Re: Proposal for an Emacs User Survey

[Ihor Radchenko]

> 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.

I disagree that there is no point asking. Assuming that we are
interested to know about MELPA/Marmalade usage, taking information about
usage/stars/contributors/etc from third-party sources will represent
different subset of Emacs users - it cannot be compared with other
results of the presently discussed poll.

All the MELPA/marmalade statistics is inherently biased. It only
represents Emacs users using those repositories. On the other hand,
asking about package repositories in this poll will provide us with a
concrete estimate how popular are MELPA and Mermalade. In future, when
nongnu ELPA is going to be up and running for a while, it may also be
interesting to see how the popularity changes.

Best,
Ihor

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> * 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.