On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Don Davis - [email protected] wrote: > >> Uh, according to < http://www.opensource.org/node/600 >, those should >> be FLOSSBOK and SWEBOK because they are Bodys Of Knowledge (BOK), not >> mere BOOKs. > > Indeed, it is a BOK > http://www.opensource.org/node/600 > > >> The IEEE is a well respected, vendor independent, national interest >> independent, professional society. Personally, I don't understand why >> the FLOSS community would need a separate effort to promote the use of >> FLOSS in SWE. > > Perhaps, because: > (1) much of the SWE community is not interested in/ dismissive of the > societal impacts of software licensing
"much" becomes an unsupportable characterization only if FLOSS proponents actively seek to educate the under-informed by participating. > (2) IEEE is known for very restrictive copyright practices A practice that was established when it seemed to be the best approach to controlling the publications intended to guide the standardization of good engineering practice. The IEEE claims a heritage that begins in 1884, < https://origin.www.ieee.org/about/ieee_history.html#sect2 >. I don't know what to claim for the FLOSS community, perhaps the formation of the Free Software Foundation, 4 October 1985? So FLOSS is the 100-year junior that may now have sufficient maturity to begin the slow process of replacing current practice with an evolutionary improvement. Again, direct participation is the path to that end. > (3) uncritical use of software (so what if it's proprietary?) serves to > marginalize. This is tied up with existing power structures perpetuating > themselves. (See also Chopra & Dexter, 2007, 2008, 2011 & Kim, 2006) Again, a situation that is amenable to change only through expended effort. > (4) sometimes it is necessary to step outside of established > disciplinary and paradigmatic boundaries (Kuhn, 1962; Moran, 2010) And Larry Ellison (Oracle Corporation CEO) knows how to co-opt outsiders by acquisition. Refer to OpenSolaris & Illumos and MySql for examples. Such co-opting is only successfully defended if the current paradigm is used against itself by active participants in the community. > ------- > Chopra, S., & Dexter, S. (2007). Free software and the political > philosophy of the cyborg world. SIGCAS Computers and Society, 37(2), 41-52. > > Chopra, S. & Dexter, S. (2008). Decoding liberation: The promise of free > and open source software. New York: Routledge. > > Chopra, S., & Dexter, S. (2011). Free software and the economics of > information justice. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(3), 173-184. > > Kim, S. (2006). Capitorgs and free/libre and open source software: > Toward critical technological literacy and free/libre and open source > society. Educational Insights, 10(2). > > Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: > University of Chicago Press. > > Moran, J. (2010). Interdisciplinarity. New York: Routledge. > Thank you for the references. >> Instead, the FLOSS community should be participating in >> the review of SWEBOK V3, > > Certainly. One does not necessarily negate the other. I'm sorry, but it seems to me consuming resources to work on FLOSSBOK _does_ reduce the resources to evolve SWEBOK appropriately. I can conceive of a coordinated effort in the FLOSS community to make sure SWEBOK is evolved well, but the effort should be expended on moving the accepted standard, not creating a separate, unusable document. The reason proprietary interests expend their resources molding IEEE standards is standards are strategic. One wins the mind share battle even before the Request For Information is written. > > Instead, the FLOSS community should be participating in >> the review of SWEBOK V3, < >> http://computer.centraldesktop.com/swebokv3review/ >. When the IEEE >> issues a Call for Reviewers, it is not limited to corporations with a >> proprietary interest in the subject nor their employees, but a true >> request for people who have any experience in the subject of the >> publication to help make it a standard resource. _______________________________________________ tos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos
