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
