[Arm-netbook] Standards Organization as a Potentially Universal Free/Libre Software Developement Sustenance Model

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Jean Flamelle <eaterjolly at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/17, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
>>  liked some, didn't like others.  "etiquette guidelines" doesn't have
>> the same toxic punch as "code of conduct" is well-known for.
>
> The word "code" in "code of conduct" does usually implies formal
> membership, so I thought it might be confusing to some people if the
> phrase became popular in closed circles.

 no - it's well-known that "code of conduct" is a dangerous, toxic and
 highly unethical system of "control" over contributors.  *i* didn't know
 that, so i did a comprehensive analysis here on the list about 6-8
 months ago, and emphatically agreed with the assessment.

 unfortunately there are many many projects that have absolutely no
 idea of the dangers of "codes of conduct" so continue to deploy them.

 so the idea is to *specifically* identify those projects that have one
 of these dangerous "codes of conduct" in order to see if there is a
 correlation between harm done to developers and end-users and the
 use of such toxic documents.


> Etiquette guidelines isn't perfect either, because samba technically
> actually has a page called "Etiquette" however that refers to trimming
> mailing list posts and not in any way how people ought to treat each
> other.

 okaaay.... sooo.... that should probably go on a "/" mailing list /
ML-etiquette


> Perhaps "Contributor Conduct Guidelines"?

 no.  sorry.  explained above.

>   liked
>> the idea of including the VCS and if it's libre-hosted (likewise for
>> bugtracker) but *not* the wording you chose ("self-hosted").
>
> I opted to separate it like that to make it more unambiguous, since
> there are two possible definitions of libre in regard to websites:
> open-source/free scripts and open-source/free server code.

 hmmm.... *thinks*... is the distinction important?  don't know.  so
it should probably go on the list.  it might be statistically
significant.

 so a column "Web site source available / License"
 and now that i think about it "Documentation source available / License"

 should be added

> Most
> browsers provide no practical way to prove the source code belongs to
> the scripts actually sent by the server, without running them,

 someone somewhere will run librejs to determine that

> and
> because of this it might be argued that the server code should also be
> libre so that anyone could run an offline mirror.

 more importantly they can *fork* the project.... but only if the full
source of the web site server source is available and does not
critically depend on proprietary components.

> If we say arbitrarily that a website is libre it could mean one of
> three things: functions w/o script, open-source/free scripts, or
> open-source/free server code.

 true.

> The assumption is that if the server code is libre, then self-hosting
> should make by extension the repositories libre. Though, I suppose
> there would be nothing hindering someone from just omitting that part
> of the server code, on second thought. It's a tricky situation.
>
>
>>  also i turned the table round by 90 degrees as i could see it getting
>> far too long, and then broke them down into related groups.  still
>> some TODO.
>
> Thanks, much less cluttered!
>
> I use cut-and-paste to convert the spaces to tabs just now to clean the source.

 yuck.   please don't: i use 4-spaces-per-tab where other people will
use 8.  also, the reason for using spaces is because you can just put
your editor into "replace" mode and the formatting remains stable.

please put it back.

> Also, on a side note, I put urbit on there because they are unorthodox
> and because they have an unusually high ratio interest compared to
> people actually able to contribute, much like you would expect from
> RISC or KiCAD, but not 'another' replacement for apache.

 hmmm, ok, cool.  hmm... reminds me, established date should be added.

l.