Re: FSFE-defined coding standards?
Trimming to get the context back... On Saturday, 13 February 2021 05:11:23 CET Jacob Hrbek wrote: > >> The (F)LOSS ecosystem is currently mostly focusing on quantity over > >> quality [...] > I would also argue that not everyone in (F)LOSS cares about their future > job in Computer Science to have such a motivation to write a good > software especially if their FLOSS software is their main source of > income such as lutris example thus why we should as a community enforce > the code quality otherwise there is really no motivation for these > developers to care. In my experience, it is the broader discipline of software engineering that upholds the quality of software products, not computer science, at least when it comes to the delivery of that software to end users. To clarify, it is often not about the best algorithms or whatever people think of as computer science, but the tedious automation that needs to be done to make sure that mistakes have not been made in producing and delivering software systems. I have worked in academia and in commerce and have found that people do indeed write software that achieves certain objectives, but the process around writing, documenting and maintaining the software involves engineering activities that are neglected. Software development, like many things, is in most cases a continuous, unceasing process; so is the pursuit of quality. [...] > As said i consider this to be self-evident otherwise we would see FLOSS > used in government (in relation to central europe) and on business level > that is almost never the case unless the business is around higher end > to understand the benefits of FLOSS and how to implement it in a sane > way, but i am happy to discuss this further if you don't think it to be > a valid argument. I don't quite follow the argument here. Are you saying that a lack of quality in Free Software products causes government and business to choose proprietary solutions? And that this occurs because they would otherwise need to remedy the quality problems (documentation, deployment, and so on) in Free Software? And that the only way they would be motivated to do so is to understand the strategic case for Free Software? I would broadly agree that the reason why Free Software sometimes does not get adopted can be due to a lack of immediate applicability. Indeed, I remember making the case that advocacy only goes so far because as soon as someone then turns round and asks for specific, usable Free Software solutions, there actually does need to be at least one usable solution in a given domain that doesn't involve excuses being made for why certain features are not there or not ready. (There are, of course, other reasons for non-adoption of Free Software, like familiarity with existing products and processes, resistance to change, corruption, and so on.) Thus, I ended up arguing for investment in Free Software development so that solutions exist that are ready for actual use. Sadly, there are still plenty of apologists for volunteer culture and the cost-cutting focus of certain factions of the "open source" movement. And although some people are getting the message, it dismays me that instead of pursuing some kind of sustainable funding model, one sees the usual tendencies to go and ask for corporate or charitable grants, and it appals me that some of these grants could justifiably be regarded as a kind of philanthropic penance for how the money has been made (not naming any particular entity that I might be thinking of as I write this). [...] > >> or software that requires “reinventing the wheel” because of authors bad > >> decision (lack of abstracting → Malpractice). > > > > Yes, "reinventing the wheel" or "not invented here" (NIH) does also affect > > FLOSS communities. Yet proprietary software development practically > > depends on it. > > That was rather meant on the development process itself to avoid major > design failures such as GTK which generates movements such as > https://stopthemingmy.app/ composed of "FLOSS developers" that are doing > their best to restrict Freedom-0 and Freedom-3 on upstream level. > - https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not-theme.github.io/issues/17 > - https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not-theme.github.io/issues/3 > - https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not-theme.github.io/issues/16 > - https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not-theme.github.io/issues/15 > - https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not-theme.github.io/issues/7 > > We as a community should educate and enforce the four freedoms as these > projects will only spread like cancer and should be labeled as FOSS > (Free as in price and without Libre). The phenomenon above is arguably less about philosophy and more about the practical issues around the design and evolution of a technology platform and the management and control issues that arise in the processes concerned. People asking that their "apps" not be themed are
Re: FSFE-defined coding standards?
On 15.02.21 07:27, krey...@rixotstudio.cz wrote: > On 2/14/21 10:35 PM, Reinhard Müller wrote: >> Just for the sake of completeness: >> >> Am 13.02.21 um 05:11 schrieb Jacob Hrbek: >>> as current coordinator for FSFE-Czechia (currently disputed by Max) >> AFAICT, the only person who claims that there is a group "FSFE-Czechia" >> and calling yourself the coordinator of that group is you. Please stop >> this. It doesn't help anything. >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> Reinhard Müller * Financial Team >> Free Software Foundation Europe >> >> ___ >> Discussion mailing list >> Discussion@lists.fsfe.org >> https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion >> >> This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All >> participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: >> https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct > > Group approved by eal to my knowledge absolutely disagree! I told you that in order to create a local group, you should start to publicly announce meetings on the fsfe infrastructure with the aim of creating a local group in Czechia and held these meetings in public. There you get to know other fsfe people, you find a transparent working mode and a project to work on and regularly invite new members on our infrastructure to join the group. And then, once you decided as a group _together_ to exist and to work further, to vote on a coordinator and a vice-coordinator together, then you can call it a new local group. There is no way for you to go around our procedures and call yourself alone an offical FSFE Czechia. Please stop this. Best, Erik -- No one shall ever be forced to use non-free software Erik Albers | Programme Manager & Communication | FSFE OpenPGP Key-ID: 0x8639DC81 on keys.gnupg.net ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: FSFE-defined coding standards?
On 2/15/21 1:52 PM, Erik Albers wrote: > On 15.02.21 07:27, krey...@rixotstudio.cz wrote: >> On 2/14/21 10:35 PM, Reinhard Müller wrote: >>> Just for the sake of completeness: >>> >>> Am 13.02.21 um 05:11 schrieb Jacob Hrbek: as current coordinator for FSFE-Czechia (currently disputed by Max) >>> AFAICT, the only person who claims that there is a group "FSFE-Czechia" >>> and calling yourself the coordinator of that group is you. Please stop >>> this. It doesn't help anything. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -- >>> Reinhard Müller * Financial Team >>> Free Software Foundation Europe >>> >>> ___ >>> Discussion mailing list >>> Discussion@lists.fsfe.org >>> https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion >>> >>> This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All >>> participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: >>> https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct >> Group approved by eal to my knowledge > absolutely disagree! I told you that in order to create a local group, you > should start to publicly announce meetings on the fsfe infrastructure with the > aim of creating a local group in Czechia and held these meetings in public. > There you get to know other fsfe people, you find a transparent working mode > and a project to work on and regularly invite new members on our > infrastructure to join the group. And then, once you decided as a group > _together_ to exist and to work further, to vote on a coordinator and a > vice-coordinator together, then you can call it a new local group. > > There is no way for you to go around our procedures and call yourself alone an > offical FSFE Czechia. Please stop this. > > Best, >Erik > > -- > No one shall ever be forced to use non-free software > Erik Albers | Programme Manager & Communication | FSFE > OpenPGP Key-ID: 0x8639DC81 on keys.gnupg.net > ___ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@lists.fsfe.org > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All > participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: > https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct For the record i went through the process. i've contacted FSFE about creating the local group and scheduled call with erik which took around an hour where he explicitly said that the group is approved on which i followed up with a plan. On the call we were discussing that this exact scenario where FSFE disputes the group status can't happen, because it would mean that the group would lost it's members and the work that has been done on it would be wasted. It happened anyway so he either didn't listen the whole time, didn't care or knew this would happen and did it intentionally. Now i lost around 2 months of my life working on this (me and group members were working on this before the group was requested) and around 21 members while looking like an idiot to everyone wishing i never sent the request. FWIW this is the most hostile working environments that i've been in 8 years. Everyone but floriansnow just seems to hate me the first day i've joined while not caring about me, czechia or anything i do. I hope it will change one day and i will be looking forward to that day, but for now i no longer want to be affiliated with FSFE. -- - Krey OpenPGP_signature Description: PGP signature ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
