Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation

[MJ Ray]

As a result of this message, I want to ask the following questions for 
everyone except Gregory John Casamento: his questions are later in the 
email. Please send your replies to the gnustep-marketing list in the 
cc of this message. I think someone posted joining instructions 
earlier.

1. What do you want GNUstep as a project to do that it isn't now?
2. What options do you know that exist for doing those tasks?
3. In particular, what options do you know for collecting donations?
4. What do we need to find out about these options before deciding?

Now, the message:

On 2004-10-01 22:03:13 +0100 Alex Perez <address@hidden> 
wrote:

> > 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?

No, but I expect people to admit that this question had not been 
asked, allow reasonable time for research and refrain from drawing 
conclusions based on any particular answer to it. We can still 
discuss, but can't say "we must do this because FSF won't" when we 
didn't even ask until now. Is that OK by you?

> > 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. It's 
> not.

Please don't invent motives for me. I think this *might* be a massive 
balls-up in progress, not some 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.

So, you are seeking to split the chief maintainer's role in some way, 
with the foundation taking part of it?

> > > 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 
> specific.

OK, sorry for trying to do this discursively. I think he's been 
sending cryptic retorts. I dislike lists of questions, but it's 
probably a good way to be specific if that's what you think should 
happen.

Gregory John Casamento says he has considered the GNUstep Foundation 
for some time. I have these questions for him:
1. What does he think the aims, methods and bylaws should be?
2. What alternatives were considered?
3. How did he conclude that the foundation is the best approach?

To others, please see the questions at the top.

> > Oh well. I hear "GNUstep Foundation" and I naturally think of 
> > another 
> > desktop foundation which started from GNU developers, the GNOME 
> > Foundation. 
[...]
> 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.

We were discussing marketing here. If you want to reject the 
suggestion, do market research.

> > So, the FSF already did this function for us? Who tells them what 
> > project 
> > need doing? The maintainers of the project or someone else? How?
> 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.

I think this is another thing we need to know before deciding: how has 
hiring developers been handled in the past?

> [...] The FSF doesn't do what we 
> need, so it's an addition.

This seems to rely on a very negative answer to the question Adam 
asked them. You can't make that conclusion yet.

> You're also not very good at asking questions.

I know. Nor are you and ironically, one is in your next paragraph. 
Just look at this:

> > 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.

What claim? FSF is clearly understaffed, as they have many calls for 
help published. GNUstep Foundation is clearly understaffed, as it does 
not exist now, so has no staff at all!

> [...] 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.

Alternatively, the maintainers could direct FSF spending of GNUstep 
donations with their agreement. Is that more desirable than having a 
whole new organisation just to take money?

> > Can you explain why you rejected SPI as a project host?
> Did he? I think you're making assumptions again.

It seemed reasonable. If he did not ask SPI, which is a fairly obvious 
option because they serve/served that role for Debian, OFTC, Fresco, 
GNOME, LSB and GNU TeXmacs among others, how could he conclude "The 
only organization which would have fit the bill is the FSF"?

[from earlier, but moved because minor]
> Semantic bickering gets us nowhere.

I couldn't agree more. Try not to change my meaning, then.

--
MJR/slef    My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
 Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk