[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation
Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation
Fri, 1 Oct 2004 14:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-10-01 14:34:43 +0100 Gregory John Casamento
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > [...] You had suggested the FSF run it [...]
> No, I never suggested that the FSF should run a GNUstep Foundation/
> Association/ whatever. I suggested that the FSF might be a good
> foundation to collect and distribute GNUstep donations. I find it
> incredible that you can misunderstand my post like that.
I think you misunderstood Greg, yet again. He said that you suggested that
the FSF run "it" with "IT" being *donation collection and dissemination*.
> > [...] You are the one arguing for the FSF to run the collection and
> > distribution of funds for GNUstep, albeit at Adam's "say so"... [...]
> s/run/handle/;# Please try not to change my meaning.
Semantic bickering gets us nowhere.
> > It seems to me
> > that it's better that we are in complete control if the funds
> > submitted for
> > the
> > use of GNUstep. Also, by making it part of the FSF it makes it at
> > the FSF's
> > sole discretion how the money is used, despite what Adam, myself, or
> > any of
> > the other maintainers might want.
> Do we know that it FSF will not agree to handle collection and
> distribution on the maintainers' behalf?
No, not yet, but do you expect this discussion to grind to a halt while we
wait to hear back from Adam and the FSF?
> Adam is GNUstep's chief maintainer. Doesn't he have final say on the
> project, for better or worse?
Of course, and the only person who seems to think he won't be included is
you. I don't understand why you think this is ssome massive conspiracy.
> Changing the management structure of GNUstep is yet another different
> aim to marketing GNUstep. Again, I am not sure what people mean by the
> GNUstep Foundation.
There's no management structure right now. There's Adam, our lovely
benevolent dictator (whom I respect and have no problem with, per se), and
that's pretty much it. He's one person, not superman. And he has a life.
> > As I said in a previous post, I've been considering this for a long
> > time.
> Cool. Explain it.
What do you think he's been doing? If you need something clarified, be
> > Because you said "Just to ape GNOME"? No, we're not "aping" anyone.
> > Also, I
> > don't consider having a similar name "aping" someone. I believed you
> > were
> > implying that we make all of the same mistakes the GNOME Foundation
> > has
> > made...
> > which I am opposed to. You don't like that explaination, tough.
> Oh well. I hear "GNUstep Foundation" and I naturally think of another
> desktop foundation which started from GNU developers, the GNOME
> Foundation. In the absence of other information, I will think it is
> similar and I suspect many other free software users will. At the very
> least, this hypothesis should be tested before settling on that name.
> No-one wants a marketing project to have an unmarketable name.
This is your mental stumbling block, not anyone else's problem. the
structure of the organization dictates its power, not the name and your
preconceived notions of what a "Foo Foundation" will do.
> > For things that the maintainers believe is worth it. It's been done
> > before
> > by
> > the FSF in the case of DGS (Display GhostSctipt) as well as other
> > things.
> So, the FSF already did this function for us? Who tells them what
> project need doing? The maintainers of the project or someone else?
This was a long time ago, and it never was done completely. I don't know
anything about the specifics, since this was WAY before my time.
> Who would tell the GNUstep Foundation what is needed? How?
These things have yet to be worked out, but *that's what this discussion
> Therefore, is the GNUstep Foundation intended to replace the FSF?
No. GNUstep will always be an FSF project. They own the copyright to the
code. Nobody is suggesting we "replace" anything. The FSF doesn't do what
we need, so it's an addition.
> > You seem to assume that I haven't investigated this.
> Why shouldn't I? Most people who don't mention their research at all
> don't have any. Most of my questions are for information you seem to
> have, but I haven't seen. If you described this before, feel free to
> reply with a reference.
You're also not very good at asking questions.
> > The only organization
> > which would have fit the bill is the FSF and they currently
> > understaffed and
> > would probably not want to take on the extra responsibility given
> > that they
> > have not done this FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT EVER except for GNU-Hurd.
> FSF is understaffed, but any GNUstep Foundation is even more
> understaffed right now. Would likely Foundation staffers be interested
You have nothing to back up this unsubstantiated claim.
> in doing GNUstep-related work for FSF? Is that possible? What did the
> GNU Volunteer Coordinators tell you?
I sure think it's possible. I would, I don't have any problem with the
FSF, but I don't think their bureaucracy is set up to deal with our
interests. I'm open to the idea, if someone wants tolook into this.
> FSF have spent money funding GNUstep development. FSF accept donations
> specifically for the Free Software Directory and GPL Compliance Lab on
> https://agia.fsf.org/donate/directed-donations/ - Why are these not
> taking on extra responsibilities for projects other than GNU-Hurd?
Because they are directly sanctioned and administrated by the FSF There's
theoretically no reason why a GNUstep Foundation couldn't work with the
FSF to coordinate donations, but the FSF will not just blindly give money
to an individual, so there has to be some sort of organization to *accept*
the money and distribute it.
> Can you explain why you rejected SPI as a project host?
Did he? I think you're making assumptions again.