offtopic Re: Explaining Open Standards ...

[Theo Schmidt]

Sam Liddicott schrieb:
> On Sun, 2010-04-11 at 10:23 +0100, xdrudis wrote:
...
>> > * Evangelist => strategic document like this message
>> > * Idealist => "Like the Why I rejected your attachment" link you posted
>> > * Pragmatist => How to communicate: A view of interoperability
>> > * Minimalist => Simple etiquette: How to stop your correspondents
>> > complaining
>>
>> I'm sorry but I don't think this is helpful. You can't come and start
>> classiying people in groups...
> 
> I agree, and that is not what I was trying to do. I meant that each 
> person may act according to the good that they see...

I think it is useful, because each of us has all of these roles in varying 
degrees and at different times and with different subjects. However I agree that 
for the original purpose of publishing a kind of Howto on file formats we need 
to simplfy.

...
> These groups differ in the way they perceive the benefits of free 
> software. Only idealists properly comprehend the idealistic benefits.

I would say that there is a great difference between comprehending and acting. 
Many people comprehend something but act otherwise.

...
>> - you assume an undestanding of people you often don't have, so your
>> models of the people you interact with are too weak for the confidence
>> you put in them.  The only person you can aspire to really know is
>> yourself...

I would say that one don't really know one's own self either.

...
> I think we are in closer agreement that you think. 

I think all of us here in this thread are in close agreement in the aims, but we 
are not sure how to achieve them.

>> An example: 
...
>> If every vegetarian had adapted to me and offered me only the
>> vegetable dishes I already liked...
> 
> This is a good example. It is notable because it is unusual - most 
> people will not be vegetarian. 

Yes, a good anology and much more important in the context of life and death. I 
am mostly vegetarian because it is the easiest way to combat global warming and 
because I don't like the suffering of animals. Now in my local green party, all 
think this way in theory, but most still order meat in a restaurant. The 
pragmatic role says: "Why shouldn't I eat meat if I like it, I can't save the 
world by myself". The idealist role says: "If I reject meat, maybe others will 
so so as well and together we can save the world. And even if we can't, I can 
save one animal all by myself." (The philosopher role will say: "Is it better 
for an animal to have a life albeit with a brutal end, or better to never have 
existed?")

...
> It takes generations to change minds sometimes...
> 
>> Showing yourself, teaching others to
>> do what you think is right...
> 
> That is a description of what I called idealist...

>> And I may have no proof of that intelligence,
>> but I have no reason to think intelligence is not uniformly distributed,
>> and anyway, if people are stupid there's no solution, so let's handle 
>> the other case.
> 
> I think here is the point; you say "if people are stupid there's no 
> solution."...

I think this has mainly to do with time scale. We are slowly collectively 
becoming more intelligent. However certainly people are both stupid and 
intelligent at the same time. And decisions are not taken by reflection - no 
matter how much time is actially taken reflecting - but by other mechanisms. I 
only realised the extent of this last week while discussing a new computer 
system. The key decision taker, an intelligent, well-meaning man, after being 
presented various possibilities, chose a very poor one for completely irrational 
reasons, the one he simply wanted and had decided on at the beginning.

There is also the feeling of "I don't want to be told what to do." A good 
example is the disscussion of quoting netiquette on mailing lists. There are 
good logical reasons for certain rules. Some people will agree with these, but 
not bother because of laziness, others will reject them purely because they want 
to feel free.

...
>> But I agree we should not lead anyone to deception if we can help it.
> 
> I agree with that point very strongly.
> 
>> Saying that all software works with all standards is not helpful. 
> 
> Quite true.
> 
>> Saying
>... 
> Yes.
> 
>> But it is also important to 
>...
> Yes.
>
>> A few times when I've complained of email attachments to the sender
>...
> 
> Same here.
> 
>> Sometimes even all people adressed
>...
> Yes.

I find it remarkable how patient disscussion on this list has brought about so 
much agreement!


>> Sorry to waste your time with my ramblings.
> 
> I think this is one of the most productive discussion for a long time, I 
> appreciate the time you took to explain yourself - thank-you.

Yes, thanks to all.


> I think we are clear that really the contentious part of this discussion 
> is how to treat those who can't accept the ideal message. 

Yes, and I don't think there is any "correct" answer. We can just try to 
maximise our intended results within the given requirements.

...
> If someone will support open standards because the software is gratis, 
> then it is a weak position but will do for the very short term and will 
> still advance the aims of free software.

I guess this is so. I think we have to accept that the majority of people don't 
think politically and that of those who do, the majority will regard anything to 
do with software or documents as not relevant in a political sense.

...
> We can discuss how to convert a pragmatist to an idealist, how to help 
> them recognize the value of freedom. 

Freedom is best recognized as valuable when it is under threat and only if the 
theat is massive and not introduced little by little. And only if the freedom is 
conceived as positive; there are plenty of examples where a lack of freedom can 
have its beneifts.


> One way is with Richard Stallman's original printer-driver story. 

This leaves most people cold. They simply want to be able to use their printer 
and spend at the most 5 minutes installing it. This includes me. In my office at 
Bern university, I can't install the network printer I want to use under Linux 
and can't find anybody to help me. My consequence is that I don't print, or ask 
others to print, or mail the documents home to print. Most others will prefer to 
  use Windows, because although they perhaps still can't install the awkward 
printer themselves, they can at least find somebody to do it. In this example 
that theoretically one can write one's own printer driver is irrelevant, even to me.

...
> I also find the idea of low-cost software for use in countries with a 
> poor exchange rate...

There is lots of good news in this area with large projects, e.g. 
One-laptop-per-child, but individually I find that most people in such 
situations prefer to steal propietary SW of the preferred "brand" rather than be 
given free software. We must work more in developing the value of brands.

Cheers, Theo Schmidt