I acknowledge totally the introspection of Luis Falcon on this matter. C*
--------------------- Christopher Dimech General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Geophysical Simulation - Geological Subsurface Mapping - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation - Natural Resource Exploration and Production - Free Software Advocacy > Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 11:40 PM > From: "Luis Falcon" <fal...@gnuhealth.org> > To: "Alfred M. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> > Cc: savannah-hackers@gnu.org, b...@proulx.com > Subject: Re: Subprojects in Savannah > > Hello, Alfred > > Thank you for your mail and for your comments. > > On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 04:33:03 -0500 > "Alfred M. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > Sorry, I've waited too long. I have started the migration o the GNU > > Health mercurial repository to OSDN. It's a pity, but it seems > > like the requests over these years for the modernization of Savannah > > have not been taken into consideration. > > > > They have, but like all volunteer projects -- someone has to do the > > work. Would you like to help with that? Nothing will happen, nor > > will it help Savannah or the GNU project if everyone does nothing. > > > > Please, let's stop using the volunteer job as an excuse. Many of us > volunteer in different projects, not just technical. Volunteering > implies commitment. > > Don't take this personal, is not directed to anyone in particular. What > I mean is that sysadmin or management o Savannah can not be something > that we do in our spare time or if we feel like doing it. > > And yes, I have proposed different models and Libre platforms for > Savannah. In my opinion, spending time patching an obsolete system is > not the right approach. > > I could have created the repositories myself in 5 minutes, as I did in > OSDN, if I had access to that resource. We need to be in full control > of our resources. > > I don't want to get back to the old discussion on who is in charge of > GNU resources, and who has access to the servers. > > > How is OSDN ranked on the GNU Ethical Repository list? . > > You mean https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html ? > > OSDN has not been evaluated by GNU, and I explained my criteria to > choose it on the news. > > I find very worrisome that GNU approves platforms which deny access to > citizens from some countries, like our friends from Cuba. Denying > access to Libre social projects based on the country of residence or > origin is an flagrant attack to human rights. > > > You say that it only hosts free software licesed projects, but that > > isn't what they say -- the say open source licenses, this is not the > > same. > > I agree, I don't like the term "Open Source", and I also try to avoid > using the term "Free". I like to use the term "Libre". There might be > OSI approved licenses that we might agree or disagree. We use GPL v3+. > Some colleagues might like it and some other might use BSD for their > projects. That is their choice and we should respect it the same way we > want them to respect ours. > > > > > I suggest that GNU health moves back to savannah, it isn't too late to > > do this. > > GNU Health is still in Savannah. Mailing lists, bugs, tasks, news, file > releases are in place and operational. > > > What needs to be done for this to happen? > > This is the deal... If by tomorrow we have the repositories in GNU, I > will set the newly created repositories at OSDN as read-only > Here is the list of repositories: > https://osdn.net/projects/gnu-health/scm/ > > This deadline is not capricious. Reverting this decision supposes a big > effort for me and for the community. Because of the history of the > project and the relation with GNU, I am willing to give it one more try, > but we can not halt the project development. At the end of the day, it > takes two to tango. > > We need the freedom to manage our computing resources at GNU.org. > It's ironic, but we're failing on the very concept that we want the > community to follow, the freedom to manage their computing resources. > > For instance, we should, as project administrators, have shell access to > create and manage the needed resources, or an alternative that won't > require us having to ask the GNU sysadmins to do it for us. Requesting > help from sysadmins should be a last resort, in case of emergency. The > management of our projects should be done by ourselves. > > > > > I even asked in the meantime to manually create some additional > > repositories, but I never got an answer. > > > > Did you remind them? It might be that they simply missed it. > > How many times? I asked to sysadmin to create the repos, then I was > re-directed to Savannah hackers, start from zero again, to reach this > dead-end, where I had no other choice than to host the repositories > outside GNU.org > > I feel awkward asking for things over and over again. I don't want to > bother anyone. > > > > Here is the news: > > https://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=9874 > > > > You are using the word ecosystem -- something that lacks any kind of > > ethical or moral judgment -- to describe GNU Health, it is a word best > > to avoid in describing free software and GNU projects. See > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Ecosystem . > > I strongly disagree, and I kindly ask to please remove this wrong, > pejorative, and reductionist interpretation of the term ecosystem from > GNU.org site. It is completely out of place. > > I often explain the importance of collaboration and cooperation among > diverse actors, and what I call "collective freedom" as the main > driving force for evolution in our societies. In this context, GNU > Health is a digital health ecosystem. > > Ironically, many in the Libre software community are influenced by > the anthropocentric, selfish and competitive vision of this world. The > vision of the human being superior to other species and the > competition-driven, capitalist society have made this planet a trash > bin, a daily Treblinka to many species and an ever increasing social > gap and exclusion. > > > Best, > Luis > > >