GNOME.org
 

Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 18:58 -0500, john palmieri wrote:

Hey John,

I'm keeping most of the original E-mails. I have been misquoted and my quotes have been taken out of context too often for [CUT] to be useful. It's sad, but truth.

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Philip Van Hoof <pvanhoof gnome org> wrote:
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 22:59 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> IMHO talking about Facebook and who should demand them to free info is a
>     bit out of place here. Please let's not diverge the thread into that or
>     into a battle about how much we should promote Free Software or non Free
>     alternatives.
>
> In my fantasies, the free software movement might be so influential
> that we could make demands and Facebook would have to heed them.  In
> reality, we are not in a position to correct the social problems
> caused by Facebook, and I do not suggest making that our goal.


Why not?

You changed the social aspect of software development in the past by
inspiring software engineers to follow a certain pro social model.

Why not do it again for the current generation, and change the game for
the many social community websites being created in this era?

If the only problem is that the web and its many innovations aren't part
of your generation, then I don't see what the real problem is;

The social aspects are the same.

Why isn't the FSF talking with these companies and organizations about
standardizing data about social networks? Why not talk with the European
Commission about getting rules on personal privacy? Why not talk with
Neelie Kroes about competition laws for near-monopolies like Facebook?

If the FSF would be really be pro 'freedom' of people, they'd do all
that. In fact, you guys are many people's only hope for improvement
here: There are no other organizations even trying at this moment.

But for that, we need you and the FSF to become more pragmatic.

Instead, we have to listen to nonsense about Mono. Nonsense about ethics
that people know more about themselves, for themselves, than the FSF
does. And all the nonsense is turning many FSF fans into zealots.

Um, don't confuse Boycott Novell with RMS or the FSF.  The FSF has moved to a more pragmatic stance though

I haven't noticed it yet. But maybe I have not been paying attention enough?

I'm willing to be convinced.

talking about pragmatism is like talking about right and left - everyone's center is different.

Of course. I think the quote "everyone's center is different" should be central for the GNOME Foundation.

As for RMS's stance on Mono, he has come to espouse his own views on something that in the domain of GNOME where as now Facebook is pretty off topic.

This sentence does not compute for me. Maybe I'm just really bad at understanding English?

Stop dragging the GNOME Foundation list down these off topic roads and stop this pissing contest.

I think you, and many other people, are misinterpreting this as a pissing contest. It's not. It's a quite serious debate.

And I think it's insulting of you to call it a pissing contest.

If you don't like the debate, then why aren't you simply ignoring us?

Everything that can be said has been said and the thread should be taken off list.  Feel free to start a Boycott FSF or Boycott RMS site to continue this bike-shedding.

There is no bikeshedding here at all. You're just trying to make people believe that there's bikeshedding happening.

Let people judge for themselves. Why don't you trust them?
 
Of course people like me, and Lefty, start saying 'no more'.

What did you, or anybody, expect?

Please, change course with the FSF. I'm asking it seriously now.

Please don't drag the Foundation into this.  The foundation supports and is supported by the FSF.  The foundation don't always agree with the FSF's stance, but it is not a pulpit for bashing them either.  Please talk to RMS and the FSF directly as an individual.  

That's a contradiction:

The GNOME Foundation supports the FSF, but doesn't agree with all of the FSF's stances. On top of that:

You allow the FSF's stances to be publicized here, but you don't allow any kind of opposition to be represented. By asking people like me to shut up.

So I conclude you do agree with the FSF's stances, you just lack the courage to stand up for it. At least Richard does.

I'm not dragging anything down. By disallowing this, you'd make a farce of the GNOME Foundation's reason to exist: Claiming that there's some kind of vagueness about what GNOME's position with relation to the FSF is, is saying that the GNOME Foundation is incompetent at having its own position. In this case a position about ethics.

I disagree with this: GNOME's Foundation is supposed to be competent at having an own position on such matters, on any matter.

Why is the GNOME Foundation being handicapped by disallowing it taking its own position?

You want to create a second Belgium perhaps?

I happen have some experience with that: You don't want that.

> But we do have a duty to make sure, if we develop software
> specifically to work with Facebook, that we are not promoting Facebook
> as a consequence.


This isn't the case at this moment. So there is no problem here.

> There are many social problems in life, and nobody would expect us to
> eliminate them all.  Most of them are not our priority to work on.


I can't agree with the "most of them are not our priority".


So you want it to be pragmatic but then you want it to be superman of freedom.

Yes, let it be an organization that promotes freedom for the users of the IT industry's products.

That is actually a very good goal for such an organization.

Ain't it FSF's goal to promote freedom for people in general?

No, freedom in software is their focus.  Other entities like the ACLU in America are focused on other aspects of freedom.

I just disagree here. But we are free to disagree, aren't we?

By neglecting the "freedom problems" as introduced by social networking
websites, you are together with the FSF neglecting a important aspect of
this generation's freedoms:

Privacy. Choice. Access to the data about themselves.

You're basically saying: "yeah yeah, but that ain't the FSF's priority".

Who's priority is it then?

Because that'll be the same FSF of the 2010ties that the FSF was in the
90ties. The one we need.

There are other memebers of the FSF who are involved with this (http://www.fsf.org/appeal/2009/mako/).  Read down a bit about Network services.  Unlike some people, the board of the FSF does its research and formulates a position before flying off the handle.

I'll sceptically read that website. Thanks.

> But even when eliminating a problem is not our priority, we should
> make an effort to avoid making it worse.


By programming annoying warning message boxes?

So now we are into developing the very same EULA dialog windows that we
hated in the 90ties. And that everybody simply ignores by always
clicking "yes", "ok" or the "whatever" answer?


Great. 


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be
[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]