Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: linuxaudio.org
From: Marek Peteraj (marpet_AT_naex.sk)
Date: Wed Jan 14 2004 - 23:48:27 EET


On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 15:16, Daniel James wrote:
> > there is an argument that once the project has launched, it is
> > too late.
>
> Or before it has launched, too early? No one is twisting your arm to
> support the project.

I'm sorry to say that, but you were about to destroy the importance of
LAD with your ignorance. Why have another p-consortium mailing list? Why
should something like that be confidential?

> If it isn't doing valuable work, it won't
> survive, since it depends on volunteer input.

This isn't a project. An organisation consisting of lad members which
serves the needs of lad members and protects them isn't a project.
Sorry.

>
> > without wider community discussion, the accusation - rightly or
> > wrongly - is that it is exactly that: a cabal.
>
> I think you should look for harder targets. Why is it so bad to spend
> a few days putting the website together before it's publically
> announced? Does no-one on this list get their code in a usable shape
> before they announce their projects?

It's not about the site. It's about the consortium or whatever
organisation we're about to form. That's a *big* difference.

>
> > How can we join
> > something that doesnt exist and that we havnt been told about?
>
> If you can find time to criticise something that doesn't exist yet,
> perhaps you could answer that one for me.

You can't be serious with such statement.
 

> > although i didnt say so, i was referring to the proaudio
> > industry, which i view as being quite different.
>
> So there are good corporates and bad corporates?

You haven't read one of my previous emails i posted here i guess.
http://www.eca.cx/lad/2004/01/0063.html

> If so, can we make
> the bad ones into good ones by working with them on an equitable
> basis?

Do we want to serve companies or do we want to serve the community?

>
> > But the last few months has seen a big increase in corporate
> > stakes in linux.
>
> I would say the last few years, but I take your point.
>
> > I beleive that the controversies are only just
> > beginning to be felt.
>
> Quite true - I'm hoping we can avoid exactly this kind of problem by
> bringing the pro audio industry in from the cold.

The "project" as it is now isn't going to help the lad community and its
members leading various projects.

> They're not going
> away, and neither are we.
>
> > There has always been disagreement over
> > how much their involvement is a good thing.
>
> Consider this - we have dyne:bolic as a member, which is an avowedly
> anti-corporate project. So far, Microsoft has not asked to join.

What's your point?

>
> > The main danger for
> > me is that commercial pressures inevitably produce systems similar
> > to other existing systems aimed at the lowest common denominator.
>
> I don't see that happening in pro audio. Worry about Lindows if you
> like.

You're ignoring it. See my previous email.

>
> > > If you check the management
> > > boards of organisations like OSDL or CE Linux Forum, you'll
> > > notice that libre software projects don't get any representation
> > > there at all.
> >
> > I'm not sure its a fair comparison.
>
> They are industry consortia addressing a particular niche market. OK,
> we may not have their funding, but the principle is the same.
>
> > But i'm sorry that you
> > dont appreciate the danger that you are alienating people here
> > by doing things behind closed doors.

Exactly. To protect the interests of the lad community should be
priority #1. How it's done is a matter of discussion and reaching
consensus. This is the place for such things.

>
> I do appreciate the danger, I just wish some people would actually
> wait to see what linuxaudio.org actually is before supporting or
> criticising it.

I guess *now* most lad members have seen it.

>
>
> > I cant imagine why you chose
> > not to discuss it openly
>
> I did not choose that, I just didn't discuss it in your preferred
> forum - which is not the same thing.

You're clearly underestimating the importance of lad. Or you're ignoring
it purposely.

"Our goal is to encourage widespread code re-use and cooperation, and to
provide a common forum for all audio related software projects and an
exchange point for a number of other special-interest mailing lists.

The prime task for developers is the creation of unified interfaces that
allow existing applications to interoperate." from
http://www.linuxaudiodev.org

http://www.linuxdj.com/audio/lad/subscribe.php3

There's 700 LAD subscribers and lots more reading it on the web.
The number is growing with each month.
How many did you contact? 30?

AFAIK It's been here since - 1996 or 1997? that's 7-8 years. It has
become a traditional meeting point for most linux audio developers. It's
the linux audio developer community.

> Actually, I just wanted to make
> sure that I was doing the right thing before making a public
> announcement, so I asked the LAD members I knew first.

Why ask just a few lad members if you can ask them on lad?

>
> > Dont forget that community
> > is what makes linux what it is.
>
> I won't.

You did. And still do.

>
> > the aims are stated as:
> > The aim of the Linuxaudio.org consortium is to
> > promote and enable the use of Linux kernel based systems for
> > professional audio use.
> >
> > Thats ok for a press release, but what does it mean in practice?
>
> We'll find out.

Let's find it out here.

>
> > Its way too vague.

Exactly.

>
> I find it clearly describes what I'm trying to do - which part is
> vague?

About every part. What is it? Why should it be a consortium? Is it a
legal entity? Is it protecting oss? Is it protecting the lad community?
Is it promoting oss projects led by lad members?

>
> > What exactly are you promoting?
>
> Whatever the members are doing, I suppose.

Which members? Companies? You want to promote what companies are doing?

>
> > Its also a very wide range of companies you have there
>
> Hardly. Which ones aren't involved in Linux audio? We've got audio
> hardware, Linux distributions and audio applications represented.
>
> > No offence to these companies, but do i really want Mandrake and
> > 4Front speaking for me?
>
> This is your key misconception, and I think Marek's as well. Firstly,
> consortium members can only speak for themselves. The consortium as a
> whole can only speak for its members. If you don't join, it won't be
> speaking for you.

Why do we need this?
The lad community needs something else. First of all they deserve the
*respect* for their work. Lots of technologies and standards were born
here on LAD, such as Jack(laaga discussions and the name of jack) or
ladspa, ZKM is growing into a larger LAD conference although it will be
the second year and it's being announced *here*. So it's not just my or
Tims favorite forum.

What i had in mind was a foundation consisting of lad members, that is
natural persons, which may or may not be employed by any company. A
foundation as a legal entity governed by law, protecting the interests
of lad members, consisting of *elected* lad members. From the start.
This can't be done in 2 weeks almost confidentially( 30/700+ ratio ).
Since we all pretty much know who we respect the most for their work i
can pretty much guess the foundation members. But right now those
members are definitely not you, not me, not any company. Then again, my
model might not be the right one either. But the point is, it's what
discussions are for. And they were happening here until now.

Marek


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jan 14 2004 - 21:47:54 EET