[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation

From: MJ Ray
Subject: Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:46:41 +0100

On 2004-10-01 04:59:17 +0100 Gregory John Casamento <address@hidden> wrote:

--- MJ Ray <address@hidden> wrote:
On 2004-09-30 17:03:26 +0100 Gregory John Casamento <address@hidden> wrote:
I can... Because it would be managed by people who have little to do > with the
actual GNUstep project.
Huh? I would expect that to make the Foundation less legitimate in most people's eyes.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. My point is that by keeping it with the maintainers of GNUstep itself, that it will be *more* legitimate.

This seems the opposite of your previous position to me.

If the FSF runs it, they may not care about it as much as those directly
involved would.

Why do so many keep arguing against a proposal no-body made? I'm suggesting using FSF to accept the money, pay the bills and do the bureaucracy which comes from being a corporation. I am not suggesting letting FSF run the marketing effort or much else that people are arguing against. Please all try to stay on-topic.

This may not be possible, but it looks like no-one had even researched whether it is before supporting Alex Perez's statement "we need a GNUstep Foundation so we can handle money". If I've got that wrong, please point me at the documentation.

If visibility is the concern, does this need to be "GNUstep >> Foundation"
rather than "GNUstep Marketing Foundation" or "GNUstep Promotion
Similar to the GNOME Foundation and the Apache Foundation, yes it > does.
Why? Just to ape GNOME?
No. Actually... if you had read the post I made previously, I said we want to have a different structure than the GNOME Foundation as they sometimes suffer
from "design by committee".

Why does my reading your previous post change what you said? Are you just being rude and trying to suggest "this chap can't understand email"? If so, tough: I do understand it, but the structure is not strongly related to the name, other than as a suggestion of its aims.

As for the name, I don't know how I would feel about something named "GNUstep Marketing Foundation" or "The Foundation For the Promotion of GNUstep". "GNUstep Foundation" seems appropriate to me.

It depends what its aims are, but I suspect "GNUstep Marketing Association" is a better description of what we're trying to do.

I'm surprised that paying developers and contracting with outside companies has been mentioned as an expected function. Won't this foundation be directing development by specifying those contracts? Are you opposed to that?

I worry that marketing is trying to lead development, instead of assisting it. My question about verifying the suggested problems has gone unanswered as yet.
This was my concern.  *PLEASE* read the previous post. [...]

You claim you're concerned, but if you are, *PLEASE* reply to my previous post about testing marketing hypotheses.

[...] The foundation shall oversee ONLY the funds
necessary to further GNUstep promotion and, possibly, be used to contract with
outside companies to help GNUstep improve.

If handling funds is its only role, it seems a good idea to investigate other host organisations before blindly creating another and having the administrative overhead hit our funds.

MJR/slef    My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
 Creative copyleft computing - village 6+7 Oct

reply via email to

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