gnu-linux-libre
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[GNU-linux-libre] Can we slow down? Was: the future of the FSDG


From: Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
Subject: [GNU-linux-libre] Can we slow down? Was: the future of the FSDG
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 02:25:24 +0200

On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 00:31:41 -0400
bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> wrote:

> we are still facing the existential crisis for the FSDG and this
> work-group, which has been looming for years, yet to be addressed -
> if the FSF can not maintain the FSDG, as it has demonstrated for the
> past five years, then we must consider some alternate reform, to
> protect its reputation and to unclog the bottleneck of progress
While I'm *very* interested in the topic (I've even proposed some
things in the past for that and even tried them out), there is also the
fact that right now I didn't even manage to finish the various
discussions that have still some issues left pending:
- The ScummVM thread has still some things pending (what text to put
  out, what rationale to use).
- There new mails with the thread on third party package managers.
- There is a thread on emulators.
- And one on Docker and how to deal with Docker that I also need to
  reply to.
- There is also one on Parabola packaging of ScummVM.

So there is an explosion of threads each of them with many many mails,
and many of these mails are very important as some decisions are being
taken.

So if the goal is to get things done (I assume it is), it might work
better if we stick to one issue at the same time and finish what we
started first, especially given the time we spent in these issues.

We need to slow down here because we do need the participation of
people involved in distributions, and if following all the threads take
too much time, almost nobody actively involved will participate
(because people also have paid jobs, need to contribute to the
distributions, also have other free software projects to contribute to,
etc).

Without that we could still have decisions made, but I think that we
really need people to be involved if we want to avoid really bad
decisions (some of them could make the distributions explode in various
ways if they are taken without the involvement of the distributions).

The third option of having everybody burnout is also not a solution, so
we'd better avoid too.

Denis.

Attachment: pgp3QzSm5zXcq.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]