Public Money Public Code: a good policy for FSFE and other non-profits?
rubini at gnudd.com
Fri Jun 15 08:49:23 UTC 2018
I'll go back for the last time to Daniel's proposal to document use
of non-free software within FSFE. (Thanks Reinhard for reminding that
it doesn't happen). I'd better explain the "hall of shame" idea.
> [...] AND, we're not talking "hall of shame", we're talking
> transparency and documentation.
> I didn't ask for a "hall of shame" and I don't recall Daniel asking
> for one, either. The merit I see in such a proposal is that it shows
> people how various kinds of activities can be performed using Free
Not really, rather what "is not" performed using free software.
3 different proposals could be made, towards the same stated goal:
1- We are aware we may sometimes use non-free tools during our activity,
and we make a point of taking note of any "unclean" activity, so to be
able to improve based on that internal record.
2- Most if not all of our work is done according to our principles, so
we make a public page where we document how to achive in freedom what most
other people think requires proprietart tool X or service Y.
3- Probably not all of our work is done according to our principlese, so
we make a public page with names and activities where we fail to.
I would be positive to 1, positive to 2 if we have resources to write and
maintain it, but I'm definitilely against 3. Let's get the exact text as
quoted by Daniel himself from https://danielpocock.com/pmpc-for-fsfe-itself
[...] FSFE will maintain a public inventory on the wiki listing the
non-free software and services in use, including details of which
people/teams are using them, [...]
This, in my view, *is* an hall of shame: "Stephan made a phone call with
a politician using service Froboz, in his FSFE activities"
And, in my opinion, the will to repost the same motion makes no sense.
If the motion has a reason, the proponent should explain such reason
and discuss within the voting group, to draft a proposal that would pass.
For example option 2 or 3 above.
We usually have large majorities in our votes, because we discuss about
the issues beforehand. I'd personally retire a motion if the discussion
shows an amble majority against it. Unless I want to play the victim.
> To give Daniel credit, he did state that the text might be improved.
The text (the way it is worded), not the proposal. Exact wording again:
If you can see something wrong with the text of the motion, please
help me improve it so it may be more likely to be accepted.
Finally. Paul is right here:
> I get the impression that we are possibly encountering some other
> interpersonal issues here.
Yes, I'm really upset by this blog post. The motion didn't pass, and
the proponent goes to a different audience, using his ouput-only
channel, to complain and say he'll do it again, because he is right.
My expected outcome: loose, complain, repeat.
And it's not the first time I get on fire for similar reasons.
Repeating over and over, not listening, wasting everybody's time in
endless loops, flooding discussion with irrelevant nitpicking and
And for me it's over. I thank both Paul and Carsten for the positive
attitude but this proposal is going nowhere positive, unless the
proponent changes attitude.
More information about the Discussion