Re: Proposal for an Emacs User Survey

[Thibaut Verron]

> > Just as a reminder, here is what the email starter suggested:
> >
> > > a survey for Emacs users to better grasp the diversity and various usages
> > out there
> >
> > There is nothing about taking practical decisions or encouraging free
> > software (or anything) there.
>
> Every opinion poll survey has a purpose, normally the purpose is to
> find out what majority wish and want to improve the product or service
> and thus reach or gain more customers, strike it, users.

Yes it has a purpose, I quoted it above. To understand "the diversity
and various usages out there". Specifically excluding some popular
usages defeats that purpose.

If anything, wouldn't we want to get an idea how many Emacs users
currently use a non-free package repository?

On the other hand, there are no questions in the suggested list about
what people want.

> > Would it be acceptable to put all major package repos in the list,
> > with a warning saying that melpa is not a free software repository?
>
> Are there many package repositories? I know of three, there will be
> fourth soon elpa.nongnu.org or similar.

Yes, that sounds about right.

> They do provide free software naturally as packages should be GPL so
> far I understand (not sure), but if they wrap non free software or
> have pointers to non free software, such recommendation would be
> contrary to principles why GNU Emacs have been made as free software.

I don't understand why a question in a survey would be seen as a recommendation.

That's similar, in a sense, to those social surveys asking people if
they have done drugs. I don't think those want to encourage people to
take drugs.

> > The same warning could be used when mentioning windows, non-free
> > IDEs, etc.
>
> Warning you mention is used on Emacs download page, see
> https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/download.html

Great, so there is precedent ! Why is it acceptable and sufficient on
the main download page but not acceptable in a survey?

Those words are a bit too harsh when applied to Melpa, I hope that we
agree on that. And nobody likes to read propaganda (no matter how
justified) in a survey, so having such a long tirade could again lead
to selection bias.

But, for example, wouldn't something like below be both short and
explicit enough?

"- Melpa (Note: Emacs and the GNU project DO NOT ENDORSE package
repositories which encourage non-free software, see
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/)"