Re: [Fsfe-uk] Just a Minute

[Martyn Ranyard]

At 05:14 PM 4/15/02 +0100, Martin Coxall wrote:

> > Learn some manners and common decency. Do you seriously think ANYONE will
> > be prepared to take notes next time there is a meeting if you continue to
> > berate the ones I did in such an aggressive and unpleasant way?
>
> Frankly, I would rather there were no minutes at all, rather than
> inaccurate, airbrushed minutes with some undisclosed agenda which
> neglect to mention any signs of dissent. Wouldn't you?

Not on your life - if members who weren't there had no minutes, then the 
organisation crumbles - Fail to inform people, and they will become 
disheartened/detatched.  Minutes are a necessary evil, and if you feel that 
the person taking the minutes hasn't done justice, then you should start 
out saying how you saw it - which was not how this debate got started.

> The suggestion that you shouldn't criticise someone for doing a bad job
> lest it be a disincentive for them to do an equally bad job in the
> future strikes me as a ludicrous one. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on
> the logic?

The logic may not be obvious, but it holds - such personal attack on the 
minute writer rather than on the minutes is not what gets results, it's 
what sends people running.

At 05:10 PM 4/15/02 +0100, he also wrote:
> Let's try "inaccurate" then. I don't think we can or should seek to
> advance free software in vacuum. We should seek to defend freedom and
> thus allow free software to flourish.

AFFS is an organisation that's main focus has to be on Free Software - 
anything else and it's whole basis for being formed is undermined.  Maybe 
you should set up AFFUK (Association For Freedom in the UK), but attempting 
to start such an abstract group and actually get members is a mammoth task.

> That's a fallacy of the undistributed middle. By being pro-freedom, we
> are for free software. *However* being for free software doesn't mean
> that we should have some limited aim of "advancing free software" whilst
> ignoring the wider issues of freedom.

Quite right - we should have a stance on things outside of software, but 
with the name of the organisation, we shouldn't be shifting our focus too 
far from software.

> > Of course there are; the current conflict in the Middle East is a
> > shining example.
>
> Making spurious statements like that isn't helpful. As I said, we are
> talking about fighting for freedom from corporate and government
> oppression. If we succeed, free software will flourish as a side effect.

Neither is it helpful to pick at points.  Occationally people have to let 
things lie.

> > In the context of AFFS, though, there isn't. It exists to promote Free
> > Software. For the committee to do otherwise would be to cheat the
> > membership.
>
> Really? "Exists to promote free software" is again vague and inaccurate.
> If the constitution says this, I think it should be removed.

As the organisation name stands, it is the perfect thing to have _IN_ the 
constitution.

> I think to ignore these real threats to freedom, whilst indulging in
> some narrow-minded obsessing about whether St Neots school in Plympton
> is using Evolution or Outlook would be a gross treachery to the entire
> Free Software movement.

I don't think anyone want's to ignore freedom, but if the children of 
Plympton is using Free Software, it helps the cause of Free Software

> And yet, since we don't yet have a membership to speak of, now would be
> a good time to decide exactly these things.

I think that the name does not allow us to shift away from the focus we had 
already discussed on list.  It appears too late to shift so radically, as I 
think we would lose a number of those "few members" that we have worked so 
hard to get together.

> > > You really should have been there on Saturday, then maybe we could have
> > > had this discussion properly.

Not everyone has the resources or ability to travel to all meetings (250 
miles in my case).

> > Well, I'm usually available in London if people want to talk to me. I'm
> > also available off-list. But I don't think this is an on-topic
> > discussion for address@hidden, unless I've misinterpreted you?
>
> What? This entire discussion is about as on-topic as it gets. I think
> you must have misinterperted me.

Both valid points - the FSF-Europe is, as AFFS is, focussed on software, so 
in that respect it could be deemed off topic, it certainly would be for 
@affs.org, however it is about freedom, and therefore does affect free 
software.


Martyn Ranyard
Free Software Advocate

icq - 122500800
irc - Joran on OPN
msn - address@hidden
y!  - ranyardm
e   - address@hidden