From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark H Weaver Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Towards De-icing ice-9 modules. Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:57:32 -0500 Message-ID: <87k2m9twvn.fsf@netris.org> References: <87wpq9tyo5.fsf@netris.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1455314290 4084 80.91.229.3 (12 Feb 2016 21:58:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:58:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Chad Albers Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 12 22:58:01 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aULix-0003IG-PN for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:57:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36618 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aULix-0001vA-5U for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:57:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39649) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aULit-0001uy-Vq for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:57:56 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aULip-0008OR-Ut for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:57:55 -0500 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:52251) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aULip-0008N4-QT for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:57:51 -0500 Original-Received: from turntable.mit.edu ([18.160.0.29] helo=jojen) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1aULii-0001zC-Jn; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:57:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Chad Albers's message of "Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:37:48 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.90 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 50.252.239.5 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:18173 Archived-At: Chad Albers writes: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote: > > > I would thank you for this, but I cannot even view it without running > nonfree software on my machine. Posting this link essentially puts > pressure on those who wish to have a voice in this discussion to use > nonfree software, and excludes those who take a principled stand against > using nonfree software. That's not good. > > > (I apologize that it's a google document. I couldn't find a > > comparable,free software online collaborative alternative. suggestions > > are welcome). > > We must not collaborate on a platform where using nonfree software is a > prerequisite for entry. > > Can you please send it in email as plain text? > > > I adamantly agree with your sentiments. The ideal solution in my > opinion would be a wikipage, so people could comment. Does anyone have > access to one that we all could also read, without having to create a > user-account (bonus points)? Another issue is that it would be good for this discussion, as well as the drafts of your proposal, counterproposals, etc, to be archived somewhere that we can be reasonably confident will still exist and be easy to find in 20 years or more. If we use a collaborative document editor implemented in Javascript, then participants in the discussion will have no good choice but to use that one centralized tool to edit the proposal, write comments, etc, and I'm doubtful that the history of edits, draft proposals and discussion will be easily reviewable in 20 years. We have a long history of making proposals, revising them, and discussing them here on the mailing list in plain text. This not only ensures that all of the relevant information is archived, but also allows people to use their preferred email client and text editor to modify the proposals and respond to them. Does that make sense? Thanks, Mark