MESSAGE
| DATE | 2020-02-18 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] State of the GNUnion 2020
|
Hello Andy :)
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 09:37:55PM +0100, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Hello Eli :)
>
> On Wed 12 Feb 2020 19:13, Eli Zaretskii writes:
>
> >> From: DJ Delorie
> >> Are we DONE producing that operating system? No? If not, why not?
> >> Aren't all those developers who finished their packages working on
> >> other, new packages? Why aren't the package counts continuing to
> >> increase, if the developers are otherwise unoccupied?
> >
> > Those are very important questions
>
> Glad you agree!
>
I am so unhappy you agree! It means that after working on GNU for many
years that you still haven't learned even its most basic purpose or
principles :)
> > and they should have been investigated, analyzed, and answered
>
> I agree also! This sort of activity is natural in a project that
> engages in self-reflection. If a project has leadership, then naturally
> leadership would be conducting the exercise.
>
It is so SAD to see that you agree :( After all, you are fully aware
that GNU has leadership that does reflect continually on achiving its
goals. And one of those core decisions what that it made was that it
would be very open about who it would allow to work on GNU and that
it was unethical to demand loyaty pledges and other coercive actions.
It was more interested in getting the work done that demanding drones of
coders that agreed with it. On the other hand, naturally enough,
;eadership would need to remain with a group of people that adhere to
the GNU theology/ So obviously, you are computer programmers, correct,
that you are aware that these two distinct sets of people are not equal.
One might be a subset of the other, but there is no logical rule that
says they have to even do that. They can be two completely distinct
sets of individuals.
Your proposing that the set of hackers would be the leaders and the
leaders would be made homeless and go away. That would be a clear path
of destroying the foundation of GNU, and a mature organization and
leadership is fully aware of this.
So your agreement is very sad. You have NO criteria to make judgements.
Your from the wrong set of GNU users to make such accessments, and your
using these broken asessements for your own political purposed.
Oh Andy, it is so sad and it breaks my heart to see you so misguilded.
Come to the light Andy. Do the right thing!
> > _before_ showing us a bunch of naïve graphs and drawing conclusions
> > from them (which unsurprisingly coincide with the opinions the author
> > expressed long before showing those graphs).
>
> I know that we may disagree on interpretation of the data, and that
> neither you nor I can avoid starting this kind of investigation with
> preconceptions, but please believe that I did the analysis in good
> faith.
>
GNU rules say one much approach all members as if they act in good
faith.. so who am I to question anyones good faith :)
> I started with an open question about what it would mean for GNU to be a
> project in good or bad health,
Andy! As long the GNU continues to put out a message of Four Freedoms
and provides software and licenses to do so, it is in good health.
How is your health? Maybe we should investigate that? Are you feeling
OK?
> settled on using project release data as
> a base, and in the end thought active projects could be a good measure.
> There are other ways to interpret the data; again, if the data have
> problems, corrections are welcome, or fork the repo and do your own
> analysis... seriously. If we admit the possibility that GNU may be in
> a bad state, then we should certainly look into it. I have my
> conclusions which I stand by but which are certainly not set in stone.
>
> > If someone wants to try answering this question:
> >
> >> If a set of developers finish a package, and don't start on a new one, I
> >> think that says something interesting about the health of GNU and its
> >> community.
>
> I agree entirely, it's a very good question.
>
> > Why wasn't such (or similar) analysis done before coming up with this
> > "state of GNUnion"? I think such anecdotal studies can speak volumes
> > more than those graphs.
>
> This could be! Please do go out and ask.
>
> > And then we have Guile, whose development pace leaves a lot to be
> > desired, if we really want it to become the GNU standard extension
> > languages. Strangely, the Guile developers, including Andy Wingo,
> > don't seem to do anything about that. There are no discussions about
> > making the project more active, none at all. Does that mean the Guile
> > level of activity is OK with Andy? If so, how does that live in peace
> > with the seemingly grave outlook for the rest of GNU?
>
> Honestly this argument is beneath you.
I am astonished!! So rude!!
> You do not believe my
> conclusions about GNU -- which is fine -- but instead you try to shift
> the focus to the project I maintain, claiming that it is in poor health
> -- something that which would not invalidate the argument -- but, with
> no data or analysis to back it up, which is the aspect that you
> criticise about my conclusion. WTF.
>
> We can never know what might have been, but I believe that without my
> work on Guile, it would certainly be dead now. If you believe
> otherwise, it's an interesting discussion, but not germane to the
> current one.
>
> > Last, but not least: I'm not at all sure that statistics of the kind
> > we were presented, which is based on various measures of package
> > activity, tells anything about "the health of GNU", because GNU, at
> > least as I understand that term, has almost nothing to do with
> > development activity of GNU packages. The development activity is
> > determined solely by the project's development team and its abilities
> > to draw contributions and find worthy development goals. GNU as an
> > organization doesn't have any impact on that, because they almost
> > never interfere into these matters (unless there's some sort of
> > scandal, which happens only very rarely).
>
> Thought experiment: what would GNU be if all of its packages stopped
> developing? Dead, right?
>
No wrong
GNU would just start creating packages again like an ant farm.
> I understand that some GNU developers feel that things are fine. I
> heartily encourage you to come up with criteria by which to understand
> the health of GNU and to make an associated investigation. I have done
> so for myself and the results are not satisfying.
GNU delevopers should not concern themselves with issues that are the
providence of the GNU Leadership. See, those sets of people are
different. But if you have concerns, the GNU leadership has channels to
allow you to be heard, without pregiduce, and to present cases for
improvement.
This mailing list is not one of those channels and CERTAINLY the
gnu.tools wiki is not such a place either.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andy
Regards
Your loving friend
Ruben
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
_______________________________________________
Hangout mailing list
Hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout
|
|
