[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Google
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: FUDcon Board Meeting



On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 07:26:50PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 01/20/2012 09:54 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> 
> > 
> > How does the default search engine in firefox having a published privacy policy:
> > make free culture welcoming and widespread?
> > 
> > How does the default search engine in firefo having a published privacy policy
> > make collaboration commonplace?
> 
> It isn't only about the privacy policy as I already indicated.  My point
> is that the board should form a opinion when asked for instead of
> discarding it is a maintainer issue.  I don't think it is.  It is ok for
> the board to say, for reasons x,y and z we don't consider duckduckgo as
> a better default and that would be fine.
> 
Well here's the basic problem; I don't have any idea what the reason is that
you are saying that duckduckgo deserves to be the search engine on
start.fp.o or the default search engine in our web browsers.  I don't know
why those choises would be a Board issue rather than a purely technical
issue for the maintainers and FESCo to determine.

You've mentioned the privacy policy and also mentioned the Fedora Vision
Statement.  I am unable to construct a rationale that links those two
together and you're not presenting the linkage when I flail around blindly
attempting to understand your view.

So what would help is if you actually state what you see as the rationale.

Something like:

"Duckduckgo is open source so we'd be helping to spread open source software
and values by making it the default"

or

"Duckduckgo does not keep records about your search terms, only the sites
that your searches land on.  Our vision statement says that we want to live
in a world where people's online identities are not traceable to their real
life identities so this is better than what google does."

(I realize that both of these contain non-facts.  I'm giving you examples of
the logic I need to see to understand where you're coming from)

If you can give me something like that then either I'll have missed that in
evaluating whether the Board should take an active role and I might
re-evaluate whether the Board should do more.  Or I may have already been
aware of it and evaluated it when the Board made its decision but didn't
consider it worthwhile for the Board to interfere at the package level.  In
either case, I can give you an explanation of why I do or don't see that as
reason for the Board to step in and we can either move forward to changing
the Board's decision or agree to disagree.

> >>>>
> >>> To put in a counter -- I don't think the Board has any business trying to
> >>> manage at all.  Lead, yes.  Manage, no.
> >>
> >> Don't see the board doing either much
> > 
> > Which is likely better than them doing both :-)
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
<nod>  We're definitely entitled to differing interpretations of the
cost-benefit ratio of the failures when the Board attempts to manage vs the
success when the Board works on leading.

-Toshio

Attachment: pgpYaIuApaLVJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

[Home]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Linux Audio Users]

Powered by Linux

Google
  Web www.spinics.net