Re: [security-discuss] Keeping directory-discuss focused on the Directory

[Anonymous]

Donald Robertson posted here:

  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-02/msg00044.html

and said:

> This mailing list is for discussing the Free Software Directory and
> work that needs to be done on it. It is not a general mailing list
> for discussing any matters related to free software.

I presume that you wouldn't intend to censor the discussion
unilaterally, so would you suggest an FSF list to move the discussion
to?  The catalog is quite large with a lot of descriptions missing:

  https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/

Since posting to the directory list is currently broken, for the
moment I've copied to address@hidden and
address@hidden (as the gnuradio project is denying
availability to gnu wget users).

Regarding GNU Radio problems, you previously said:

  "GNU project packages all have means for fixing any particular issue
   that might exist in the project, and we should go through those
   processes to correct any problem should it exist."

When asked what the process is:

  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-01/msg00089.html

you did not answer.  I'd like to know if there actually is a genuine
willingness to have these problems addressed.  Can you please clarify?

> We briefly delved into some topics on in relation to our discussion
> of anti-features, but we've tabled that discussion. There are other
> places that are more appropriate for that conversation, so let's
> everyone please stop filling this list with these unrelated matters.

You say the discussion is tabled (thus postponed), then you say this
is not the right venue to discuss anti-features.  I find this
contradictory b/c if it's considered out of scope, then why would it
be revisited later?  And more importantly, what is the proper venue
for discussing anti-features?

Regarding use of the phrase to "table" something-- IMO this expression
should be avoided because the US uses this figure of speech to mean
the opposite of how it's used in the rest of the world.  See def. 2
and 3:

  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/table#Verb

There was an embarrassing diplomacy incident between the US and UK,
where the US and UK agreed to "table" a sensitive discussion before
meeting with another nation.  During the meeting the Brits (who
believed the agreement was to put the discussion on the table) brought
up the sensitive topic, which shocked the Americans who intended to
suppress it.

I know you used the US variation, but if the list gets swamped with
Brits talking about anti-features, you'll know why.

BTW, Mixmaster has a deliberate delay, and I see that 2 of my messages
did not post yet, so they may still arrive late.

> There's a lot of interesting work that needs to be done in order to
> make the Directory a truly great resource, so let's focus back on
> the task at hand and move on. Thank you.

That's fine with me as long as there's an actual place to have the
anti-feature discussion (which IMO is the single most important
information that will make the Directory a great resource).

--
Please note this was sent anonymously, so the "From:" address will be unusable.
List archives will be monitored.