Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation

[Gregory John Casamento]

--- MJ Ray <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 2004-10-01 04:59:17 +0100 Gregory John Casamento 
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > --- MJ Ray <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> On 2004-09-30 17:03:26 +0100 Gregory John Casamento 
> >> <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>> I can...  Because it would be managed by people who have little to 
> >>> do > 
> >>> with the
> >>> actual GNUstep project.
> >> Huh? I would expect that to make the Foundation less legitimate in 
> >> most 
> >> people's eyes.
> > I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.  My point is that 
> > by 
> > keeping
> > it with the maintainers of GNUstep itself, that it will be *more* 
> > legitimate. 
> 
> This seems the opposite of your previous position to me.

It is exactly the position I had before.   You had suggested the FSF run it and
I said that if they ran it, it would be by people who weren't connected with
the project.   My apologies for our apparent misunderstanding, but my point was
stated clearly in above.
 
> > If the FSF runs it, they may not care about it as much as those 
> > directly
> > involved would.
> 
> Why do so many keep arguing against a proposal no-body made? I'm 
> suggesting using FSF to accept the money, pay the bills and do the 
> bureaucracy which comes from being a corporation. I am not suggesting 
> letting FSF run the marketing effort or much else that people are 
> arguing against. Please all try to stay on-topic.

I am.  You are the one arguing for the FSF to run the collection and
distribution of funds for GNUstep, albeit at Adam's "say so"...  It seems to me
that it's better that we are in complete control if the funds submitted for the
use of GNUstep.   Also, by making it part of the FSF it makes it at the FSF's
sole discretion how the money is used, despite what Adam, myself, or any of the
other maintainers might want.

> This may not be possible, but it looks like no-one had even researched 
> whether it is before supporting Alex Perez's statement "we need a 
> GNUstep Foundation so we can handle money". If I've got that wrong, 
> please point me at the documentation.

As I said in a previous post, I've been considering this for a long time.

> >>>> If visibility is the concern, does this need to be "GNUstep >> 
> >>>> Foundation"
> >>>> rather than "GNUstep Marketing Foundation" or "GNUstep Promotion
> >>>> Association"?
> >>> Similar to the GNOME Foundation and the Apache Foundation, yes it > 
> >>> does.
> >> Why? Just to ape GNOME?
> > No.  Actually... if you had read the post I made previously, I said 
> > we want to
> > have a different structure than the GNOME Foundation as they 
> > sometimes suffer
> > from "design by committee".
> 
> Why does my reading your previous post change what you said? Are you 
> just being rude and trying to suggest "this chap can't understand 
> email"? If so, tough: I do understand it, but the structure is not 
> strongly related to the name, other than as a suggestion of its aims.

Because you said "Just to ape GNOME"?  No, we're not "aping" anyone.  Also, I
don't consider having a similar name "aping" someone.  I believed you were
implying that we make all of the same mistakes the GNOME Foundation has made...
 which I am opposed to.   You don't like that explaination, tough.

> > As for the name, I don't know how I would feel about something named 
> > "GNUstep
> > Marketing Foundation" or "The Foundation For the Promotion of 
> > GNUstep". 
> > "GNUstep Foundation" seems appropriate to me.
> 
> It depends what its aims are, but I suspect "GNUstep Marketing 
> Association" is a better description of what we're trying to do.

You're free to have your opinion.

> I'm surprised that paying developers and contracting with outside 
> companies has been mentioned as an expected function. Won't this 
> foundation be directing development by specifying those contracts? 

For things that the maintainers believe is worth it.   It's been done before by
the FSF in the case of DGS (Display GhostSctipt) as well as other things. 
Also, the maintainers of the project would be in charge of telling the
Foundation what is needed.   My belief is that the foundation should stay OUT
of development efforts.  This is the job of the maintainers. 

> Are you opposed to that?

Not in the way I described above.

> >> I worry that marketing is trying to lead development, instead of 
> >> assisting 
> >> it. My question about verifying the suggested problems has gone 
> >> unanswered 
> >> as yet.
> > This was my concern.  *PLEASE* read the previous post. [...]
> 
> You claim you're concerned, but if you are, *PLEASE* reply to my 
> previous post about testing marketing hypotheses.

Sure, I'll look at it.

> > [...] The foundation shall oversee ONLY the funds
> > necessary to further GNUstep promotion and, possibly, be used to 
> > contract with
> > outside companies to help GNUstep improve.
> 
> If handling funds is its only role, it seems a good idea to 
> investigate other host organisations before blindly creating another 
> and having the administrative overhead hit our funds.

You seem to assume that I haven't investigated this.   The only organization
which would have fit the bill is the FSF and they currently understaffed and
would probably not want to take on the extra responsibility given that they
have not done this FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT EVER except for GNU-Hurd.
 
> -- 
> MJR/slef    My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
>   Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
> LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk

GJC

=====
Gregory John Casamento 
-- CEO/President Open Logic Corp. (A Maryland Corporation)
#### Maintainer of Gorm for GNUstep.