This is my fault initially for cross-posting and whatever, is there a
better place to discuss? Here is fine with me for now but I know some
people get sick of hearing politics, and we're politicing out atm.
On 3/18/07, Paul Everitt <paul@...> wrote:
> Justizin wrote:
> > I certainly think this is an instance where the Plone Foundation
> > should be protecting the interest of Plone and of people doing their
> > best to adopt it.
> > In fact, this eats to the heart of a blog post I wrote this morning:
> > http://justizin.blogspot.com/2007/02/plone-foundation.html
> Didn't notice this until recently. To correct some points in this blog
That's alright. I really wasn't looking to make a shot heard round
the world but I did truly believe that some folks like yourself might
speak up. I've bitched about various things on mailing lists, and on
irc, and here and there, and people have said: stop bitching on the ML
and blog, so I did. I'm doing my best.
I'll recant the title here and maybe change it there and say, I shouldn't say:
"I don't like the Plone Foundation"
PF is great and there are some great folks esp paul, ben saller, jon
stahl (?), and tons of folks i'm probably not even aware of. There
are some things that make me nervous about the structure of PF and I
wanted to state, loud and clear, sort of not so loud, exactly what my
concerns are, and at that, it still ended up as a tirade. As my
business has improved, my ability to sit back, twiddle my thumbs, and
think about how better to express things is improving as well.
That said, I always want to look back at problems I've had and think
about how the world can improve based on my hardships. Sometimes this
is a great way to promote ideas as well because if I've already
overcome a barrier, and I'm still pissed about it, at least you know
it may not be entirely selfish that I want to remove the barrier. I'm
now on your side of the barrier and I want more people over here.
Really all I'm trying to say.
As I mentioned on quills list of late I am going to start a new blog
at bitmonk.net which will try to stay away from "fuck you all i hate
you" and more towards "i was thinking the other day". heck, i might
even like to be on planet plone one day if i'm a real good boy.
> 1) "With recent officialities surrounding the creation of a formal
> business structure with some associates, and concerns such as the
> purchase of USD$1M or greater of General Liability".
> I don't know what this is referring to.
Hum, this has become standard practice in my world. Basically, I have
to buy general liability insurance for my customers to cover my web
dev work. Insurance is great but I want to do the business equivalent
of being a safe driver and keep those premiums low.
I don't see this as a correction, but I'll respond. As an experienced
software engineer, the world's leading computing society have asked me
continually to provide them with Zope, Plone, Python, Web, and
Community Building Expertise. The leaders of this organization are
volunteers and, well, here's an interesting situation to take into
ACM SIGCHI is the world's leading community promoting Computer-Human
Interaction, which certainly spans accessibility. What happens if our
SIGCHI Plone site breaks Sec508? Can ACM SIGCHI be sued?
If they can, and they might be able to, then the volunteer president
who has really only personally taken on the responsibility of leading
a technology community, doesn't want a judgement against him taking
his house away.
So, when I respond to an RFP I'm making promises and I must have a
general liability policy naming the officers and directors of ACM and
SIGCHI which will pay out up to USD$1M. This really isn't a big deal
and most businesses have GL *but* I'm wondering, I get upset a lot of
times because I feel a guarantee has been made by folks in the
community and it's broken, and then we get to talking about where
there are or are not guarantees.
Maybe this is somewhere the PF has responsibility? To help define lines
> 2) "This is also a difficult issue to approach because I'm not ever
> entirely sure who all is involved,"
> ...provides a link to these listings of directors and members:
> 3) "Is there a poignant reason we don't see meeting minutes online?"
> Minutes have been online for years:
Jon Stahl posted this on planet plone. thanks. Jon also noted that
they aren't highly advertised. I would like to see this.
Of course, the same can be said for ACM, SIGGRAPH, SIGCHI minutes. We
should promote them more. I'm trying to think of ways how.
The Plone community is smaller so maybe it's a good place to start.
Jon - would you like to talk about how on plone.org to make it more
obvious that people can read the ongoing boring discussions? Not
everyone watch CPAN, but it should be in TV Guide if'n ya know what I
> 4) "I hate the freaking contributor agreement and feel that FSF and
> related contributors to the founding of PF have caved a great deal. The
> structure of PF is not consistent with the understanding of Free
> Software I've built over the past ten-plus years."
> In order to make people feel comfortable, we specifically went to Eben
> Moglen to get this done. I suspect Eben has a consistent understanding
> of free software. However, you can take that up with him. [wink]
This is what makes me so confused about this. I would like to take
this up with Eben but, I just don't understand the interplay. Far be
it of me to attack one person involved in a group. I apologize for
being in attack mode against a group of dedicated volunteers, but
still, that's all I know. I really keep my ear to the ground, and
maybe I don't hear everything, and maybe that's the problem i'm
I'm entirely qualified to jump in and help but I also know a lot about
organizational politics and communication architecture in general. It
frustrates me when I feel as if I have to become a special case and
would rather define a proper feedback process. Perhaps this is why I
use Zope altogether. I got tired of using a crappy system and
decided I'd rather try to help improve one that's better even if I
don't entirely understand it simply because it's better than wasting
my time using the wrong process.
Doesn't Eben work for Richard Stallman? My understanding as a
career-long Professional Free Software Evangelist is that the GPL is
significantly weakened if a single organization retains the right to
relicense it at any time. Specifically I do not feel comfortable
doing work with ACM Membership fees which could, under the contributor
agreement, go towards something which under BSD license could become a
We're developing GPL software. If I submit a patch to GPL software
via trac must I sign a contributor agreement? It's my strong feeling
that Free Software Licensing is structured to ensure that it is
difficult to relicense an entire codebase. This is why Eben Moglen's
employer begs the world to assign "GPLv2 or Newer". So, i'm thinking,
if he's running around contradicting that mantra.. I'm just going to
bite my tongue here.
In any case, I was very moved and also somewhat upset after hearing
Eben talk in Seattle. I do think it's great the effort that's gone
into PF but I don't appreciate the dismissive attitude toward
objection to the structure. It makes me feel as if there's some
unforeseen force at play.
I develop GPL software. I have expressed strong opinions to eben
moglen about GPLv3 and how I feel it should be more restrictive.
Allowing something as huge as Plone to be arbitrarily relicensed is
dangerous. I feel that Plone is much less "protected" by PF than the
Linux Kernel is "protected" by the nature of GPL, and that disturbs
One day push will come to shove and I'll want a frakking patch
accepted and I will sign the damned thing but I don't like it, and the
reason I don't like it is not because I'm stupid or ignorant, it's
because I've made my career about Free Software and I've marketed that
to my clients and my offering is based on that. I believe the PF
stance on this issue is a threat to my business.
> 5) "PF has the ability to relicense Plone, Archetypes, et. al. under a
> BSD-style license"
> Doing so requires a special motion passed by a super-majority of the
> members. If, for example, the "will of the community" (the PF members)
> want GPL v3, then we can do so without finding each contributor.
Or, you could follow FSF recommendation and license under "GPLv2 or
newer" which is designed to allow GPLv3 to slide in peacefully. This
doesn't address my concern about BSD licensing, which would allow
someone to create a closed-source derivative of Plone.
> Obviously this, like other choices, has pluses and minuses.
> 6) "If Plone is "Open-Source" and not "Free", then why seek the help of
> Free Software advocates, when there are perfectly good Open-Source
> This re-license conservancy scheme was designed for us by Eben Moglen as
> part of the bootstrapping of the PF:
> As one can see from Eben's text, we specifically listened to Free
> Software advocates.
But you're not listening to this Free Software advocate. What's with
all the finality?
> 7) "I fear that the community is worse off with the current PF structure
> than with an ad-hoc melee of copyright ownership."
> Before we changed to this contributor agreement, we had a choice to make
> on what our community wanted. We had a long discussion period,
> revisions to the agreements by SFLC based on the input, and we then had
> a vote. The vote passed 85-2.
How long has PF membership signup been broken on the website? I think
that I had a chance in Seattle but I was busy meeting to discuss my
FY2007 budget, sorry.
> 8) To correct a recurring mis-perception, the PF does *not* try to
> manage development. When the PF was created, we didn't want its legal
> structure to take over the community. Development decisions are still
that doesn't mean the PF cannot raise funds and provide resources. if
the community want to do something, etc..
to me when an organization has cop-out language like this the current
leadership are bored and feel as if their job is done, and no job is
> 9) To answer the question of "What does the PF do", here was a blog post
> I wrote last year summarizing the first 2 years:
I read a lot of old minutes and decided that some good things have
gone on behind the scenes. I'd love to help publicize that. That
said, members of PF board have brushed me off continually when I have
tried to discuss issues with them. I don't like that.
Please let us not go the way of the GIMP, which still works, but has
accepted few new ideas into mainstream for years.
Justin Alan Ryan
Director, Interaction Architecture
Auxilium Group, inc.: Gnudyne(tm), Qutang Networks(tm)
http://www.gnudyne.com/ | +1-415-738-7513
"You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You
lead by going to that place and making a case." -Ken Kesey