Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Jean Flamelle  wrote:
> On 12/21/17, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton  wrote:
>>  that shouldn't happen. you've created a login?  let's ping phil.
> Yu, and its worked before.

 ok.  one for phil, definitely.  btw
http://rhombus-tech.net/recentchanges/ shows that there has been a
successful edit

> [Btw, does look much better with a monospace font and spaces instead
> of tabs; Some one should patch ikiwiki to display source in a
> monospaced font.]

 it does.  on both chrome and firefox.  some as-yet-unidentified
factor involved here, i feel.

l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Jean Flamelle]

On 12/21/17, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton  wrote:
>  that shouldn't happen. you've created a login?  let's ping phil.
Yu, and its worked before.

[Btw, does look much better with a monospace font and spaces instead
of tabs; Some one should patch ikiwiki to display source in a
monospaced font.]
# DRAFT STATUS Proposed Software Libre Development Best Practices

This is a document which outlines best practices for establishing and
maintaining a healthy and thriving Software Libre Project.  Mostly it
describes a set of criteria for the hosting and communication infrastructure
which are most likely to result in good communication, teamwork and
mutual respect between developers themselves and also developers and
users.  However also included are a series of guidelines for personal
interactions.

The initial version is based on the GNU Project's Software Development
Services that they offer to GNU Projects, but generalised.



Also the Maintainer's Guide :


This contains important details such as a record of contributors
and their contributions (typically covered by a signed-off git
commit but better is "significant contributors" at the top of
the file).  Reason: many distros simply will not package software
that has legally dubious origin.  A verifiable chain of copyright
declarations is *important*.

Also under consideration is the recommendation to take a
"Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers": 



The primary draft which seems to well follow the original Medical Oath
is here:



Also under consideration is for a project to have a Charter (such
as the Apache Software Foundation Charter) 


Also some Coding Standards, e.g.



Draft to generalize the GNU Project's Software Development
Services offered to GNU Projects ():

* we recommend the use of a Libre Hosting Service which has a minimum criteria
 of an A, as defined by the [FSF's Hosting 
Criteria](https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.en.html)
* we recommend the use of software libre hosted mailing lists
* we recommend to host the webpages for the project using resources that meet 
the FSF's Hosting Criteria
* we recommend to release your project under a free software license (see 
)
* we recommend to release build and test procedures *if used and/or needed* 
under a free software license (see 
)
* tbc

# Table of well-known software libre projects

Please ensure that things are filled in only from "official" channels
as indicated from the web site (if there is one).  For example samba
has an official page  which
outlines their IRC channels.  If however there is something that
is really very well-known but is "unofficial" please do include it
but mark it as such.  The linux kernel for example has well-known
places that it is developed, and the Distros in particular will have
extremely well-known but "unofficial" support channels that will be
relevant.

# Interoperability Projects

| Project Name (linking website)| Samba   | Wine |   |   |
|---|-|--|---|---|
| Foundation| No  |  |   |   |
| "Ownership" Transfer Contributions| No  |  |   |   |
| Charter   | None|  |   |   |
| Communication Guidelines Media| Mailing List - 
Commit |   |   |   |
| Mailing Lists per Language*   | 6 English - 1 French - 1 
Italian |   |   |
| Editable Wikipages| Yes |  |   |   |
| IRC/Chatroom  | Yes |  |   |   |
| Forums| No  |  |   |   |
| Translation Aides | None|  |   |   |
| Fork-able Web Data| Unclear |  |   |   |
| Only Libre Dependencies   | Yes |  |   |   |
| "Copyleft"| Yes |  |   |   |
| Only "Copyleft" Dependencies  | No  |  |   |   |
| Fork-able Documentation Platforms | Yes |  |   |   |
| "Copyleft" Documentation Platforms| |  |   |   |

*Not counting other courteously hosted projects, only if they have their own 
project website. 


| Communication Guidelines per Media| Medium - Words - Anchors - Sections | 
2nd Medium - Words - Anchors - Sections |
| - | --- | 
--- |
| Project   | --- | 
--- |
| S

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Jean Flamelle  wrote:
> When I try to update the wikipage, I get: "An error occurred while
> writing CGI reply"

 that shouldn't happen. you've created a login?  let's ping phil.

> Fortunately didn't lose anything.

 send it to me, i have git repo access.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Jean Flamelle]

When I try to update the wikipage, I get: "An error occurred while
writing CGI reply"
Fortunately didn't lose anything.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Christian Pietsch]

Hi EOMA68 community,

the Free Software Foundation Europe chose Gitea, a gogs fork, for their new 
source code hosting service: https://git.fsfe.org/ 

Cheers,
Christian


Am 16. Juli 2017 18:26:40 MESZ schrieb zap :
>
>>> as for repositories for hosting libre packages, notabug and gogs are
>>> good ones.
>>  are they well-known, well-established and prominent?
>>
>> l.
>
>Notabug is used for libreboot so it cannot be a bad idea. as for gogs,
>librecmc uses gogs.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Pablo Rath  wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:36:49PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>>
>> oh - i forgot one column: IRC channels!
>>
>>  http://rhombus-tech.net/proposed_best_practices/
>>
>>  added.
>
> Should we also add a line and check if the projects have a wiki.
> Personally I get a ton of information from Debian and Arch wikis and
> they a good way for collaboration between developers and users.

 good point - "wiki / license"

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Pablo Rath]

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:36:49PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> 
> oh - i forgot one column: IRC channels!
> 
>  http://rhombus-tech.net/proposed_best_practices/
> 
>  added.

Should we also add a line and check if the projects have a wiki.
Personally I get a ton of information from Debian and Arch wikis and
they a good way for collaboration between developers and users. 

kind regards 
Pablo

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[zap]

>> as for repositories for hosting libre packages, notabug and gogs are
>> good ones.
>  are they well-known, well-established and prominent?
>
> l.

Notabug is used for libreboot so it cannot be a bad idea. as for gogs,
librecmc uses gogs.

> ___
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk


___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
 wrote:

>>> Hm, the web editor uses a proportional-pitch font, so it's impossible
>>> to tell the number of spaces in a table to get alignment.
>>
>>  stuff it into a text editor with a fixed-width font.
>
>  ... or... get the previous version, work out what i did, go the
> previous-previous version, restore that (manually) then hand-add what
> i added...
>
>  ah y'know what? sod it - i have access to git: i'll do it :)

 done.  there's no "war" on tabs/spaces, there's just "one is more
appropriate for the circumstances than the other".   for c i always
use tabs.  for python i *always* follow PEP8.  it always depends on
circumstances.

l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
 wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Jean Flamelle  wrote:
>
>> I got this error trying to revert the change back "Error: Failed to
>> revert commit 27584a06584f4942b6d24bda08511cedd3f867d3 'git revert
>> --no-commit 27584a06584f4942b6d24bda08511cedd3f867d3' failed: "
>
>  yep you'll need to do it manually: i edited the page in the meantime.  sorry.
>
>> Hm, the web editor uses a proportional-pitch font, so it's impossible
>> to tell the number of spaces in a table to get alignment.
>
>  stuff it into a text editor with a fixed-width font.

 ... or... get the previous version, work out what i did, go the
previous-previous version, restore that (manually) then hand-add what
i added...

 ah y'know what? sod it - i have access to git: i'll do it :)

l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Jean Flamelle  wrote:

> I got this error trying to revert the change back "Error: Failed to
> revert commit 27584a06584f4942b6d24bda08511cedd3f867d3 'git revert
> --no-commit 27584a06584f4942b6d24bda08511cedd3f867d3' failed: "

 yep you'll need to do it manually: i edited the page in the meantime.  sorry.

> Hm, the web editor uses a proportional-pitch font, so it's impossible
> to tell the number of spaces in a table to get alignment.

 stuff it into a text editor with a fixed-width font.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Jean Flamelle]

On 7/16/17, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton  wrote:
>> The word "code" in "code of conduct" does usually implies formal
>> membership, so I thought it might be confusing to some people if the
>> phrase became popular in closed circles.
>
>  no - it's well-known that "code of conduct" is a dangerous, toxic and
>  highly unethical system of "control" over contributors.  *i* didn't know
>  that, so i did a comprehensive analysis here on the list about 6-8
>  months ago, and emphatically agreed with the assessment.

Ah - I see. I think I see it as more a representation of what
moderators will probably do regardless of if said document exists or
not. I think it very toxic if they try to hurt project forks that do
things differently, but moderators inevitably will try to establish a
certain culture within their project and documenting the moderators
behaviors will set the right expectations in people.

Inevitably, and especially as the open-source and free software
communities grow, there will be project forks based simply on certain
people that can't cooperate with each other. I think this kind of
conflict can breed a healthy diversity in people, so, if a small group
of contributors write up a small "code of conduct" on how they like to
be treated, I think that can be healthy depending on the
circumstances.

I see it that such a doc could mean "don't talk to me, if you do X" or
it could mean "you can't have my code, if you do X". The former is all
well and fine, but the later I'd agree is toxic.


>> I opted to separate it like that to make it more unambiguous, since
>> there are two possible definitions of libre in regard to websites:
>> open-source/free scripts and open-source/free server code.
>
>  hmmm *thinks*... is the distinction important?  don't know.  so
> it should probably go on the list.  it might be statistically
> significant.
>
>  so a column "Web site source available / License"
>  and now that i think about it "Documentation source available / License"
>
>  should be added

I'm starting to really feel the usefulness of collecting this data :>


>
>  yuck.   please don't: i use 4-spaces-per-tab where other people will
> use 8.  also, the reason for using spaces is because you can just put
> your editor into "replace" mode and the formatting remains stable.
>
> please put it back.
>

I got this error trying to revert the change back "Error: Failed to
revert commit 27584a06584f4942b6d24bda08511cedd3f867d3 'git revert
--no-commit 27584a06584f4942b6d24bda08511cedd3f867d3' failed: "

Hm, the web editor uses a proportional-pitch font, so it's impossible
to tell the number of spaces in a table to get alignment. (didn't
realize you could use git to edit it, so I thought you also saw this.)

I'm not in on the spaces v. tabs holy war. lol

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Jean Flamelle  wrote:
> On 7/15/17, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton  wrote:
>>  liked some, didn't like others.  "etiquette guidelines" doesn't have
>> the same toxic punch as "code of conduct" is well-known for.
>
> The word "code" in "code of conduct" does usually implies formal
> membership, so I thought it might be confusing to some people if the
> phrase became popular in closed circles.

 no - it's well-known that "code of conduct" is a dangerous, toxic and
 highly unethical system of "control" over contributors.  *i* didn't know
 that, so i did a comprehensive analysis here on the list about 6-8
 months ago, and emphatically agreed with the assessment.

 unfortunately there are many many projects that have absolutely no
 idea of the dangers of "codes of conduct" so continue to deploy them.

 so the idea is to *specifically* identify those projects that have one
 of these dangerous "codes of conduct" in order to see if there is a
 correlation between harm done to developers and end-users and the
 use of such toxic documents.


> Etiquette guidelines isn't perfect either, because samba technically
> actually has a page called "Etiquette" however that refers to trimming
> mailing list posts and not in any way how people ought to treat each
> other.

 okaaay sooo that should probably go on a "/" mailing list /
ML-etiquette


> Perhaps "Contributor Conduct Guidelines"?

 no.  sorry.  explained above.

>   liked
>> the idea of including the VCS and if it's libre-hosted (likewise for
>> bugtracker) but *not* the wording you chose ("self-hosted").
>
> I opted to separate it like that to make it more unambiguous, since
> there are two possible definitions of libre in regard to websites:
> open-source/free scripts and open-source/free server code.

 hmmm *thinks*... is the distinction important?  don't know.  so
it should probably go on the list.  it might be statistically
significant.

 so a column "Web site source available / License"
 and now that i think about it "Documentation source available / License"

 should be added

> Most
> browsers provide no practical way to prove the source code belongs to
> the scripts actually sent by the server, without running them,

 someone somewhere will run librejs to determine that

> and
> because of this it might be argued that the server code should also be
> libre so that anyone could run an offline mirror.

 more importantly they can *fork* the project but only if the full
source of the web site server source is available and does not
critically depend on proprietary components.

> If we say arbitrarily that a website is libre it could mean one of
> three things: functions w/o script, open-source/free scripts, or
> open-source/free server code.

 true.

> The assumption is that if the server code is libre, then self-hosting
> should make by extension the repositories libre. Though, I suppose
> there would be nothing hindering someone from just omitting that part
> of the server code, on second thought. It's a tricky situation.
>
>
>>  also i turned the table round by 90 degrees as i could see it getting
>> far too long, and then broke them down into related groups.  still
>> some TODO.
>
> Thanks, much less cluttered!
>
> I use cut-and-paste to convert the spaces to tabs just now to clean the 
> source.

 yuck.   please don't: i use 4-spaces-per-tab where other people will
use 8.  also, the reason for using spaces is because you can just put
your editor into "replace" mode and the formatting remains stable.

please put it back.

> Also, on a side note, I put urbit on there because they are unorthodox
> and because they have an unusually high ratio interest compared to
> people actually able to contribute, much like you would expect from
> RISC or KiCAD, but not 'another' replacement for apache.

 hmmm, ok, cool.  hmm... reminds me, established date should be added.

l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 8:57 PM, zap  wrote:

> I think any distro that is at devuan standards or better should be on
> the list.

 agreed.

> I would have said debian standard, but, I thought you might want me to
> stay clear of that... so yeah...

 ... hadn't occurred to me at all, but now that you mention it, let's
think about it... yes i would, because each project stands on its own
merits and is responsible for its own management.

> as for repositories for hosting libre packages, notabug and gogs are
> good ones.

 are they well-known, well-established and prominent?

l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Jean Flamelle]

On 7/15/17, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton  wrote:
>  liked some, didn't like others.  "etiquette guidelines" doesn't have
> the same toxic punch as "code of conduct" is well-known for.

The word "code" in "code of conduct" does usually implies formal
membership, so I thought it might be confusing to some people if the
phrase became popular in closed circles.

Etiquette guidelines isn't perfect either, because samba technically
actually has a page called "Etiquette" however that refers to trimming
mailing list posts and not in any way how people ought to treat each
other.

Perhaps "Contributor Conduct Guidelines"?

  liked
> the idea of including the VCS and if it's libre-hosted (likewise for
> bugtracker) but *not* the wording you chose ("self-hosted").

I opted to separate it like that to make it more unambiguous, since
there are two possible definitions of libre in regard to websites:
open-source/free scripts and open-source/free server code. Most
browsers provide no practical way to prove the source code belongs to
the scripts actually sent by the server, without running them, and
because of this it might be argued that the server code should also be
libre so that anyone could run an offline mirror.

If we say arbitrarily that a website is libre it could mean one of
three things: functions w/o script, open-source/free scripts, or
open-source/free server code.

The assumption is that if the server code is libre, then self-hosting
should make by extension the repositories libre. Though, I suppose
there would be nothing hindering someone from just omitting that part
of the server code, on second thought. It's a tricky situation.


>  also i turned the table round by 90 degrees as i could see it getting
> far too long, and then broke them down into related groups.  still
> some TODO.

Thanks, much less cluttered!

I use cut-and-paste to convert the spaces to tabs just now to clean the source.

Also, on a side note, I put urbit on there because they are unorthodox
and because they have an unusually high ratio interest compared to
people actually able to contribute, much like you would expect from
RISC or KiCAD, but not 'another' replacement for apache.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[zap]

>  liked some, didn't like others.  "etiquette guidelines" doesn't have
> the same toxic punch as "code of conduct" is well-known for.  liked
> the idea of including the VCS and if it's libre-hosted (likewise for
> bugtracker) but *not* the wording you chose ("self-hosted").
> self-hosted could mean "proprietary and therefore unethical" and
> people would put "yeah it's GR8 maaan!" so i changed it back
> *specifically* to "is it libre hosted yes or no" because that's really
> important.
>
>  basically we're collating info - evidence - that ethical (or
> unethical) practices support a project's lifecycle... and other
> obseervations.  what practices make a project both ethical *and*
> long-term successful.
>
>  also i turned the table round by 90 degrees as i could see it getting
> far too long, and then broke them down into related groups.  still
> some TODO.b
>
>  l.

I think any distro that is at devuan standards or better should be on
the list.

I would have said debian standard, but, I thought you might want me to
stay clear of that... so yeah...

as for repositories for hosting libre packages, notabug and gogs are
good ones.


___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Jean Flamelle  wrote:
> That was weird, but anyways I updated the table by reorganizing it,
> cleaned the source a bit, added data for apertus and projects on the
> list.

 *well-known* :)  is urbit actually... well-known??

> Let me know what you think of the formating changes.

 liked some, didn't like others.  "etiquette guidelines" doesn't have
the same toxic punch as "code of conduct" is well-known for.  liked
the idea of including the VCS and if it's libre-hosted (likewise for
bugtracker) but *not* the wording you chose ("self-hosted").
self-hosted could mean "proprietary and therefore unethical" and
people would put "yeah it's GR8 maaan!" so i changed it back
*specifically* to "is it libre hosted yes or no" because that's really
important.

 basically we're collating info - evidence - that ethical (or
unethical) practices support a project's lifecycle... and other
obseervations.  what practices make a project both ethical *and*
long-term successful.

 also i turned the table round by 90 degrees as i could see it getting
far too long, and then broke them down into related groups.  still
some TODO.

 l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Jean Flamelle]

put some more projects on the list*

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Jean Flamelle]

That was weird, but anyways I updated the table by reorganizing it,
cleaned the source a bit, added data for apertus and projects on the
list.

Let me know what you think of the formating changes.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Jean Flamelle  wrote:
> rhombus-tech.net appears to be down for me atm lol

 http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/rhombus-tech.net

 it's just you :)

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Jean Flamelle]

rhombus-tech.net appears to be down for me atm lol

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Jean Flamelle  wrote:

>>  well... would you like to help evaluate some of the long-standing
>> well-known free software projects out there?   i vaguely recall making

> I would be glad to do that!

 yay!

> I think it would be very important to focus on projects that create
> software or firmware, which are of particular relevance to
> non-programmers. I think this because they'll likely be under
> significantly disproportionate proportionate pressure compared to the
> amount of contributions to code that they receive. Blender, Gimp, and
> Aperture, are just a few that come to mind immediately, but projects
> like RISC-V and Kicad would arguably also count since there are still
> large portions of their audiences likely specialize very far away from
> the type of software programming knowledge required to contribute.

 oo good point.  yeah feel free to add some to the list.

 doing the samba one, it really didn't take long.  took about... 4
minutes?  looked to see if they have a charter (they don't), looked at
their "dev" page to see if they have a VCS (they do: git), etc. etc.
oh - i forgot one column: IRC channels!

 http://rhombus-tech.net/proposed_best_practices/

 added.

> I think for most people the inclination to donate to any software
> projects fiscally, would be predictable (with a high confidence value)
> by the the ratio of technical programming knowledge and their
> dependence on the software created by that project. For that reason
> you could also say, it would be a higher priority to evaluate gnome as
> as a software project than debian, because ubuntu is more often
> pitched to a less technical audience.

 ok the first phase is: get the info.  evaluation comes later.

> Of course, the fsf already
> evaluates distributions

 not like this they don't.  they evaluate them for *freedom* related
(ethical) criteria.  the purpose of this exercise is to first compile
a list of projects and then "distil" the best and most efffective
*development* practices, by demonstrating provably that, of the top
NN% most highly respected projects, this is what they do.

 that's very very different... and means that the FSF's development
practices (ok actually the GNU projects') are "on the list for
evaluation".


> and doesn't endorse ubuntu anyway, so it would
> probably be perceived in really bad taste if the libre community
> started listing reasons why they gave gnome a poor evaluation score if
> that was the outcome, so I suppose it would be best to avoid it all
> together and only evaluate desktop environments as software projects
> if the are made available in an fsf-endorsed distribution by default.
> (I know I've heard people say trisquel is based on ubuntu, but I don't
> know what desktop environment it uses by default).
>
> All in all, for a base, I think aperture would be a good starting
> point, since GIMP and Blender get a lot of flack that aperture doesn't
> atm.

 well we would get to find that out as part of having a look at
exactly what each of those projects do, and then seeing if there's a
correlation, yes?

 but first we need to collect the information.

 oh.  also, we need to make some sort of measure of the
"effectiveness" of the project.  whether it's caused people hassle
(taken up inordinate amounts of time), whether the developers are
liked or despised, whether they are welcoming and supportive of
contributors (or not), how many people use it, and so on.

 it'll actually be quite a fascinating study.


> I realize most of what they are doing is hardware, but their is a
> lot of firmware involved. Also, I haven't heard very many complaints
> about inkscape, so that would be a decent one to start with. I'm
> hesitant to talk about OpenShot or libreoffice early on, because they
> are (as we like to say in the wikipedia community) POV-forks than
> independent projects. In other words, it's impossible to honestly and
> sincerely evaluate LibreOffice as a project without comparing it to
> OpenOffice and likewise OpenShot to Blender and in small part
> Audacity.

 that's *exactly* the point of the exercise but that should not be
done *right now*.  at the moment all i would like there to be is a
collation of "info".  3-4 minutes per project, "do they have a charter
yes no do they use version control yes no is their infrastructure
libre-hosted yes no".

that's all.


> Since I don't feel especially confident in my ability handling this
> topic, I would probably sooner get feedback through this thread than
> add any "evaluations" I make straight to the wiki.

 right now all that needs to be done is find the website for the
project, and record what you find.  take a look at the samba one as a
starting point.

> Because of this, I
> think it's important I start by documenting on which ever of the "good
> candidate" projects attracts the most interest in this thread, at
> least on the philosophical level of how they "go about their business"
> if not on a 

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Jean Flamelle]

On 7/13/17, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton  wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Jean Flamelle  wrote:
>> Meh, I don't really think myself ready to write this kind of a document.
>> I really don't know as much as I'd like to on the topic.
>
>  well... would you like to help evaluate some of the long-standing
> well-known free software projects out there?   i vaguely recall making
> a list a few weeks ago.  we need a table showing what "features" each
> of them has.  do they use mailing lists, do they have a forum, do they
> have a charter, do they have a "code of conduct" *shudder*, do they
> properly honour free software licenses or do they have some sort of
> unethical "forced contributor agreement" (oracle in particular).
>
> a comparison of pre and post forks for major projects such as x11 /
> xorg, openoffice / libreoffice, mysql / mariadb, and so on, would be
> really *really* interesting and informative.
>
> l.

I would be glad to do that!
I think it would be very important to focus on projects that create
software or firmware, which are of particular relevance to
non-programmers. I think this because they'll likely be under
significantly disproportionate proportionate pressure compared to the
amount of contributions to code that they receive. Blender, Gimp, and
Aperture, are just a few that come to mind immediately, but projects
like RISC-V and Kicad would arguably also count since there are still
large portions of their audiences likely specialize very far away from
the type of software programming knowledge required to contribute.

I think for most people the inclination to donate to any software
projects fiscally, would be predictable (with a high confidence value)
by the the ratio of technical programming knowledge and their
dependence on the software created by that project. For that reason
you could also say, it would be a higher priority to evaluate gnome as
as a software project than debian, because ubuntu is more often
pitched to a less technical audience. Of course, the fsf already
evaluates distributions and doesn't endorse ubuntu anyway, so it would
probably be perceived in really bad taste if the libre community
started listing reasons why they gave gnome a poor evaluation score if
that was the outcome, so I suppose it would be best to avoid it all
together and only evaluate desktop environments as software projects
if the are made available in an fsf-endorsed distribution by default.
(I know I've heard people say trisquel is based on ubuntu, but I don't
know what desktop environment it uses by default).

All in all, for a base, I think aperture would be a good starting
point, since GIMP and Blender get a lot of flack that aperture doesn't
atm. I realize most of what they are doing is hardware, but their is a
lot of firmware involved. Also, I haven't heard very many complaints
about inkscape, so that would be a decent one to start with. I'm
hesitant to talk about OpenShot or libreoffice early on, because they
are (as we like to say in the wikipedia community) POV-forks than
independent projects. In other words, it's impossible to honestly and
sincerely evaluate LibreOffice as a project without comparing it to
OpenOffice and likewise OpenShot to Blender and in small part
Audacity.

Since I don't feel especially confident in my ability handling this
topic, I would probably sooner get feedback through this thread than
add any "evaluations" I make straight to the wiki. Because of this, I
think it's important I start by documenting on which ever of the "good
candidate" projects attracts the most interest in this thread, at
least on the philosophical level of how they "go about their business"
if not on a fundamental level of "I really like this project".

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Jean Flamelle  wrote:
> Meh, I don't really think myself ready to write this kind of a document.
> I really don't know as much as I'd like to on the topic.

 well... would you like to help evaluate some of the long-standing
well-known free software projects out there?   i vaguely recall making
a list a few weeks ago.  we need a table showing what "features" each
of them has.  do they use mailing lists, do they have a forum, do they
have a charter, do they have a "code of conduct" *shudder*, do they
properly honour free software licenses or do they have some sort of
unethical "forced contributor agreement" (oracle in particular).

a comparison of pre and post forks for major projects such as x11 /
xorg, openoffice / libreoffice, mysql / mariadb, and so on, would be
really *really* interesting and informative.

l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Jean Flamelle]

Meh, I don't really think myself ready to write this kind of a document.
I really don't know as much as I'd like to on the topic.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Pablo Rath  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:51:33AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> ...
>
>>  the first step *really is* to quite literally copy - verbatim - the
>> gnu devel.html page and "generify" it.
>>
>>  where it says "we recommend savannah" put instead "we recommend the
>> use of a Libre Hosting Service which has a minimum criteria of an A,
>> as defined by the FSF's Hosting Criteria".
>>
>>  where it says "we recommend mailing lists on gnu.org" put instead "we
>> recommend the use of software libre hosted mailing lists".  a later
>> revision should go into further detail as to *why* "announce",
>> "users", "dev" etc. is recommended.
>>
>>  etc. etc.
>>
>
> As it seems to me the above points are done. Thank you Luke for
> fixing my mishappened sentence.
> There is now a point for version control, mailing lists and web pages at
> the wiki (http://rhombus-tech.net/proposed_best_practices/).
> Regarding the goal of a general standard for libre projects I don't
> think it is necessary to cover the quite specific further points of the
> gnu devel.html page: "FTP", "Login accounts", "Hydra: Continuous builds and 
> portability
> testing" and "platform-testers: Manual portability testing".

 if mentioned at all there should be some documented "upload /
download" method (upload for developers, download for users) but
nothing quite as specific as "You Must Use FTP" or even saying how to
set up FTP.  "use libre hosting service" pretty much covers what needs
to be done here.

 build-testing?  other than "if it is needed, using libre source build
and test programs so that people can duplicate the test and build
results for themselves" is *partially* covered under the terms of the
GNU GPL(s) but *not* if people say use the Apache License.

 so... yes, my feeling is that build and test procedures *if used
and/or needed* should really be specified in a general way.


> Some questions:
> Has anyone else started to work on it (offline)?

 been too busy here

> How long shall the first draft of the standard be (e.g. 10 pages, 100 pages, 
> as long as
> necessary)?

 short... but as long as necessary.  i don't see any reason it should
be longer than 10 pages.

> As you can see I am looking for guidance and some kind of roadmap to
> prevent working in the wrong direction.

 great!

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Pablo Rath]

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:51:33AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
...

>  the first step *really is* to quite literally copy - verbatim - the
> gnu devel.html page and "generify" it.
> 
>  where it says "we recommend savannah" put instead "we recommend the
> use of a Libre Hosting Service which has a minimum criteria of an A,
> as defined by the FSF's Hosting Criteria".
> 
>  where it says "we recommend mailing lists on gnu.org" put instead "we
> recommend the use of software libre hosted mailing lists".  a later
> revision should go into further detail as to *why* "announce",
> "users", "dev" etc. is recommended.
> 
>  etc. etc.
> 

As it seems to me the above points are done. Thank you Luke for
fixing my mishappened sentence. 
There is now a point for version control, mailing lists and web pages at
the wiki (http://rhombus-tech.net/proposed_best_practices/). 
Regarding the goal of a general standard for libre projects I don't
think it is necessary to cover the quite specific further points of the
gnu devel.html page: "FTP", "Login accounts", "Hydra: Continuous builds and 
portability
testing" and "platform-testers: Manual portability testing". 

I have read a good part of the Maintainer's Guide:
https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.txt
and wonder how to best incorporate it into the draft for best practices.
For example from gnu devel.html page we took the point about web pages
and generalised it: "we recommend to
host the webpages for the project using resources that meet the FSF's
Hosting Criteria"
Chapter 12 Web Pages of the Maintainer's Guide covers a lot of details. 

Some questions:
Has anyone else started to work on it (offline)?
How long shall the first draft of the standard be (e.g. 10 pages, 100 pages, as 
long as
necessary)?

As you can see I am looking for guidance and some kind of roadmap to
prevent working in the wrong direction.

kind regards
Pablo

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

when i began a property business i read several books on the subject.
one of them had this wonderful quirky advice to view 100 houses before
putting any money down.  i booked several viewings a day with multiple
estate agents, spending at most 10 minutes in each.

after about 80 houses i came across one that was very strange: the
price was much lower than it was for comparable houses that i'd seen.
without having viewed so many houses i would not have known this.


this same lesson i applied to the development of the EOMA68 standard.
i spent several years studying dozens of successful SoCs, looking for
the common factors between them all.  several iterations had to be
made to get it right.


if we are to develop a standard i feel that it is imperative to do a
similar analysis of what constitutes a successful software libre
project.

this task isn't actually very difficult: it's almost mechanical and
purely logical.  but i feel that it is very important that anything
that goes into the standard is backed up by a heck of a lot of
evidence that whatever advice is in it is demonstrably and
consistently long-term successful across not one but *multiple*
projects.

l.


On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
 wrote:

>  what are the defining (common) characteristics of the following
> high-profile long-running strategic free software projects, and, of
> the superset of those combined characteristics, which projects LACK
> those characteristics?
>
>  * Samba
>  * Wine
>  * ReactOS
>  * Python
>  * Perl
>  * Exim4
>  * sendmail
>  * Linux Kernel
>  * GNU Projects (as defined by that devel.html page)
>  * Webkit
>  * Blink
>  * Firefox
>  * Debian
>  * Ubuntu
>  * Slackware
>  * systemd
>  * mysqldb
>  * mariadb
>  * openoffice
>  * libreoffice
>  * X11
>  * Xorg
>  * Kerberos
>  * Heimdal
>  * OpenLDAP
>
>  make a list of all the things that those projects have in common,
> then, after making that list, identify the things on that list which
> individual projects *do not* have.
>
>  i will then provide you with some illustrations of events that have
> occurred within those teams which have been extremely detrimental to
> the users of those packages.
>
>  we will then cross-reference the things that are MISSING from those
> projects with the detrimental consequences, to see if there is any
> correlation.
>
>  if you can think of any other long-standing high-profile projects
> which should be on that list, feel free to add them.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 04:50:50PM -0400, do...@mail.com wrote:

> I give up. Why do some people dislike github or sourceforge?
> This is at least the third mailing list in which I've seen discontent
> without a reason given.

Git is a nice distributed version control system. That is: each node
contains the whole archive including all of the history. No inherent
central node. So all you need to develop with it is some basic hosting,
right?

Now Github comes along and tells you: if you use git in our site, you
can have extra goodies. Pull requests work. But only so long as you are
a user of Github to begin with. If it's not in Github, it might as well
not exist.

So suddenly you have a single point of failure. This is not that good.
For instance, what if Github decides not to allow you to host your
project (for whatever legitimate reason)?

I believe most people who object using Github here object using those
extra services and not merely using Github as a git hosting service. But
this point is mostly moot, as why would you use Github and not use bug
pull requests, bug tracking etc.?

Are they evil? Certainly not. They provide a great service that people
like. We should also provide quality services / software or otherwise
people will keep depending on walled gardens.


Sourceforge has held a somewhat similar position in the past (at around
1999-2005 or so) when a large portion of the projects were hosted there
because it provided a very fine hosting facility (files, web, shell,
mailing list, tasks, and more) for free. It is no longer in that
position. One problem with it nowadays is that they have been shown to
used some non-optimal methods of getting ad money in the recent past.

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's
tzaf...@cohens.org.il ||  best
tzaf...@debian.org|| friend

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 9:50 PM,   wrote:

> Just out of interest, not that I can do something about it *now*, is there
> any sort of list of "Things-that-a-kicad-or-clone-aught-to-do"?
> People can't fix or add what they don't know that they are missing and I,

 i've tried that: reported several bugs.  the developers of kicad
became entrenched in their own belief that their approach was
absolutely correct, superior, and that the problem did not exist.
after about a year, including input from other people who supported
the bugreport (also ignored), i went, "y'know what? this isn't worth
my time and effort".

> ???
> Why not start with recommending them to make their software open source?

 have you seen how oracle's attitude works out?  mysqldb, virtualbox,
openoffice - look up how those have been received by the software
libre community.

l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Tomas Nordin]

do...@mail.com writes:

> I give up. Why do some people dislike github or sourceforge?
> This is at least the third mailing list in which I've seen discontent
> without a reason given.

But reasons are given and to the point here:
https://www.fsf.org/news/gnu-releases-ethical-evaluations-of-code-hosting-services

One major problem addressed is the need to run non-free java-script to
use the service I think.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Stefan Monnier]

> I give up. Why do some people dislike github or sourceforge?

I don't think the two are in the same category at all (and the message
to which you replied was specifically putting SourceForge in the
"other" category, indeed).

As to why some people dislike GitHub?  I can't talk about other people,
but personally, I don't have much trust in it for the following reasons:
- It's a commercial company, so it has to make money somehow from its
  free service.
- It doesn't publish its own code as Free Software (not even the
  Javascript code you download into your browser to use the site).
- I feel a lot of pressure to use it.  IOW they work hard to use the
  so-called "networking effect" to pull people to their site.
  The more you use it, the more you pressure other people to do likewise.
  I hate this kind of centralization because it gives too much power to
  a single unaccountable entity.


Stefan


___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Adam Van Ymeren]

do...@mail.com writes:

> I give up. Why do some people dislike github or sourceforge?
> This is at least the third mailing list in which I've seen discontent
> without a reason given.

Same reason they dislike proprietary software in general.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[doark]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:47:48 +0100
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:01 PM, John Luke Gibson 
> wrote:
> >> "well everyone does it so we don't need to take
> >> special note of it" is how, historically, utterly valuable knowledge
> >> has been lost through the ages.  
> >
> > That's a very valid point. However I think the point of a standards
> > organization should be to spread information about their standards
> > that aren't widely or commonly known and it highly useful. Ultimately
> > there will be some very new people looking for information, and for
> > them knowing about the usefulness of version control would be
> > important. Again, though, if only mundane things like that were taken
> > on as a core tenets, I don't think anyone would take the organization
> > seriously.
> >  
> >>  then, not least, you will discover that actually, everybody uses
> >> github "by default" which, when you read (and take) the software
> >> engineer's hippocratic oath you find that it's very hard to honour
> >> that oath and use github at the same time.  
> >
> > I don't think there is much wrong the way github is designed, so much
> > as it's  

> > economic model for sustaining itself. It requires closed
> > source software development to survive. That's naughty.  
> 
>  it does deeper than that, in a very seductive and insidious way.
> what is the primary focus - what does github drive people to do, that
> distinguishes it from sourceforge, savannah, alioth, codeforge and
> other group collaboration systems?
I give up. Why do some people dislike github or sourceforge?
This is at least the third mailing list in which I've seen discontent
without a reason given.


> > * https://robertsspaceindustries.com/about-the-game  
> >>> [blah blah, about choosing between proprietary and free software]  
> >>
> >>  i don't understand where you're going with this.  what is the main
> >> point?  
> >
> > Most projects will be hardware projects and, like with your decision
> > not to use kicad,  
> 
>  that's mainly to do with the fact that it's s*** software.  sadly,
> it's only when you've utilised well-written proprietary software that
> you realise quite how hostile kicad actually is to getting the job
> done.  i'm not very happy about that, but it turns out that i am not
> the only person to have tried.

Just out of interest, not that I can do something about it *now*, is there
any sort of list of "Things-that-a-kicad-or-clone-aught-to-do"?
People can't fix or add what they don't know that they are missing and I,
for one, would not ever use, or if I did not read this mailing list, know
the name of, a "better" proprietary alternative.


> > there will be many incidences where open projects
> > need to decide between modding-up open software or using proprietary
> > software. Occasionally, the former is just not practical.
> >
> > A standards organization, would do best to make sure they weighed both
> > possibilities realistically and didn't just assume one or the other
> > was more practical.  
> 
>  no.  sorry.  i cannot be involved in anything which is unethical.
> that is ABSOLUTE and non-negotiable.  the consequences for me to be
> involved in anything that is unethical are too disastrous to
> contemplate.
> 
>  writing a high-profile standard (which is to be published by the FSF)
> that helps proprietary software to improve its success would be
> totally unethical.

???
Why not start with recommending them to make their software open source?
Or set up a time table with the sources being released when the project
has reached a certain reasonable financial goal or age.
Age was used to determine when to release at least warzone2100, firefox,
and X.
Money wise, a company could say that after they made, say 2X the amount
of their costs for producing the SW, then the users have "Bought the
code".
You have to start converting the closed source SW fanboys from somewhere.


> >>  again, i feel that it is not appropriate to tell people these kinds
> >> of things, as it would be a restriction on what they do and learn.
> >> counter-example: some projects *have* to have a large code-base, by
> >> definition of their goals and scope.  
> >
> > I recognize that intuitive isn't always concise, but often it is.
> > I only mean concise when it means intuitive.
> > If a projects roadmap demands a large code base that is
> > highly-esoteric and unintuitive, then that exhibits fault in the
> > underlying language.  
> 
>  no it does not.  certain tasks *require* specific languages.  for
> example: the linux kernel *requires* that you use assembler and c.
> UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES is c++ permitted to be utilised.
> 
>  likewise, python is also developed in c.  you can look up how pypy
> has been getting on, to find out how unsuccessful it was to attempt to
> implement python in anything other than c.
> 
>  also you can look up the efforts by the samba team to abandon c and
> to try to write parts of samba 4 in

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:01 PM, John Luke Gibson  wrote:
>> "well everyone does it so we don't need to take
>> special note of it" is how, historically, utterly valuable knowledge
>> has been lost through the ages.
>
> That's a very valid point. However I think the point of a standards
> organization should be to spread information about their standards
> that aren't widely or commonly known and it highly useful. Ultimately
> there will be some very new people looking for information, and for
> them knowing about the usefulness of version control would be
> important. Again, though, if only mundane things like that were taken
> on as a core tenets, I don't think anyone would take the organization
> seriously.
>
>>  then, not least, you will discover that actually, everybody uses
>> github "by default" which, when you read (and take) the software
>> engineer's hippocratic oath you find that it's very hard to honour
>> that oath and use github at the same time.
>
> I don't think there is much wrong the way github is designed, so much
> as it's

 ... you mean the word "its", not the two words "it" and "is" which
are abbreviated as "it apostrophe s".

> economic model for sustaining itself. It requires closed
> source software development to survive. That's naughty.

 it does deeper than that, in a very seductive and insidious way.
what is the primary focus - what does github drive people to do, that
distinguishes it from sourceforge, savannah, alioth, codeforge and
other group collaboration systems?


>
>>  if they're "developing" then by definition they *are* developers,
>> whether they think of themselves that way or not.  in the hippocratic
>> oath (both the original and the engineering version i found) it
>> mentions that both practices combine art *and* science.
>
> We really don't want to throw around that label,

 what ambiguous concept are you referring to with the word "that"
which has not been made explicitly clear?  there are about 40 words in
the paragraph that you are referring to: i have no idea which one the
word "that" refers to.

> Essentially the point is, in a large open development, odds are there
> will be people more senior and more novice to you. To develop the most
> difficult code 'for you' possible, we prioritize personal development
> over project development. I think that's a pretty solid general rule.
> If the code is really sincerely important, someone will clean up your
> mistakes and use your successes.

 not if they are there to further their own personal agenda because
there is no "Charter" to keep them goal-focussed, they won't.  there
are a number of large software libre projects where individuals have,
over time, used their technical expertise to become the most vicious,
horrible, deceptive bullies you will ever encounter in a technical
environment.  their peers become *so afraid* to do something about it
that these people *remain* in power, abusing others whenever the
opportunity presents itself.

 this is something that i have encountered not just once but
*multiple* times, in several extremely high-profile strategic software
libre projects.


>>> Most of us know it's not uncommon for very large projects to receive
>>> access to proprietary source code under NDA, just to mod it**.
>>
>>  we are automatically excluding advice to proprietary software groups,
>> so this is not a concern.
>
> For one,
> I think that's problematic. There are some projects to advance
> humanity stuck in closed-development, sometimes for honorable
> not-profit-motivations. Take radar development for example. Or, AI
> development. The last one is a hot-button topic, but I think AI
> development has to be relegated to those careful to avoid AI hating
> us.

 true.

 however - and i am applying the "Bill of Ethics" here - the Bill of
Ethics is very clear as to what to do in these situations.
"Creativity" is defined as "resources times intelligence".  therefore,
if someone is using Creativity for unethical purposes (where in this
case we *know* that proprietary software is unethical let's not
argue about that), then there are two options to ETHICALLY undermine
their unethical objective:

 (1) reduce their access to resources
 (2) reduce their access to intelligence enhancement.

 now, in the process of writing a standard, we do not have the means
to (directly) reduce the amount of resources that unethical
proprietary software teams have access to, but we *can* reduce their
access to intelligence enhancement... by *SPECIFICALLY* designing the
standard so that it targets ETHICAL software development, and that
means LIBRE SOFTWARE ONLY.

 i am NOT going to aid or assist unethical practices - period, luke.
i will NOT be involved in ANY WAY in the development of a standard
which could be utilised for the advancement, augmentation,
acceleration or improvement of unethical software development
practices, and that really 

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[John Luke Gibson]

> After a few years, the codebase shrank from about 200,000 lines of
> code to about 30,000.  (I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but they
> were of these orders of magnitude.)

Dats bootiful (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧

On 6/6/17, Hendrik Boom  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 08:01:02AM -0400, John Luke Gibson wrote:
>>
>> Both. Most languages today are pretty esoteric, even today. And, the
>> problem isn't so much with the docs, as these languages were designed
>> for people that already new another language equally esoteric, etc.
>>
>> I would think Lisp's resurgence (as well as developing Guile) is a
>> demonstration of GNU trying to break away from that paradigm.
>
> Racket is a rather interesting variant of Scheme.  Aside from having
> good tutorials and documentation, it explicitly allows mixed-language
> development.  In fact, the first line of a Racket module usually
> states which language to use for the rest.  And Racket has tools
> for defining alternative syntax and/or semantics.
>
>>
>> >> [blah blah blah about making programming easier]
>> >
>> >  again, i feel that it is not appropriate to tell people these kinds
>> > of things, as it would be a restriction on what they do and learn.
>> > counter-example: some projects *have* to have a large code-base, by
>> > definition of their goals and scope.
>>
>> I recognize that intuitive isn't always concise, but often it is.
>> I only mean concise when it means intuitive.
>> If a projects roadmap demands a large code base that is
>> highly-esoteric and unintuitive, then that exhibits fault in the
>> underlying language.
>
> Racket's language-definition tool  can be used to shorten notation
> within a large program, and also to define completely new languages.
>
> For example, one of the languages so implemented is Algol 60.
>
> Another is Scribble, a document compiler.  Being based on Racket, it's
> possible to use arbitrary Scheme code in generating your document,
> should you choose to.
>
> -- hendrik
>
>>
>> I'm not suggesting any project change to prioritize this. To the
>> contrary, I think I was quite clear: a project should only dedicate
>> 'extra' resources to this type of endeavor.
>
> There's one case in which a project decided they needed a scripting
> language, and they chose Gambit, a Scheme dialect that compiles to C
> or C++.
>
> After they installed it, they discovered that it was often easier to
> add features in the scripting language than in the original C++ code.
>
> Then they disovered that fixing bugs could often be done by replacing
> buggy C++ code by Scheme code.
>
> After a few years, the codebase shrank from about 200,000 lines of
> code to about 30,000.  (I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but they
> were of these orders of magnitude.)
>
> -- hendrik
>
> ___
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Hendrik Boom]

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 08:01:02AM -0400, John Luke Gibson wrote:
> 
> Both. Most languages today are pretty esoteric, even today. And, the
> problem isn't so much with the docs, as these languages were designed
> for people that already new another language equally esoteric, etc.
> 
> I would think Lisp's resurgence (as well as developing Guile) is a
> demonstration of GNU trying to break away from that paradigm.

Racket is a rather interesting variant of Scheme.  Aside from having 
good tutorials and documentation, it explicitly allows mixed-language 
development.  In fact, the first line of a Racket module usually 
states which language to use for the rest.  And Racket has tools 
for defining alternative syntax and/or semantics.

> 
> >> [blah blah blah about making programming easier]
> >
> >  again, i feel that it is not appropriate to tell people these kinds
> > of things, as it would be a restriction on what they do and learn.
> > counter-example: some projects *have* to have a large code-base, by
> > definition of their goals and scope.
> 
> I recognize that intuitive isn't always concise, but often it is.
> I only mean concise when it means intuitive.
> If a projects roadmap demands a large code base that is
> highly-esoteric and unintuitive, then that exhibits fault in the
> underlying language.

Racket's language-definition tool  can be used to shorten notation 
within a large program, and also to define completely new languages.

For example, one of the languages so implemented is Algol 60. 

Another is Scribble, a document compiler.  Being based on Racket, it's 
possible to use arbitrary Scheme code in generating your document, 
should you choose to.

-- hendrik

> 
> I'm not suggesting any project change to prioritize this. To the
> contrary, I think I was quite clear: a project should only dedicate
> 'extra' resources to this type of endeavor.

There's one case in which a project decided they needed a scripting 
language, and they chose Gambit, a Scheme dialect that compiles to C 
or C++.

After they installed it, they discovered that it was often easier to 
add features in the scripting language than in the original C++ code.

Then they disovered that fixing bugs could often be done by replacing 
buggy C++ code by Scheme code.

After a few years, the codebase shrank from about 200,000 lines of 
code to about 30,000.  (I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but they 
were of these orders of magnitude.)

-- hendrik

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[John Luke Gibson]

> "well everyone does it so we don't need to take
> special note of it" is how, historically, utterly valuable knowledge
> has been lost through the ages.

That's a very valid point. However I think the point of a standards
organization should be to spread information about their standards
that aren't widely or commonly known and it highly useful. Ultimately
there will be some very new people looking for information, and for
them knowing about the usefulness of version control would be
important. Again, though, if only mundane things like that were taken
on as a core tenets, I don't think anyone would take the organization
seriously.

>  then, not least, you will discover that actually, everybody uses
> github "by default" which, when you read (and take) the software
> engineer's hippocratic oath you find that it's very hard to honour
> that oath and use github at the same time.

I don't think there is much wrong the way github is designed, so much
as it's economic model for sustaining itself. It requires closed
source software development to survive. That's naughty.


>  if they're "developing" then by definition they *are* developers,
> whether they think of themselves that way or not.  in the hippocratic
> oath (both the original and the engineering version i found) it
> mentions that both practices combine art *and* science.

We really don't want to throw around that label, it'll be
controversial if we do.
The overall point I was try to make in that clause is, 'everyone
thinks to collaborate on source, but no one thinks to collaborate on
assets'.

I don't think many realize it's possible for 100+ people to
collaborate on a single drawing using version control and effective
curation. It'd be absurd, but it'd be possible. As it stands, most
assets are designed entirely by a single person, because people don't
realize the collaboration tools and methodologies out there.

>> "if a task seems too easy, it is best leave it
>> for someone else more novice; if a task seems too difficult, it is
>> best to do it sloppily, so someone else won't have to do it start from
>> nothing". So I think doing the best we possibly can do to develop the
>> worst code and worst documentation we possibly can, (xD) is another
>> good developer 'best practice'.
>
>  ok... there are two different definitions of "developer best
> practices".  the above goes into detail on how an individual developer
> should best carry out the development process; the document that i
> would like to see written is one which helps people (covering both
> users *and* developers) to work as TEAMS.   what INFRASTRUCTURE and
> general mind-set will help people to work together.
>
> not "as a developer we must apply Agile or other Methodology".  that's
> not appropriate: we have no proof that Agile or other "Methodology"
> will be more effective than any other, and i don't believe it to be
> appropriate for us to even research that.

Hmm.. *searches 'Agile development methodology'* I agree.
I always hated those cause they felt like a tight 'inside of the
inside box' structure.
What I'm suggesting here is Definitely a collaborative methodology and
-I think- a pretty abstract and general one.

Essentially the point is, in a large open development, odds are there
will be people more senior and more novice to you. To develop the most
difficult code 'for you' possible, we prioritize personal development
over project development. I think that's a pretty solid general rule.
If the code is really sincerely important, someone will clean up your
mistakes and use your successes.

Yes, I the principle is of focusing on the individual, but there's
nothing more important to remind a collective to do.


>> Most of us know it's not uncommon for very large projects to receive
>> access to proprietary source code under NDA, just to mod it**.
>
>  we are automatically excluding advice to proprietary software groups,
> so this is not a concern.

For one,
I think that's problematic. There are some projects to advance
humanity stuck in closed-development, sometimes for honorable
not-profit-motivations. Take radar development for example. Or, AI
development. The last one is a hot-button topic, but I think AI
development has to be relegated to those careful to avoid AI hating
us.

For two,
Some projects have a goal besides open source or profit. I really like
Star Citizen*. They show us EVERYTHING, except their source. Obviously
they can't because what they are trying to do, Requires modding closed
source software. It's very open, even if it's very closed. If an
organization like that wants to contribute to the development of some
libre software they are borrowing, we should recognize them. Maybe if
we buildup a strong rapport with them, they'll release their game into
the public domain one day just to say 'thankz, for all the lulz'.

* https://robertsspaceindustries.com/about-the-game
>> [blah blah, about choosing between proprietary and free software]
>
>  i don't underst

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:47 PM, John Luke Gibson  wrote:
> Alrightie~!
>
> Foremost, since "existing" free software and cultural works aren't
> likely to be sold, I think a libre software standards organization
> wouldn't certify individual works or pieces of code, so much as
> projects as a whole including roles performed by non-developers

 indeed.

> Version control is almost ubiquitously used for source code, to the
> point it should hardly need mentioned;

 absolutely dead-wrong.  it needs *absolutely* to be clearly defined.
the practice of saying "well everyone does it so we don't need to take
special note of it" is how, historically, utterly valuable knowledge
has been lost through the ages.

 a good example is all the folk tunes of medieval times: *nobody knows
them any more* because quotes everybody knew them quotes so NOBODY
WROTE THEM DOWN.

 so no, john: it *is* critical that everything that's ubiquitous and
quotes obvious quotes be formally documented.

 then, not least, you will discover that actually, everybody uses
github "by default" which, when you read (and take) the software
engineer's hippocratic oath you find that it's very hard to honour
that oath and use github at the same time.


> however very rarely are
> non-source project files, such as .blend files, collaboratively
> designed this way. I don't think people are unwilling to use version
> control in this way, rather they just don't think of it since most
> artists aren't developers and art has been digitally designed for much
> longer than version control systems have been easy to use. So I think
> uploading files to repository and saving changes as commits, would be
> a good 'non-developer' "best practice" to apply to a software
> certification standard.

 if they're "developing" then by definition they *are* developers,
whether they think of themselves that way or not.  in the hippocratic
oath (both the original and the engineering version i found) it
mentions that both practices combine art *and* science.


> Anyways, developer 'best practices'.
> Having idle hands study and document code, particularly esoteric parts
> or parts they, the contributors, are unfamiliar with (so they can
> learn it*). Generally, the instinct we are taught from criticisms of
> our artwork, is that 'if we can't do something well, it's best not to
> do it at all', however with our version control systems generally the
> opposite is much more likely true, leaving room also for the hopefully
> soon to be colloquial: "if a task seems too easy, it is best leave it
> for someone else more novice; if a task seems too difficult, it is
> best to do it sloppily, so someone else won't have to do it start from
> nothing". So I think doing the best we possibly can do to develop the
> worst code and worst documentation we possibly can, (xD) is another
> good developer 'best practice'.

 ok... there are two different definitions of "developer best
practices".  the above goes into detail on how an individual developer
should best carry out the development process; the document that i
would like to see written is one which helps people (covering both
users *and* developers) to work as TEAMS.   what INFRASTRUCTURE and
general mind-set will help people to work together.

not "as a developer we must apply Agile or other Methodology".  that's
not appropriate: we have no proof that Agile or other "Methodology"
will be more effective than any other, and i don't believe it to be
appropriate for us to even research that.


> Most of us know it's not uncommon for very large projects to receive
> access to proprietary source code under NDA, just to mod it**.

 we are automatically excluding advice to proprietary software groups,
so this is not a concern.

> Likewise libre software is often perceived as insufficient as-is,
> however proprietary software can be close enough that it is more
> practical. In these cases, we need to respect reality, however also
> ensure all is carefully weighed. The biggest pitfall is looking at all
> the forks, addons, and extensions, then also looking at what you would
> like to do that one can't with proprietary software out of the box.
> Whilest being careful not to berate preferences, looking at how
> modifiable the base program is and what it could accomplish rather
> than what it can accomplish, is an important thing to make sure both
> project's developer's and non-developer's occasionally remember to do.
> So, considering what we could do more proportionally with what we can
> do, is an important developer and non-developer 'best practice',
> especially since as least occasionally they'll make one of their
> could-do'es someone else's can-do.

 i don't understand where you're going with this.  what is the main point?

> Another practice that kindof ties in with the other one, and an often
> unsung aim of the GNU project as a whole, is make programming easi

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[John Luke Gibson]

Alrightie~!

Foremost, since "existing" free software and cultural works aren't
likely to be sold, I think a libre software standards organization
wouldn't certify individual works or pieces of code, so much as
projects as a whole including roles performed by non-developers

Version control is almost ubiquitously used for source code, to the
point it should hardly need mentioned; however very rarely are
non-source project files, such as .blend files, collaboratively
designed this way. I don't think people are unwilling to use version
control in this way, rather they just don't think of it since most
artists aren't developers and art has been digitally designed for much
longer than version control systems have been easy to use. So I think
uploading files to repository and saving changes as commits, would be
a good 'non-developer' "best practice" to apply to a software
certification standard.

Anyways, developer 'best practices'.
Having idle hands study and document code, particularly esoteric parts
or parts they, the contributors, are unfamiliar with (so they can
learn it*). Generally, the instinct we are taught from criticisms of
our artwork, is that 'if we can't do something well, it's best not to
do it at all', however with our version control systems generally the
opposite is much more likely true, leaving room also for the hopefully
soon to be colloquial: "if a task seems too easy, it is best leave it
for someone else more novice; if a task seems too difficult, it is
best to do it sloppily, so someone else won't have to do it start from
nothing". So I think doing the best we possibly can do to develop the
worst code and worst documentation we possibly can, (xD) is another
good developer 'best practice'.

Most of us know it's not uncommon for very large projects to receive
access to proprietary source code under NDA, just to mod it**.
Likewise libre software is often perceived as insufficient as-is,
however proprietary software can be close enough that it is more
practical. In these cases, we need to respect reality, however also
ensure all is carefully weighed. The biggest pitfall is looking at all
the forks, addons, and extensions, then also looking at what you would
like to do that one can't with proprietary software out of the box.
Whilest being careful not to berate preferences, looking at how
modifiable the base program is and what it could accomplish rather
than what it can accomplish, is an important thing to make sure both
project's developer's and non-developer's occasionally remember to do.
So, considering what we could do more proportionally with what we can
do, is an important developer and non-developer 'best practice',
especially since as least occasionally they'll make one of their
could-do'es someone else's can-do.

Another practice that kindof ties in with the other one, and an often
unsung aim of the GNU project as a whole, is make programming easier.
Occasionally, a project will have extra resources or
volunteers/contributors than their described roadmap warrants. Not
always is this obvious from the beginning when it does happen. In
fact, usually it isn't till the end that it becomes apparent. The
ideal would be say 'even if proprietary software is more practical,
use/extend free software for the benefit of everyone when you have the
resource', but the reality is very rarely will you know you have the
resources until it's far too late. Instead, a good programming
practice might be to use the extra resources to modify the language
itself or some api to make the code smaller. We all should know line
counting is a trap, but we should also know we are more likely to read
a pamphlet than a book. So, it should be a good developer 'best
practice' should be to use extra resources at the end to make your
code intuitive and concise, and to fork others so hopefully
adaptations to libraries and compilers that make your code more
concise and intuitive get upstream.

This is just a rough start, but I wanted to post it here and get
feedback before putting it on the wiki.

I really like the analogy of medicine to software development,
particularly the use of the Hippocratic Oath as a point of reference.
I was looking at the 'original' oath, and there is an interesting
intersection with the morals of free software. Take a look at this:

"to impart precept, oral instruction, and all other instruction to my
own [kids], the [kids] of my teacher, and to indentured pupils who
have taken the physician’s oath, but to nobody else."***

That last bit of 'teaching no one else' is a little tongue-and-cheek
for the free software movement xD But, still, it has this aura of
freedom of information that's interesting for ancients.

In fact most of the last two and the first two clauses, mutually apply
to software.
I'm the artistic type who would take the original oath and edit it to
apply to software.


* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkm0TNFzIeg
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yisaDxvBH9s&t=5m50s
*** https

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
 wrote:
> huh.  hmmm, if it's ok with you i might run that by dr stallman, see
> what he thinks.

 ok, so i spoke to dr stallman, it took me a while to get across the
idea, and after clarifying it he said, *in effect*, "please could you
write up some developer best practices as long as every GNU Project
would automatically conform to them".  he didn't exactly say that, so
please do not quote me on it.

 the starting point should be to take this "list of project *SERVICES*
offered to the GNU project"
https://www.gnu.org/software/devel.en.html

 and turn it into a list of *GENERAL* project *RECOMMENDATIONS*, using
the GNU server services as... like... the "Gold Standard".

 the one thing that is missing from this list is a "Charter" - like
how the Apache Software Foundation has a Charter.  i am not entirely
sure what to advise / do on that.  over the past 20+ years i have
witnessed many high-profile projects treat good people in some pretty
horrible ways - not once and not on just the one project but many many
times.

the Apache Software Foundation on the other hand, whilst they have had
problems, their Charter has allowed them to (formally) keep things
"civil", including being able to remove a project leader who clearly
did not understand the harm he was causing to the project, through his
actions.

also worthwhile considering is adding the recommendation for
developers to take the "Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers".

http://farmerandfarmer.org/medicine/printable.html

the nice thing about that oath is that it can just be added simply to
make people aware of it... *without* actually requiring that they take
it.

anyway i have started a page here in order to coordinate ideas and the
actual proposal:

http://rhombus-tech.net/proposed_best_practices/

l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[John Luke Gibson]

On 5/31/17, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton  wrote:
> huh.  hmmm, if it's ok with you i might run that by dr stallman, see
> what he thinks.

That'd be awesome; be awesomer if you mentioned me ('d love to win zeh
brownie points xS)

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

huh.  hmmm, if it's ok with you i might run that by dr stallman, see
what he thinks.
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 6:05 PM, John Luke Gibson  wrote:
> On 5/31/17, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton  wrote:
>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:19 PM, John Luke Gibson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Then, it truly truly dawned on me, free software needs standards
>>> organizations as well.
>>
>>  or something like that.. yeah.
>
> It would a great opportunity for projects like blender and gimp, that
> a company could use a certification mark that basically says "they
> contributed; there were no gpl violations; they made themselves
> available on mailing lists; they didn't bumble around with the
> software instead of asking for help; they were transparent with the
> public about anything we would find ethically-questionable;" etcetera
> etcetera. That mark would like include a QR code which people could
> check the status and make sure a physically printed mark hasn't been
> revoked after printing. And, their could be regular transparent
> royalty/inspection fee for as long as the company wants that mark to
> have an active status.
>
> It's brilliant!
>
> ___
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[John Luke Gibson]

On 5/31/17, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton  wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:19 PM, John Luke Gibson 
> wrote:
>
>> Then, it truly truly dawned on me, free software needs standards
>> organizations as well.
>
>  or something like that.. yeah.

It would a great opportunity for projects like blender and gimp, that
a company could use a certification mark that basically says "they
contributed; there were no gpl violations; they made themselves
available on mailing lists; they didn't bumble around with the
software instead of asking for help; they were transparent with the
public about anything we would find ethically-questionable;" etcetera
etcetera. That mark would like include a QR code which people could
check the status and make sure a physically printed mark hasn't been
revoked after printing. And, their could be regular transparent
royalty/inspection fee for as long as the company wants that mark to
have an active status.

It's brilliant!

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:19 PM, John Luke Gibson  wrote:

> Then, it truly truly dawned on me, free software needs standards
> organizations as well.

 or something like that.. yeah.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk