Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Time for Actions

[Simon Ward]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 02:14:01AM +0000, Andy Halsall wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 March 2008 00:24:23 Simon Ward wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:19:24PM +0000, Andy Halsall wrote:
> > > > As you may gather from my previous posts, I don’t think we should aim
> > > > for separation from the FSF, but that may be just me.
> > >
> > > If the aim is that the FSUK is a UK chapter of the FSF then fine - if not
> > > then I think some separation is warranted, or in the very least we should
> > > not be exclusively related to the FSF.
> >
> > Not exclusively related.  I think purposefully distancing Manchester
> > Free Software from the FSF achieves little, other than a sense of
> > independence or egotistical high.
> 
> I cant quite determine the meaning of that paragraph... If what you are 
> saying 

It means what it says in the context of your paragraph above it:

  * “Not exclusively related” — we _should_ be working with other
    organisations.  We _are_ independent.

    Again, why does it seem like this is being pitched as a one or the
    other thing?

    Why, if we say we are working with the FSF, does that exclude us
    from working with others?

  * “… purposefully distancing …” — putting any more between the FSF and
    and us than there is already.  We should be building relations, not
    weakening them.

> is that the FSUK *is* intended to be independent from the FSF and that using 
> FSF resources is simply the best option then I am happy with it.  If what you 

Yes, ish.  FSF isn’t always the best option, but neither is FSF an
exclusive option (I will repeat that as often as it takes to get the
idea out of anyone’s head that a relation with the FSF is exclusive).

> are saying is that the FSUK is *not* intended to be independent and is indeed 
> a subset of the FSF, but that we may still have a relationship with other 
> groups and that restricts who or what we can do, then I am not as happy.  As 
> an example, how would you feel about the FSUK working with say the BCS with 
> regards to some element of software freedom or indeed a joint event of some 
> sort?

Paul has already initiated communications with the BCS and IET.

> What I am saying, other than I think this may have been blown somewhat out of 
> proportion is that;
> 
> 1. I would like to see the visible parts of FSUK come together under the 
> fsuk.org domain […]

I see no problem with that wish, and had already agreed with you (off
list) before, other than my comment about keeping organisational stuff
on the groups.fsf.org wiki.

> 2. I would like to see the whole FSUK thing develop in a manner that is 
> inclusive, I would like to see people with no idea about Software Freedom, 
> the GPL, FSF, FSUK or any other aspect to be welcome and be able to find out 
> what its about and how it is beneficial to and impacts on us in the UK.

Then start being inclusive stop making it sound like association with
the FSF is inherently exclusive when it isn’t.

> > I think that where we are now, we are already independent.  We are here
> > now discussing who we want to affiliate with, how close, etc.  Becoming
> > a chapter of the FSF is more joining it from our position.  It’s us who
> > decides, not the FSF or any other organisation, isn’t that autonomy?
> >
> > > I guess what needs to be established fairly early on is the relationship
> > > that we intend to have with the FSF (I would have thought this is a
> > > matter of how close rather than anything else). Poll?
> >
> > I kind of like where we are.  If it ain’t broke, etc.
> 
> I don't know where we are in relation to the FSF, I guess simply clarifying 
> that for me is sufficient. Like I said its not that big a deal, unless of 
> course there is some influence outside of FSUK members that directs the group 
> or limits its activities.

In the first paragraph of mine above:
 
  * “we are […] independent” —  What it says on the tin.
  * “It’s us who decides” — we are self‐governing.  We are not governed
    by the FSF.

Extra: The only links (that I know of) that we have with the FSF so far
are Matt, groups.fsf.org, and nongnu.org.  Matt is not telling us what
to do.  Matt has offered his help.

> Frankly the above is really not massively useful for the group

No :/

> as long as we can do what we have been doing I'm happy.

That’s why I said I like where we’re at.

To clarify my interest:  I _like_ Manchester Free Software.  It is my
primary motivation to keep Manchester Free Software going.  I’d like to
see a UK‐wide thing happen, but that’s a secondary concern for me.

>                                 I guess I am marginally worried 
> that, what has for me been a remarkably nice experience, will cease because 
> of some petty issue or fragmentation, hence my view that close relationships 
> coupled with agnosticism with regard to other organisations is desirable.

I’m trying to stop the balance from being pushed over too far and
effectively disassociating us from one organisation.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.
    — John Gaule

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature