Re: system-hackers service agreement
On Mittwoch, 24. August 2016 14:28:49 CEST Jonas Oberg wrote: > If you want to join this team, all you need to do is to join its > QuickML mailing list, which you do by sending a mail to > sla-hack...@q.fsfe.org with yourself in Cc [^1]. AFAIK this is won't work (and is often cause for confusion with the quickml interface). To join the list, send a mail to sla-hack...@q.fsfe.org with Jonas (or any other member of the list) in the CC. [http://0xcc.net/quickml/ml-usage.en.html#label-4] Johannes -- Johannes Zarl-Zierl FSFE Gruppe Linz, Team Austria https://wiki.fsfe.org/LocalGroups/Linz/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
QtCon Vide: How to write the perfect Press Release
Hi, The remaining QtCon videos have been uploaded by now, so I would like to boost Paul Brown's talk for those who missed it: https://conf.qtcon.org/en/qtcon/public/events/717 Unfortunately, there is no link to the slides that I could find :( Cheers, Johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Ethical phones
Hi, I guess you both have a point: Reusing a device is more ethical than throwing a working phone in the trash. Buying a device that tries hard not to exploit workers in low-wage countries is more ethical than supporting a manufacturer that optimizes solely for its own profit. Ethics is very much about reasoning about ambiguous problems. Therefore "more ethical" is rarely applicable to a set of choices. On Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017 22:23:00 CEST Kurtis Hanna wrote: > > Sent from my iPad Is that irony I'm sensing? Cheers, Johannes ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: negative campaigning?
Hi, On Freitag, 28. Juli 2017 19:43:32 CEST Ioli Papadopoulou wrote: > Thank you for your comments. This is what I am trying to say: Yes to a > negative campaign, but in a POLITE and POSITIVE way. So: no negative campaigning ;-) I think this debate is missing the point about negative campaigning: the goal of negative campaigning is to paint someone in a bad light. It's not about pointing out facts. Let's contrive an example: „Why wouldn't I support the FSFE? They are all for supporting user rights, aren't they?“ - „The FSFE knows about and condones usage of free software by NSA and other agencies to spy on citizens. By allowing usage of free software in armed drones they support unlawful killings of people around the world.“ This statement is not exactly false. It stretches the truth by glossing over the reasons why no-military-usage clauses are generally not endorsed by the FSFE. And finally, it adds a highly emotionalized context to the message. The whole point of negative campaigning is to prevent people from judging by the facts. If facts can be used to support the message somehow it's nice (because it makes defense harder), but the whole thing would equally work with outright lies. To throw my own ethics over board for a moment, let's consider the advantages of negative campaigning: + it increases the reach of a message (due to its emotional nature) + it increases the reach of a message (because it's usually short and catchy) + it puts the opponent into a defensive position Ethics apart, there are still drawbacks, though: - it emphases emotions over facts - it passes the moral high ground to the opponent - if you "get caught", you damage your own public standing That said, it's just plain unethical in my book and should not be considered on that reason alone. Negative campaigning stands in a direct conflict with what we (the FSFE) stand for: informed user choice. Cheers, Johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: negative campaigning?
Hi, I've already sent a lengthy mail detailing my position w.r.t. negative campaigning, but I would like to add this point: Not every "negative" message is negative campaigning. On Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2017 12:14:49 CEST Daniel Pocock wrote: > If I was in somebody's house and I saw their kitchen had caught fire, > should I avoid talking about it because it is a negative topic and they > might feel bad? Or should I warn somebody? This example is very contrived, but: of course you tell someone. You want them to make an informed choice („Hmmm… if my kitchen's on fire I better call 0118 999 88199 9119 725 3“[1]) > What about a hidden risk that most people can't see, for example, if you > were an official who knew about the contamination[1] in the water in > Flint, Michigan, should you keep your mouth shut? Or would people thank > you for sharing negative information? Fulfilling your duty as an elected official, or as a public servant is not negative campaigning. „There are dangerous levels of toxic chemicals in the water. Don't drink it.“ is putting out facts. Using these facts for personal gain to paint somebody in a bad light is negative campaigning. I have to admit, though, that in practice telling both apart can be tricky or impossible. Cheers, Johannes [1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_IT_Crowd#Calamity_Jen_.5B1.2.5D signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: community feedback on GA meeting agenda?
Hello Daniel, On Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 11:24:36 CEST Daniel Pocock wrote: > Does anybody have any topics they would explicitly like to draw > attention to for the GA agenda? I don't know if it fits the GA, but I'd like to have some decision on the licensing questions [1] that were recently posted on wikicaretakers@… [1] https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/wikicaretakers/2017-August/000140.html > Would people like to see the agenda available publicly, possibly on the > wiki? My gut reaction is: yes, of course! OTOH, looking at the last agenda most (if not all) topics to the agenda are organisational: 1. Greeting 2. Determination of resolutionability 3. Adoption of the agenda 4. Approval of minutes of general assembly held in Bucharest, Romania, on September 15th 2015 5. Welcome of elected Fellowship representative 6. Membership confirmation of new members 7. Report of Executive Council 8. Miscellaneous 9. Closing If the misc. topic had sub-topics, they are probably of most interest to the ordinary fellow... > The minutes of past meetings are already public[1] Nice! Cheers, Johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: "Joining" vs "becoming a supporter"
Hi, Didn't we have that discussion half a year ago? On Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 16:15:44 CET Daniel Pocock wrote: > For me, these words have clear meanings: > > Donor = somebody who gives money > Volunteer = somebody who gives time > Member = somebody who has a vote in the AGM Supporter = somebody who gives money or time Both donors and volunteers are supporters. Well, almost: "donors" can mean both persons (like many of us on this list) and other entities (e.g. companies donating to the FSFE). I think the correct term for "somebody who gives money" is "sustaining member" (which does nothing to prevent further confusion). > Join = become a Member Not a native speaker, but I thought "Join as a " was unambiguous and clear? > Any other words like "Supporter" and "Fellow" appear to be marketing and > need to be qualified whenever they are used in the web site or other > materials. I really don't think that "Supporter" needs to be qualified. True - it's not as narrow a term as "Volunteer", but for a reason. Cheers, Johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Privacy vs. Transparency
Hi Christian, Am Sonntag, 31. März 2019, 11:14:14 CEST schrieb Christian Imhorst: > Am 29.03.19 um 17:24 schrieb Florian Snow: > I'm with you, that we have to protect the value of privacy. But if I > write an e-mail to different mailing lists, no matter how "internally" > they are, this e-mail is no longer private. If it still contains > fundamental criticism, this e-mail will reach a larger public. Regardless how intelligence agencies try to bend the public perception, "not private" is not remotely the same as public. All internal FSFE mailing lists that I have at some point been subscribed to operate under the Chatham house rule[1]. This rule allows for publication of contents to a wider audience, provided the anonymity of the people involved is provided. Breaking this trust is a serious issue in itself, and should IMO be discussed separately from the actual leaked/published content. Johannes [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
List of email addresses
Hi, Considering the CoC, I'm refraining myself from talking too much about a certain individual. As there seems to be some confusion as to how Daniel Pocock was able to access the subscriber emails of this list: The list is visible to all subscribers here: https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/roster/discussion Having list membership visible to all subscribers is common practice, and virtually all public mailing list are configured to show this information on request. After all, the mailing list archive is also available, and by scraping the mailing list archive one would be able to gather a similar list… However, I'm pretty sure that using this information in the way that Mr. Pocock did is very much not allowed under EU law. Maybe it's time to let the legal team handle this transgression and evaluate FSFE's legal options? Cheers, Johannes -- Johannes Zarl-Zierl Team Austria signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: Fairphone lessons
Am Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2019, 14:29:28 CEST schrieb Paul Boddie: > On Wednesday 15. May 2019 12.51.36 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Am Dienstag 14 Mai 2019 13:24:28 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > > These are presumably the same apologists for phone manufacturers trying > > > to > > > cut warranty terms where I live: people who openly said that they bought > > > a > > > new phone every six months, that longer warranties would make phones > > > more > > > expensive, and that nobody needed them anyway (presumably because at six > > > months, they would sell their phone to some hapless buyer or fake up > > > some > > > kind of insurance claim). > > Just to give some more context here, the argument went that phones should > have a substantially shorter warranty than household appliances like > washing machines (which I think was, maybe still is, five years) despite > being more expensive in many cases. One can argue that washing machines and > other appliances undergo substantially more physical stress than phones, > which was usually the reason for failure and warranty claims. While I think that warranties for electronics could and should be longer, I think the comparison to household appliances is unfair. Mobile phones may undergo less physical stress than washing mashines in absolute terms, but operate withing much tighter tolerances. In other words, there are plenty of places on my washing machine where hitting it with a hammer would do minimal damage. The same is not true for a mobile phone, and simply cannot be true due to physical constraints... Cheers, Johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: FSFE-defined coding standards?
Hi, Apart from the principal discussion whether FSFE is well-equipped to define "coding standards" without defining a scope for that discussion, I'd like to address the introductory paragraph that almost reads as FUD to me: > The (F)LOSS ecosystem is currently mostly focusing on quantity over quality Do you have any evidence of this? Intuitively, I would rather assume the opposite: proprietary software has a higher incentive to focus on quantity over quality, while writing FLOSS software means that one's code is under public scrutiny and writing "bad" code can potentially harm your future job prospects. Data from code analyser vendors seems to support this thesis: https://blog.semmle.com/open-source-vs-proprietary-software/ http://www.ciol.com/coverity-scan-report-source-software-quality-outpaces-proprietary-code/ If there is newer data or academic research that suggests otherwise, I'd like to hear about it. > which results in bloat of software that is not reliable in a mission > critical environment (and thus making it inferior to proprietary software) Is that the reason why all core internet protocols are dominated by FLOSS implementations? > or software that requires “reinventing the wheel” because of authors bad > decision (lack of abstracting → Malpractice). Yes, "reinventing the wheel" or "not invented here" (NIH) does also affect FLOSS communities. Yet proprietary software development practically depends on it. > This proposal is expected to contribute to the solution. You should start with defining the problem, ideally in a quantifiable way. Here are questions that your problem description could potentially benefit from: What is the problem domain? My guess it's not "the (F)LOSS ecosystem", but judging on your example it may be as narrow as "bourne shell scripting". The great thing about this is that providing coding standards or best practices for a narrow set of languages and use-cases is far easier (meaning "actually possible") than for each and every programming language in present- day use. Is there prior art that is relevant? Best practices are highly valued in both FLOSS and proprietary environments. Hence there are already ample resources, albeit not necessarily evenly distributed among programming languages and domains. As an example, consider the C++ best guidelines: https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#main Looking at academic literature may also yield good approaches for your problem description. What makes the FSFE well-suited to contribute to the solution? I mean, yes, I support the FSFE and I think the world would be a worse place without it - not to mention the many great individuals that are part of FSFE and the FSFE community. I also don't want to discourage you from discussing topics like this on FSFE community channels. After all, we all care about creating high quality FLOSS software that empowers all users. But going back to my C++ example: who could be better suited to providing best practices for a language than the language community itself? Regards, Johannes ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: Mozilla: "We’re taking a break from Facebook"
Hi, I think the last few years showed that what once may have been a reasonable point of view (i.e. trying to be a voice of dissent) is not possible on a site that actively prevents their users from seeing those dissenting views. > When will it be time to remove the FSFE page? Or is it the FSFE's > contribution to make Facebook feel like a ghost town? I don't believe that Facebook will ever feel like a ghost town as long as there is no exodus of a massive scale. And even then, the algorithms will do their best to give the last remaining users an illusion of an active social network. > When will it be time to remove the FSFE page? Given Facebooks analytics capabilities I assume that this question does not need much guesswork. How many views does the site get? Are there any user interactions? If the FSFE feels that the numbers don't justify the possibly tarnishing effect of being on Facebook, we can delete the account and get a nice press release out of it... Cheers, Johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
