Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1927317] Uruk GNU/LINUX

[bill-auger]

On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 11:48:54 +0300 Jean wrote:
> Form a new group of people who are loyal to free software principle,
> and I recommend those people who are already managing free software
> distributions, and who are actively participating.
> 
> Let that group endorse Uruk and other free software system
> distributions.
> 
> Let FSF decide if to accept recommendation from "Free Software System
> Distribution Council" by the pace how they think is alright,

that is exactly the description of this mailing list - this
mailing list already _is_ that "council" - it has a name:
"Workgroup for fully free GNU/Linux distributions", and a web
presence: the "FreedSoftware" group on the libreplanet wiki -
that suggestion describes precisely how the process is already
done now - that was a much needed reform put in place in 2018,
which relieved the bulk of the work-load from the FSF; but still
the FSF remained as the final bottle-neck in the process

distros which are moved to the "Distros ready for final review
by the FSF" category on the "Incoming distros" page (currently
freenix and libertybsd) are already endorsed by the work-group -
there is literally nothing more that the community can or should
do - the only thing missing, is a relatively small amount of
attention from the FSF


On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:09:23 -0400 Therese wrote:
> I can see a problem with these recommendations: the only thing that
> tells the public that a distro follows the FSDG is the list of free
> distros [0], which is maintained by the FSF Licensing Team.

yes, in the end, the entire result of the process is only the
distro's entry on the web page of GNU recommended distros - but
also, only the FSF can modify the FSDG guidelines itself, which
governs the process from the onset and all throughout


On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:09:23 -0400 Therese wrote:
> I think the FSF needs to delegate the _whole process_ to a group of
> volunteers (the Free Software System Distribution Council or whatever
> you call it), including the maintenance of free-distros.html.

that was one of the alternative proposals (the one proposed by
andreas) which was suggested to RMS and and the FSF, about three
years ago, when we, in desperation, consulted with RMS about the
languishing FSDG process - i also wrote two amendments to
the FSDG, which would improve the situation, but in a less
drastic way - i showed those amendments to about a dozen people,
and all agreed that something of their essence should become part
of the guidelines

about a year later, we received one more message from the FSF,
promising that something would be done about it "soon" - that was
the last time that the FSF responded to our concerns in any way
- shortly afterward, the licensing officer resigned from the
position, and the position has been vacant since - it is
difficult to blame anyone for losing faith - nothing came of
that proposal; and i have not bothered to propose the amendments
formally

the response to this thread indicates that only a few of us
die-hards are still paying attention to the FSDG, after all
these years of neglect - all we can do is complain amongst
ourselves; which i stopped doing years ago - we can only hope to
restore this work-group someday, somehow - there are too few of
us remaining, to start a new work-group; and most FSDG distros
have no respect for this work-group anyways, even as it was when
it was functional - to start another, would be as pointless this
present discussion

FWIW, i would rather see the FSF be the final authority on all
matters of the FSDG; but anything that gets the gears turning
again, would be better than the current situation - as it is now
(since 5 years), all progress is blocked by an administrative
bottle-neck, and distros are interpreting the FSDG, each for
themselves, accountable only to themselves - the effect of that,
is the FSDG is reduced to a trophy for a one-time achievement,
and even as a trophy, it is no longer being awarded to any distro


On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 20:10:15 -0700 alimiracle wrote:
> So we lost faith, we lost interest in fsdg distros list 
> I don't want to try again ....but  I will only follow the fsdg rules

we would be remiss if we did not recognize that freenix was
forced to the same conclusion - freenix has been waiting for the
FSF's "brief final review" since 2018 - during that time, they
asked the FSF repeatedly for progress updates - after about a
year, the FSF stopped corresponding with them entirely, with no
explanation

there were no remaining problems for the freenix devs to address
- the freenix devs even went so far as to change the name of the
distro, to appease the FSDG work-group, apparently for nothing -
call me cynical, but if the FSDG were my responsibility, i would
be ashamed of myself, and apologizing loudly

liberty-bsd, was waiting for their "brief final review" since the
same time, and went defunct  while waiting, due to lack of users
- it is not difficult to imagine, that liberty-bsd may still
exist today, if it had gotten more exposure when it was in a
healthy state

connochaetos had a similar experience - the review of
connochaetos lasted for seven years - it ended, only when the
distro finally went defunct while waiting

we would also be remiss if we did not recognize that freenix and
liberty-bsd were ready and awaiting their "brief final review"
_before_ hyperbola applied for consideration; yet hyperbola was
fully evaluated by the community and endorsed by the FSF within
a few months, ahead of the others which are still waiting 5
years later - i dont know what that implies, but there is no
reasonable explanation known, which would account for such a
stark inversion of priority


On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 15:00:11 +0000 (UTC) . wrote:
> Five years is too long.

indeed - to demonstrate, i could also imagine a rule, such that
distros would need to demonstrate long-term dedication, by being
at least 5 years old, in order to qualify - so, maybe liberty-bsd
would have legitimately fallen short of that maximally ambitious
mark; but freenix and uruk are still going - surely the expected
time-frame of the endorsement process should not be longer than
the average lifespan of a new distro