[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: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:27:21 +0100

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 - village 6+7 Oct

reply via email to

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