[DotGNU]Clarifications on FSF press release and Mono collaborations

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

I realize that the press release discussion has mostly died down, but
having just finally gotten caught up on dotGNU traffic, I wanted to
explain some things.  When the threads on the FSF press release and Mono
involvement ended, it seemed that some people were still angry.

I do not want to start a flamewar, but rather, clarify the FSF/GNU's
situation, and give you some background on why we took the steps we did.

The Mono developers had approached us (FSF and GNU) in confidence; they
didn't want to announce their work to anyone.  They asked us to keep it a
secret until they announced it.  They had been our friends for a long
time, so we agreed to that promise.  They indicated at that time they
wanted Mono to be an official GNU program.

Only a few days later, we at the FSF/GNU became aware of the DotGNU
effort.  The DotGNU effort was public, and Tony Stanco and David Sugar
soon asked for an endorsement to make DotGNU into an official GNU program.
We thought about it, talked about it internally.  We decided that since
replacing Microsoft.NET is such a huge job, it makes sense to have two
projects.  Indeed, we have some precedence of endorsing two projects at
once to solve the same big problem.  (e.g., We endorsed Harmony (which
never took off) and GNOME at the same time to address KDE's dependence on
the proprietary Qt.  Years later, Qt became GPL'ed anyway.)

We made the decision to endorse both sometime in the last week of June.

Around Tuesday 2 July, while Tony, David and I were all at LSM in Bordeaux
with limited Internet access, RMS and I learned that Ximian planned to do
the Mono press release on Monday 9 July 2001.  Now, we were in a bind.  We
knew that DotGNU wanted to be officially GNU, and that Mono had asked for
that, too.  Meanwhile, we'd promised the Mono guys not to say that the
project existed!

A solution to this dilemma came on Wednesday 3 July, when the existence of
Mono was leaked to the press.  Sugar walked up to me at LSM that day and
said: "So, what's this Ximian Mono thing, and what do you know about it?"
Since he'd found out independently, I read the story, and then felt it was
ok to confirm that story.  (The word was out; there was no secret to
keep).  I told Sugar at that time that Mono was to be endorsed as GNU
along with DotGNU.

Stanco, Sugar and I had extensive meetings at LSM, and we came up with an
agreement on how DotGNU would be endorsed.  This was happening over a
matter of a few days with limited Internet connectivity, so we couldn't
bring everyone in.  And, we were working against a deadline---Ximian's
press release was on Monday!

My concern in the whole ordeal was that we should make a strong statement
from the FSF, on the same day as the Mono press release, that both DotGNU
and Mono were officially GNU, lest Mono forever overshadow DotGNU.  We
wanted DotGNU to be seen as equals with Mono in the press, and feared
they'd never be equal if Mono was announced first and alone.  Sugar and I
wrote a draft of the press release.  Then, I spent two hours on
international mobile phone calls with our PR folks (someone at LSM even
took pictures of me on the phone, and put them online :), and got the
press release out.

I am sorry you all weren't consulted more on the FSF press release, but it
was just a victim of circumstance.  I assure you sincerely that I was
really looking out for both projects equally, because I wanted DotGNU to
be seen on that fateful day of press releases (Monday 9 July 2001) as a
full-fledged equal to Mono, standing together as part of GNU.  That's why
we worked so fast.  Ximian set the date for their press release; we could
either match it, or leave DotGNU as second-class in the press.

I hope this message explains things better.  Let me know if you have
questions.  In my next message, I'll address my comments on Mono/DotGNU
integration.




Finally, I want to note that I will be participating as a developer in
this project, as well as in my official role of FSF vice president and
RMS' "deputy" concerning matters of the GNU project.  I want to be clear
when a particular message is speaking officially on behalf of the FSF/GNU,
and when I am speaking as just another developer.

The best way that I have decided to do this is to post messages where I
speak as FSF VP from <address@hidden> or <address@hidden>, with my
"official" .sig, and post developer messages from <address@hidden>, with no
.sig.

I am sorry for any confusion this causes.  I want to be clear, though,
that I wear two hats, and which one I am wearing.  (It's going to get
really weird when my developer alter ego starts following up to my own
posts.  ;)


--
Bradley M. Kuhn, Vice President
Free Software Foundation     |  Phone: +1-617-542-5942
59 Temple Place, Suite 330   |  Fax:   +1-617-542-2652
Boston, MA 02111-1307  USA   |  Web:   http://www.gnu.org

pgpN0lwXIvr9Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature