually been any call on Planet GNOME for the sort of "rules" for which Mr. Stallman seems to See A Great Need? Dave Neary's message seems to suggest that there simply aren't any, either way. For my part, I'd be as unhappy with a lot of postings "promoting" _any_ company's products, whether they were "proprietary" or "free". Commercial sales pitches are inappropriate on Planet, in my view, whether the software being peddled is "free software" or not. I strongly doubt, however, that we need "rules" to deal with it, since it appears to be a complete non-situation. The Planet isn't for marketing, it's for getting a window into the lives of other folks in the community, just as it says, and many of those lives involve working with both free and proprietary software. That's a simple fact, and to attempt to muzzle people on this basis is divisive to the community and destructive to the Planet. It's not for marketing a political agenda, either, in my view. The concern seems to be utterly unfounded, and the need for "rules" is non-existent. I would certainly appreciate any efforts Mr. Stallman might care to make to communicate in a way that does away with the apparent need for third-party hermeneutics of his utterances. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On 12/11/09 9:32 AM, "Behdad Esfahbod" wrote: > > Quick procedural note: If you really want to pursue this, according to the > bylaws you need support of 5% of the membership IIRC to put something to vote. > I'm not sure the vote would be binding though. Is there anything in the bylaws as to how this support might be collected and demonstrated? If not, I doubt _anything_ will ever get put to a vote... In any event, it's entirely unclear to me what the actual meaning of such a vote might be, beyond "Stop trying to dictate what people can and can't post on Planet GNOME. Please." Perhaps it would be enough to simply say that. > I thought I point that out since that's your rights as members of the > foundation. That said, I agree with Dave. I don't disagree with any particular thing that Dave said, but as I've pointed out, I'm not the one who brought up this demand for prior restraint on the Planet. I find Planet GNOME to be just fine the way it is, and I suspect most readers who have mastered a degree of critical thinking and some facility in the use of a scroll bar probably feel similarly. I don't think anyone--with the possible exception of Mr. Stallman--subscribes to the notion that the GNOME Foundation approves of, endorses, or supports every posting syndicated to Planet GNOME. Nor have I noticed conspicuous calls on Planet for this sort of "rule" to address a looming threat posed by the inappropriately unfree. I certainly encourage the FSF to set up their very own planet, run it as they see fit, and exclude whomever and whatever they please: they can feel entirely at liberty to start with me. There seems, as well, to be a nice starting list of "traitors" and "enemies" available already, including the originator of Planet GNOME... ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On 12/11/09 8:40 AM, "Dave Neary" wrote: > > Don't we have more concrete issues to address? We _were_ attempting to finalize a Code of Conduct which could be provided to speakers, in the hope of avoiding future instances of the sort of "harmless fun" we experienced during Mr. Stallman's keynote at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit, as I recall. It seems that Mr. Stallman would prefer to discuss ways and means to throttle contributors to Planet GNOME of whose postings he happens not to approve, however. I understand your interest in "pouring oil on troubled waters" here, Dave, but neither Philip nor I are the ones who raised this "issue". ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
Philip van Hoof writes > > I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project. I'd second this. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On 12/11/09 7:12 AM, "Richard Stallman" wrote: > > Stormy, we seem to be miscommunicating. I said that people should not > promote non-free software on Planet GNOME. You seem to be arguing > against something different. I believe Stormy was quite clear and on point: It sounded to me as though she were arguing against the sort of "prior restraint" that you seem to be attempting to impose here. > GNOME is not connected with the anti-hunting movement; there's no > reason it should have any position on the question. GNOME is not connected with the anti-VMWare movement, nor (that I'm aware of) any "anti-proprietary software" movement. > But GNOME is part > of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free software > movement. It does support free software, and does an effective job of it. > The most minimal support for the free software movement is > to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid > presenting proprietary software as legitimate. This is simple nonsense. Software is software, and people write about what they do. I use free software, and I also use things like Final Cut Pro, for which there's no equivalent. You seem to feel I should be barred from writing anything about film-editing, since it involves "proprietary" software. My use of Final Cut is completely legitimate. There's no equivalent piece of free software, and even if there were, surely my tools are my choice, are they not? Your attempts to control what gets posted are completely out of line. > I think Planet GNOME should have a rule to this effect. There are > many ways to implement such a rule, of which "block the whole blog" is > about the toughest one we might consider. I'd suggest rather to try a > mild approach; I'm sure that can do the job. This suggestion, which verges on a demand for "censorship in the name of freedom", is completely appalling. I have no interest in seeing Planet GNOME turned into a outpost of "Bad Vista", thanks. If muzzling people is a condition of being "part of the GNU project", then maybe we should rethink _that_ aspect of things. Maybe the FSF should start its own planet and set its own rules there rather than attempting to impose its various litmus tests on the contributors to Planet GNOME. I haven't got even the slightest interest in seeing this "job" get "done", and I'd be opposed to anyone's trying it. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
