FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-18-2012, 07:21 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default FUDcon Board Meeting

Rahul Sundaram (metherid@gmail.com) said:
> On 01/19/2012 12:41 AM, David Nalley wrote:
>
> >
> > From my POV the move in question doesn't necessarily achieve anything
> > in the vision or further Fedora's goals.
>
> We disagree on that. Point 1 and 2 in the vision requires open tools.

duckduckgo isn't open. From their own help site:
"DuckDuckGo is mostly closed source."

Bill
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 01-18-2012, 07:31 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default FUDcon Board Meeting

On 01/19/2012 01:51 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram (metherid@gmail.com) said:
>> On 01/19/2012 12:41 AM, David Nalley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> From my POV the move in question doesn't necessarily achieve anything
>>> in the vision or further Fedora's goals.
>>
>> We disagree on that. Point 1 and 2 in the vision requires open tools.
>
> duckduckgo isn't open. From their own help site:
> "DuckDuckGo is mostly closed source

Yep. We already know that from the discussions earlier. Is it a
improvement over Google is the real question however. Note, I didn't
say "open source tools"

Rahul
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 01-19-2012, 10:06 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default FUDcon Board Meeting

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:14:11AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 01/19/2012 12:41 AM, David Nalley wrote:
>
> >
> > From my POV the move in question doesn't necessarily achieve anything
> > in the vision or further Fedora's goals.
>
> We disagree on that. Point 1 and 2 in the vision requires open tools.
>
Since duckduckgo isn't open, are you saying that 1 and 2 are not applicable?

> Privacy is a important corollary to 3 in the vision statement. Vision
> statements don't mean much without any followup actions. I cannot name
> even one.
>
Reading the duckduckgo faq, it seems like their main thrust is that they
keep less information about search patterns than google. While that can be
nice if you want to maintain anonymity, it could be a feature-reducing
limitation if you (the user) do not care. If the service did everything
that google did but allowed the user to purge the data associated with them
at the click of a button that would seem like a step forward instead of
a step sideways.

I'm also not certain that I would want to apply "people control their
content and devices" to data that other people have collected. The data
collected isn't "my content" in the sense that I would have a copyrightable
right to it, for instance, which is more along the lines of how I read that
vision statement goal.

Maybe "[A world where] people can have a reasonable expectation of privacy"
belongs in there as a separate vision goal. Then again, maybe it
doesn't....

> > This isn't a case of the board skipping out on it's responsibility
> > IMO, but rather the board trying to stay out of the way and not
> > wanting to micromanage every last decision to be made.
>
> Perhaps. I think the board has ventured too far out of taking on any
> responsibility and I would prefer to see a much more active board. To
> be accused of micro managing, one needs to manage in the first place.
>
To put in a counter -- I don't think the Board has any business trying to
manage at all. Lead, yes. Manage, no.

-Toshio
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 01-19-2012, 11:07 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default FUDcon Board Meeting

On 01/20/2012 04:36 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:14:11AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 01/19/2012 12:41 AM, David Nalley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> From my POV the move in question doesn't necessarily achieve anything
>>> in the vision or further Fedora's goals.
>>
>> We disagree on that. Point 1 and 2 in the vision requires open tools.
>>
> Since duckduckgo isn't open, are you saying that 1 and 2 are not applicable?

Is that a rhetorical question? duckduckgo is more open than google is.
for instance, a more open privacy policy

> Reading the duckduckgo faq, it seems like their main thrust is that they
> keep less information about search patterns than google.

That's not all of it certainly. I recommend using it for a while. One
example.

http://duckduckgo.com/bang.html

>>
> 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

Rahul

Rahul
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 01-20-2012, 03:24 AM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default FUDcon Board Meeting

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 05:37:07AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 01/20/2012 04:36 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:14:11AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> On 01/19/2012 12:41 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> From my POV the move in question doesn't necessarily achieve anything
> >>> in the vision or further Fedora's goals.
> >>
> >> We disagree on that. Point 1 and 2 in the vision requires open tools.
> >>
> > Since duckduckgo isn't open, are you saying that 1 and 2 are not applicable?
>
> Is that a rhetorical question? duckduckgo is more open than google is.
> for instance, a more open privacy policy
>
No, it was a request for clarification. Talking about "open tools" leads me
to think you mean open source or open standards... I didn't understand what
you were saying. So what you're saying is that duckduckgo is more
transparent than google and that aligns with our vision statement better?

So to examine that:
"""
* free culture is welcoming and widespread,
* collaboration is commonplace,
"""

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?


> >>
> > 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 :-)

-Toshio
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 01-20-2012, 12:56 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default FUDcon Board Meeting

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.

>>>>
>>> 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.

Rahul
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 01-20-2012, 01:11 PM
Peter Robinson
 
Default FUDcon Board Meeting

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> 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.

The board has formed an opinion, our opinion is that its up to the
package maintainers what they ship and what is default. Midori for
example made that decision long before we were asked to discuss it.
This is no different to say the background that the design team
chooses. The fact is they are not open source or open standards. They
also have issues with results in some cases and likely aren't best for
all countries and languages.

Just because you don't like the decision the board has made it doesn't
make it the wrong decision.

I believe the packages should ship with the plugin for DDG to make it
easy for those that wish to use/test it and switch backwards and
forwards between different search engines but that is a technical
decision and hence is best decided by the package maintainer. The rest
is arbitrary and likely different based on region language as well.

Peter
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 01-20-2012, 03:19 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default 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
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 01-20-2012, 03:24 PM
Máirín Duffy
 
Default FUDcon Board Meeting

On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 08:19 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> 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.

The reason I initially raised the question to the board was because
there was a long-running board discussion either when I was on the board
or just before involving switching out the search engine on start.fpo
because using google was undesirable. So it had been a board-level issue
before.

We're still using google though, and while ddg isn't perfect, it's
better because of the privacy policy Rahul cited as well as their
donations to open source projects. It also provides choice to the end
user (so if you like google results, you can use ddg as a google
gateway) but it's a less direct / specific endorsement of any one search
engine.

~m

_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 01-20-2012, 04:56 PM
David Nalley
 
Default FUDcon Board Meeting

2012/1/20 Máirín Duffy <duffy@fedoraproject.org>:
> On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 08:19 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The reason I initially raised the question to the board was because
> there was a long-running board discussion either when I was on the board
> or just before involving switching out the search engine on start.fpo
> because using google was undesirable. So it had been a board-level issue
> before.
>
> We're still using google though, and while ddg isn't perfect, it's
> better because of the privacy policy Rahul cited as well as their
> donations to open source projects. It also provides choice to the end
> user (so if you like google results, you can use ddg as a google
> gateway) but it's a less direct / specific endorsement of any one search
> engine.
>
> ~m

IIRC this issue has come indeed come up to the board multiple times -
and at least every time in my tenure on the board, we've always said
that we didn't think there was anything for us to decide - no clear
open source search engine alternative meant it was essentially turning
it off or choosing something non-open source - both decisions we
trusted that those doing the work (websites) were capable of making
good decisions.

Privacy policy might be better. I personally, think you'd have a hard
time arguing that DDG does more for open source than google. Google
contributes and allows their folks to contribute code and other things
to open source projects, and they also contribute a ton of money to
open source endeavours, including GSoC.

All of that said - it makes no difference to me personally what the
websites team chooses to do - I am certain that those folks are
capable of making a well reasoned competent decision and don't need
meddling from the likes of me.

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:03 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org