Greetings !
Due to various factors I want to resign my membership in the consortium.
Nothing dramatic going on, I'm simply withdrawing from a number of comm
channels where I'm no longer participating. Please advise if there's
anything else needed to complete the process. My thanks to you all, may
you all continue with the fine work you've offered to the Linux audio
communities.
Best regards,
Dave Phillips
Consortium members and fellow Linux audio enthusiasts,
Thank you for your ongoing commitment to the Linux Audio Consortium.
As you may be already aware, recently we have had an uptick in
contentious correspondence among broader community members that has
spilled over into community's mailing lists. Please note that I am not
here to elaborate on this contentious activity nor on who or what may be
right or wrong. Instead, allow me to use this opportunity to remind you
of the purpose and the role of the Consortium.
As a volunteer-run initiative, the Consortium's sole goal is to support
all constructive efforts related to promoting and strengthening Linux as
a compelling platform for audio-related work. To this end, we support
the community by providing online resources, including our website and
mailing lists, as well as by promoting the conference.
When it comes to member projects, allow me to emphasize that the
Consortium does not take sides and that we have neither the interest nor
the capacity to manage conflict. Similarly, while member projects are
welcome and encouraged to share our logos and link to our page, we do
not approve of any statements of implicit or explicit endorsement by the
Consortium without the prior review and approval by the Consortium's
leadership.
Lastly, please note that we will take every reasonable measure in our
power to ensure that the communication channels maintained by the
Consortium volunteers remain constructive and civil. Therefore, we will
without hesitation moderate posts and suspend memberships from any
member whose participation does not meet these criteria.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best,
Ico
--
Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A.
Director, Creativity + Innovation
Co-Director, Human Centered Design iPhD
Institute for Creativity, Arts, and Technology
Virginia Tech
Creative Technologies in Music
School of Performing Arts – 0141
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540) 231-6139
ico(a)vt.edu
www.icat.vt.eduwww.performingarts.vt.edul2ork.icat.vt.eduico.bukvic.net
Hello.
I just want to make the kind people here aware of the ongoing harassment
against me by certain parties.
This now was forward to me by the CEO of MOD Devices, a company I work
for at the moment.
(Some content in Portuguese, as both me and Gianfranco speak that language).
While NON remains offline, me and all others that do Linux audio
development have been quietly minding our business.
I do not know who the sender is, but surely this is not okay.
I am posting this here since there are even links to this very mailing
list on the original email.
And it is relevant to the story anyway.
On 09/03/21 11:15, Gianfranco Ceccolini wrote:
> fala Filipe
>
> olha só o que estão me mandando...
>
> Best regards
>
> Gianfranco Ceccolini - Founder & CEO
> +49 160 646 9313
> gianfranco(a)moddevices.com <mailto:gianfranco@moddevices.com>
>
> MOD Devices
> Revalerstr. 99
> 10245 - Berlin
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *John* <malmach(a)web.de <mailto:malmach@web.de>>
> Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2021 at 23:32
> Subject: MOD Devices involved in the recent Linux Audio scandal?
> To: Gianfranco Ceccolini <gianfranco(a)moddevices.com
> <mailto:gianfranco@moddevices.com>>
>
>
> Gianfranco,
>
> I'm sure you're aware of the disgraceful actions of your employee and
> agent Filipe Ceolho with regards to exploitation of Linux Audio
> developers.
>
> First he took control of LinuxAudio.org and the critical JACK project
> under somewhat suspicious circumstances and more recently he took
> control over the Non DAW project via aggressive tactics of harassment,
> slander, deception, and abuse of power at his role in the Linux Audio
> Consortium (which he claims to be the sole representative of, as a
> dictator, without the consent of the other members of the Consortium).
>
> Here is what the author of the Non project had to say about it:
>
> https://non.tuxfamily.org/wiki/News <https://non.tuxfamily.org/wiki/News>
>
> Here is a recent discussion on the LAC mailing list about the subject:
>
> https://lists.linuxaudio.org/archives/consortium/2021-February/002187.html
> <https://lists.linuxaudio.org/archives/consortium/2021-February/002187.html>
> https://lists.linuxaudio.org/archives/consortium/2021-February/002192.html
> <https://lists.linuxaudio.org/archives/consortium/2021-February/002192.html>
>
> And here are some discussions on the LAD mailing list about it:
>
> http://linux-audio.4202.n7.nabble.com/READ-THIS-IF-YOU-CARE-ABOUT-FREEDOM-F…
> <http://linux-audio.4202.n7.nabble.com/READ-THIS-IF-YOU-CARE-ABOUT-FREEDOM-F…>
> http://linux-audio.4202.n7.nabble.com/NSM-fork-td110718.html
> <http://linux-audio.4202.n7.nabble.com/NSM-fork-td110718.html>
> http://linux-audio.4202.n7.nabble.com/Misuse-of-linuxaudio-org-consortium-t…
> <http://linux-audio.4202.n7.nabble.com/Misuse-of-linuxaudio-org-consortium-t…>
>
> Given the fact that Filipe has leveraged his employment at MOD Devices
> to legitimize his claim to power and justify his actions, how do you,
> as the CEO of Mod Devices feel about this?
>
> MOD Devices, in particular appears to be a company whose entire
> business model is based on appropriating the work of open source
> software developers without offering them compensation. To the casual
> observer, it seems that Filipe Coelho may be a plant/infiltrator put
> in place to enable MOD Devices to take control over all the critical
> subsystems in the Linux Audio space (presumably in order to generate
> profit and/or inhibit competition).
>
> Perhaps there are some journalists who might be interested in putting
> these developments before a wider audience...
>
> It seems like MOD Devices thinks they can beat Behringer at their own
> game, but what will happen to your company when Behringer decides to
> out-Behringer you?
>
>
>
Robin Gareus wrote:
> I think it is entirely appropriate when high profile members of the
> linuxaudio consortium announce a standard and use linuxaudio.org to
> promote it.
I disagree strongly.
Such a move should at least be approved by the linuxaudio.org
management board. If not, it amounts to using the consortium's
name without any authority to do so. It doesn't matter how 'high
profile' the persons involved are. No organistaion that takes
itself seriously would allow that.
> The alternative would have been to start a new organization (like
> LV2 jackaudio, FAUST etc).
Indeed, and that would be put that organization on a level playing
field, as it should be.
> Yet this would likely fragment the community further, which isn't
> in the interest of linuxaudio.org.
I don't want to be offensive, but that is the sort of argumentation
used by the likes of Putin and Erdogan to justify themselves.
Fragmentation and diversity of opinion are essential features of
any community that is not run in an authoritarian way.
Ciao,
--
FA
Hello,
New-Session-Manager maintainer here. I am not a member of the consortium so I have waited to register and speak here.
It was requested, by a consortium member, that I quickly give a statement, which I happily will.
"Linuxaudio.org presents" will not be used in the release announcement anymore. I already agreed to that before these current ML conversations.
Everything else has been already said by the consortium members and I don't see any value to repeat here what I already publically wrote in other places. I will of course answer and write something again, if any consortium member has further questions.
Greetings,
Nils
It was asked that this discussion was moved to this list since it is meta
to the LAD list itself. I will attempt to comply though this list has been
inactive for nearly 3 years.
The recent unfortunate situation highlighted by Jonathon Liles' lengthy
rant in [LAD] regarding his Non-Session-Manager software and the fork
called New-Session-Manager does raise some questions.
Johnathon has a history of being difficult to work with, caustic in his
writing, and I can understand the motives to fork, especially considering
the lengthy time since any previous NSM release. I don't think the fork is
the issue nor particularly germane to the discussion. I imagine the
situation would have been avoided with some more cooperative effort from
Johnathon, but I also won't criticize him too harshly for having a vision
for his project and rejecting requests that didn't fit in that vision.
While I do not subscribe to Johnathon's assignment of malice and subterfuge
it does seem that the list moderators releasing a fork under the
linuxaudio.org brand is probably overreaching the consortium's mission: "to
promote and enable the use of Linux kernel based systems for professional
audio use."
I believe that releasing the software under the names of the authors'
rather than under the would have helped make this situation look less like
an attempt of the organization to replace a developers project without
acknowledgement of his contributions. I'd like to politely request the
authors of the New Session Manager refrain in the future from releasing
software as official linuxaudio.org versions. It seems appropriate to me
that this be written into the policies of the consortium to avoid future
instances where developers may feel their software is being replaced by the
organization itself.
I am assuming the consortium would like to remain project agnostic rather
than picking the winners and losers of which projects get the LA.org
blessing.
_spencer
I second this request from Spencer Jackson.
No other software is released by linuxaudio.org since it's existence. It looks like the developers of the fork are using linuxaudio.org to promote their fork above the original version of a fellow LAD developer, to help them gain control over the session API and to make sure their version of the software will be included in distributions instead of the original. The fellow LAD developer and a part of his community doesn't agree with the fork. But that's not the question here. It's the fact that the developers of the fork, make it look like the fork is officially 'released' by linuxaudio.org. The developers of the fork are using their roles at linuxaudio.org to promote their fork. I think this could be seen as a misuse of linuxaudio.org consortium for their own goals and the goals of their fork. It hurts the work of a fellow LAD developer. This is not wherefore the linuxaudio.org consortium exists. This conflict of interest should be avoided.
The Linuxaudio.org consortium should be a organization which promotes linuxaudio in general, but should never choose one version of a application above a other version by a different developer. It should stay neutral in this. It's easy to fix this with a rule which states that linuxaudio.org doesn't release software itself and doesn't host software.
It looks the linuxaudio.org consortium isn't that active anymore, which could also be a reason why these developers of the fork can freely release their software as a official linuxaudio.org version. Nobody prevents them from doing so. Therefor I think the developers of the fork should be avoid this conflict of interest themselves and show some maturity and wisdom, to stop releasing their fork as it where a official linuxaudio.org version. These developers have their own websites for their software applications and they do have the skills to organize a way to work on shared code on any github repository. It's easy for anyone these days to register a own repository on github, gitlab or a similar service. There is no practical need to host the fork on the github page of linuxaudio.org.
At the end this is not about this particular forked software suite, not about the right to fork in general. This about keeping the linuxaudio.org neutral where it should be and to avoid that members/ moderators of the linuxaudio.org consortium use the consortium for their personal projects and goals. The linuxaudio.org consortium should project LAD developers, and certainly not become a competitor of them.
All though it's not about the specific software suite (Non Session Manager) and this is not about forking. I challenge those people who find it hard to divide between the two, to take a other software project in their mind and to do a thought experiment with it. How would it be if the linuxaudio.org consortium would officially release a fork of your software you worked on for more the 15 years or your favorite software application or your favorite developer, while that developer and/ or you as a user doesn't agree with it?
New-Ardour, New-Qstuff, New-Qtractor, New-Aeolus .... now officially released by linuxaudio.org!
While the original LAD developer doesn't agree with this? That's in all cases unthinkable right?
Dear Colleagues and Linuxaudio.org Consortium Stakeholders,
It's been a long time since we used these lists to communicate and
coordinate the Linuxaudio.org consortium. This was in part because the
community has experienced a steady growth both in terms of resources and
their support through Virginia Tech. Since the server was migrated to
Virginia Tech almost 12 years ago, the server traffic and its services
increased by several orders of magnitude. In 2006 we had only a couple
of vhosts with thousands of monthly hits and minimal bandwidth. In
contrast, by January 2018 those numbers grew to over 10TB of monthly
traffic with over 7 million hits spread across 40 vhosts.
As you may be by now aware, the server was severely compromised at the
end of January which warranted complete reconstruction. It appears one
of the community members' SHA keys were stolen and used to access the
terminal upon which the hacker exploited a bug in kernel to gain root
access. The good news all the data was safely backed up and recovered.
This hack was made possible in good part due to understaffed nature of
server admins. As a result a decision was made to migrate server, thanks
in good part to the hard work of Jeremy Jongepier, to the cyso.net
servers in Europe where it is anticipated to have a more regular support.
After almost 2 weeks of downtime, the end result are better hosting and
more bandwidth for the community. This, however, also marks an important
milestone in this essential community resource. Namely, I believe it is
time to once again mobilize the management group and to establish an
advisory board or a steering committee that will help steer the
consortium and jointly explore ways to provide better and more
consistent support, ensure we offer up-to-date information, to grow the
resources, their visibility, and footprint, as well as consider
establishing a foundation that may help facilitate and support critical
programs, including the LAC conference.
With this in mind, I invite those who are still active in the community
and are receiving this email to voice their thoughts on this matter for
the purpose of identifying optimal next steps. Thank you.
Best wishes,
Ico
--
Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A.
Creative Technologies in Music
Director -- DISIS, L2Ork, CTM
ICAT Senior Fellow
Virginia Tech
School of Performing Arts – 0141
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540) 231-6139
ico(a)vt.edu
www.performingarts.vt.edudisis.icat.vt.edul2ork.icat.vt.eduico.bukvic.net
