Re: Proposal for an Emacs User Survey

[Jean Louis]

* Thibaut Verron <thibaut.verron@gmail.com> [2020-10-12 08:34]:
> > > 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.

Tell me examples of popular usage that you refer to?

Free form gives enough possibility for any user to explain anything
they wish.

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

I am not sure if there is any non-free package repository for
Emacs.

MELPA is fetching most packages from the Microsoft Github, and Github
dictates free licenses for any public repository, most of them are
free software. For me is hard to find particular example that uses non
free software. 

That will be work to do, to move some public packages to non-GNU ELPA.

MELPA recipes can be cloned, copy of software can be placed on
nongnu.org automatically, later revised from TODO to be TO PUBLISH,
and distributed ethically. 

> > 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.

Above paragraph refers to MELPA, that could wrap non free software in
the free software packages. I can then imagine links in packages pointing
to non free software, that is what was meant with recommendation. It
does not refer to questions in the opinion poll.

> 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?

It is not a new precedent, it was from the creation of Emacs to talk
about free software, and advise people. In my opinion GNU project
should increase the marketing of free software philosophy by power of
10, it is not enough.

> 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.

GNU project with promotion of free software is not biased as that
would mean that it is influenced in an unfair way.

GNU project is influenced in a fair way and thus should be promoting
and supporting free software and helping users of proprietary software
to understand what is free software and freedom in computing.

The word propaganda you maybe used in a negative connotation, but the
word itself means promoting information to spread some cause. Who is
not interested, would not read it. The point of propaganda that some
will get interested, so propaganda gives results for those who are.

> 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/)"

I do not think that it is necessary for survey from GNU Emacs to ask
if people are using Melpa or whatever other software
repository.

Reason for that is that it is obvious that people do, people ARE using
MELPA and Marmalade software repositories; AND more important reason
not to ask is that information about usage of those repositories,
likes, number of contributors, it is already available on the
Microsoft Github "Insights" link on the MELPA page. There is no point
in asking users what is already obvious. There are stars or likes on
Github.

If there is certain disagreement between GNU and MELPA, that is valid
reason as well. 

In my opinion, the team of MELPA is preparing the list of packages
well, then GNU team working on ELPA on nongnu.org can fork all the
software and curate and remove whatever is unsafe or not ethical and
make a new repository.