Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-10-01 14:34:43 +0100 Gregory John Casamento 
<address@hidden> wrote:

> [...] You had suggested the FSF run it [...]

No, I never suggested that the FSF should run a GNUstep Foundation/ 
Association/ whatever. I suggested that the FSF might be a good 
foundation to collect and distribute GNUstep donations. I find it 
incredible that you can misunderstand my post like that.

> [...] You are the one arguing for the FSF to run the collection and
> distribution of funds for GNUstep, albeit at Adam's "say so"... [...]

s/run/handle/;# Please try not to change my meaning.

> 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.

Do we know that it FSF will not agree to handle collection and 
distribution on the maintainers' behalf?

Adam is GNUstep's chief maintainer. Doesn't he have final say on the 
project, for better or worse?

Changing the management structure of GNUstep is yet another different 
aim to marketing GNUstep. Again, I am not sure what people mean by the 
GNUstep Foundation.

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

Cool. Explain it.

> 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.

Oh well. I hear "GNUstep Foundation" and I naturally think of another 
desktop foundation which started from GNU developers, the GNOME 
Foundation. In the absence of other information, I will think it is 
similar and I suspect many other free software users will. At the very 
least, this hypothesis should be tested before settling on that name. 
No-one wants a marketing project to have an unmarketable name.

> 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. 
[...]

So, the FSF already did this function for us? Who tells them what 
project need doing? The maintainers of the project or someone else? 
How?

Who would tell the GNUstep Foundation what is needed? How?

Therefore, is the GNUstep Foundation intended to replace the FSF?

> You seem to assume that I haven't investigated this.

Why shouldn't I? Most people who don't mention their research at all 
don't have any. Most of my questions are for information you seem to 
have, but I haven't seen. If you described this before, feel free to 
reply with a reference.

> 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.

FSF is understaffed, but any GNUstep Foundation is even more 
understaffed right now. Would likely Foundation staffers be interested 
in doing GNUstep-related work for FSF? Is that possible? What did the 
GNU Volunteer Coordinators tell you?

FSF have spent money funding GNUstep development. FSF accept donations 
specifically for the Free Software Directory and GPL Compliance Lab on 
https://agia.fsf.org/donate/directed-donations/ - Why are these not 
taking on extra responsibilities for projects other than GNU-Hurd?

You say "probably" - did you ask them, or are you predicting?

Can you explain why you rejected SPI as a project host?

--
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