Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

["Lefty (石鏡 )" <lefty shugendo org>]

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 suggestion?which Philip has noted?that 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 department?and 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
law?without compelling supporting evidence?isn'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.