Re: [libreplanet-discuss] [Dev] [consensus][due: 2016-06-13]: New version for Parabola Social Contract

[Luke Shumaker]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:22:00 -0400,
coadde wrote:
> On 06/07/2016 10:16 PM, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> > ========================================================================
> > # What's going on with the official version?                           #
> > ========================================================================
> > 
> > In 2014-2015, Coadde made a series of edits to the official version.
> > I remember no discussion of the changes.
> > 
> > He did essentially several search/replaces:
> > 
> >  - "Parabola GNU/Linux" -> "Parabola GNU/Linux-libre"
> >    Ok, I guess. Still, it should have been discusssed.
> > 
> >  - "ArchLinux" -> "Arch" or "Arch GNU/Linux"
> >    Saying "Arch GNU/Linux" is wrong, it should be "Arch Linux".
> >    "Arch" is acceptable shorthand after the first use.
> > 
> > Then, a bit over a month ago, Emulatorman made a change, which I also
> > recall no discussion of.  He changed "our community is democratic in
> > its essence" to "adhocratic in its essence".  A one-word change, but
> > quite a significant one!
> 
> 1) The distribution has been officially named as Parabola
> GNU/Linux-libre and it doesn't needs a discussion.

Well, most of the motivation for my 2013 proposal that didn't pass was
just clarifying nomenclature.

> 2) I'm not agree so-called "Linux" distributions should be named as
> "Linux" in our Social Contract, even if it is the factually named by them.

See the reply I just sent to André's message.

> 3) I'm not agree about FOSS[0] (even it isn't included in our Social
> Contract)
> 
> [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html

I'm not sure where this comment came from.

> 4) It is a free as in freedom distribution that follows the GNU FSDG,
> therefore we shouldn't support "Open Source" goal implicitly, even if
> "Arch Linux" is the factually named by them.

See the reply I just sent to André's message.

> 5) Democracy doesn't works. Adhocracy is the way for Parabola.

That's a very loaded claim.  Maybe it is true, but it certainly
requires discussion before ammending the Social Contract to say that.

Launching point for further discussion: there was good discussion
about how to do governance when we were figuring out the Ceata
agreement.

> > In the social contract, we should be as clear and precise as
> > possible.  The operating system is called "Arch Linux".  It is an
> > unfortunate name that contributes to the Linux vs. GNU/Linux
> > confusion, but that is what it is factually named.  Note that in my
> > wording, I wrote "Arch Linux" the first time it appears within a
> > paragraph, but simply "Arch" after that.  I believe that this is an
> > acceptable compromise.
> 
> Again, i'm not agree about FOSS because it doesn't respects the GNU FSDG
> in the name confusion.

See the reply I just sent to André's message.

If you are referring to this as being a potential violation of the
FSDG's "Name Confusion" section, this is actually not what that
section describes; I also addressed this in my reply to André's
message.

> > ========================================================================
> > # Name of the [Parabola] operating system                                   
> >       #
> > ========================================================================
> > 
> > Cf. https://wiki.parabola.nu/Nomenclature
> > 
> > Related to that, when the Social Contract discusses the operating
> > system(s) that we make, I don't believe it should do so by name.
> > 
> > The original wording was:
> >> 4. Parabola GNU/Linux and ArchLinux: Parabola is the free version of
> >>    ArchLinux.
> > 
> > In my proposal, I changed that to:
> >> 4.  Parabola and Arch Linux: We will produce an operating system
> >>     that is a Free version of Arch Linux, and possibly other
> >>     Arch-based systems.
> > 
> > Emulatorman partially reverted that to:
> >> 4.  Parabola and Arch**: Parabola is a Free version of Arch, and
> >>     possibly other Arch-based systems.
> > 
> > Again, if we are being precise, then Parabola GNU/Linux-libre is the
> > Free version of Arch.
> > 
> > But I oppose saying "Parabola GNU/Linux-libre" in the Social Contract,
> > because it is overly specific.  The name of the operating system we
> > make shouldn't be part of the Social Contract; it is an implementation
> > detail, not an essential detail.
> > 
> > What if tomorrow we decided that it would be better to use a different
> > libre fork of Linux than Linux-libre?  Should our Social Contract have
> > to be ammended to allow that?  No, that would be absurd.
> 
> I mean it again, i'm not agree about FOSS because it doesn't respects
> the GNU FSDG in the name confusion.

In this section I didn't mean to discuss how we refer to Arch.  I
meant to discuss how the Social Contract refers to the operating
system that Parabola makes.  Specifically, I oppose referring to it by
name (the name being "Parabola GNU/Linux-libre").

> > ========================================================================
> > # Free Art Movement?                                                   #
> > ========================================================================
> > 
> > I feel kinda silly saying this, but: I'm not familiar with a Free Art
> > Movement.  And even if I'm silly for that, we shouldn't assume that
> > the reader of the Social Contract is more informed than me.  And
> > searching for it yields results that I don't think are related.
> > 
> > I am familiar with the Free Culture movement.  How is this different?
> > 
> > With the Free Software Movement, we have a link to Wikipedia, in case
> > the reader is unfamiliar with it.  We have details on what that
> > means.
> > 
> > The same isn't true for Free Art.  It just says "it does not provide
> > any type of support for non-free art." and tacks on "and art" after
> > "software."  With no real details.  It references the FSDG for
> > software, then just says "and art".  What does it mean to "not provide
> > … support for non-free art."?
> 
> I prefer our Social Contract could means about free software, documents
> and multimedia.

In this section I wasn't opposing adding Free Art/Culture stuff to the
Social Contract (back in 2013 I suggested that we should add Free
Culture stuff to it).

But I was noting that the proposed wording doing so is bad and
unclear.

-- 
Happy hacking,
~ Luke Shumaker