On 2/13/21 1:00 PM, rosea.grammostola wrote: Almost sounds like jack2 :)

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 12:42:27PM +0100, Robin Gareus wrote: Who do not pretend to act on behalf of linuxaudio.org. Nor do they declare any other competing project 'legacy'. If anyone (member or not) can pretend to speak for linuxaudio.org then the whole consortium thing becomes a joke. -- FA

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, February 13, 2021 2:36 PM, Robin Gareus <robin(a)gareus.org> wrote: If we agree on the fact that the linuxaudio.org consortium can't be used like this, then this should be solved, right? There wasn't a problem until now, but this new situation asks for new rules or better, explicit rules. I do propose the following and it's proposed by others on the LAD list as well. It's a simple rule, which solves this situation easily, without any further efforts by the linuxaudio.org consortium. The simple rule is: The linuxaudio.org consortium doesn't release nor host software. So at this moment in time, the fork of Non Session Manager and the forked API should be removed (I suggest within a reasonable time of two weeks) from anything with a relation to the linuxaudio.org consortium. Which means they have to host the software on their own spot on the Internet. They are not allowed to use the name linuxaudio.org, nor use the linuxaudio.org domain when releasing and announcing the software. This is not only to keep linxaudio.org consortium neutral, but also to protect a fellow LAD developer. And not only this particular one, but all, now and in the future. For this particular case it means that both the original and the forked project are on equal ground. Which is normal for a fork, no privileges. The linuxaudio users will make their decision which version they'll use, which is best for them. There is no need to make this choice for them. The developers behind the fork said they stick with the original Non Session Manager (NSM) API, so that's not a problem as well. This will leads to a more balanced situation, where the linuxaudio.org consortium is still neutral, where the rights of the original developer are more protected and where the developers behind the fork, still have the right to fork. It's a simple and fair solution to all parties and good for a healthy future in my opinion. I don't see a role for the linuxaudio consortium here at all in any situation anyway. I don't see what else is needed to promote a session API then having it on a website, in the WIKI and having community members asking developers for this feature to be supported in applications and explaining them why they want API x and not y. On LAD mailinglist and at LAC conferences, developers can discuss different session manager API's and discuss the pros and cons as well. The choice should be based on quality of the API it's infrastructure and the discussion about it. Then there is the issue of the naming and especially the use of NSM. NSM stands and should stand for Non Session Manager. Raysession also uses the NSM API, but doesn't reuse the NSM abbreviation for it's name. Using the same abbreviation leads to confusing and it's in some ways deceiving. I think it would be good to handle it as if NSM was trademarked by the original author. So change the name to something totally different and tell users that the NSM API or the Non Session Manager API is used. The question is whether this is a issue for the linuxaudio.org consortium though. It's more a matter of good manners and reason and something to be handled by discussing it in the LAU/LAD community I think. It would be best if the developers behind the fork, would changed it themselves of course. Regards, \r

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, February 19, 2021 7:36 PM, Robin Gareus <robin(a)gareus.org> wrote: I see, but these are just background hosting services right? Mostly for multimedia distros with large ISO files. But there is no 'linuxaudio.org marketing' around it, nor does they pretend it is released by linuxaudio.org, nor is it released on the github page of linuxaudio. So stating that generic rule about hosting software is difficult you say. The core of the problem is clear though I think and we agree that they can't pretend they are linuxaudio.org or are releasing as it was a original linuxaudio.org release. I also think it's fair to conclude that they don't need any hosting services from linuxaudio.org. They've their own websites which they can use. It's also no problem to start a own github/gitlab project. So it's still fair to decide that they should remove all relation to linuxaudio.org, including the github page (within a reasonable timespan, like two weeks). Of course, a generic solution/ rule would be good so we don't have this issue with other projects in the future again. Maybe others have ideas for such a generic rule? \r

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, February 20, 2021 2:52 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote: If it can be solved without rules, I'm with you. And I think it would be good if we could come to a agreement this weekend about how to move on. But I don't think keeping the situation as it is, the fork releasing from and as linuxaudio.org is a good satisfactory situation to put to rest. I don't know what you mean by it exactly though. But then we didn't solve anything, while we all seem to agree that the linuxaudio.org consortium would be a joke if people just can pretend to speak or release as linuxaudio.org. For me it's a satisfactory solution when this is stopped and when they move to their own place. Which is a reasonable request imho.

I really wonder why it is so hard to say to them, to find a different spot on the Internet? The implications for them are really small. With a few clicks in github, they've cloned their repository. While the implications if they stay are really big. People should take their responsibility here.

On 2/21/21 9:41 PM, Marc-Olivier Barre wrote: Jeremy 'autostatic' Jongepier volunteered to manage hosting a few years ago. Ico and Daniel James (who provided DNS) facilitated this. IIRC cyso.com (a company Jereme is involved with) provides hosting.

On 2/21/21 11:28 AM, rosea.grammostola wrote: For me the issue is closed. No further action needed. In the past we used to have git.linuxaudio.org for community projects like this, but github.com etc have meanwhile rendered this service obsolete. As long as the NewSM team refrains from speaking for the consortium in the future, I'd let it slide with a /warning/ this time. Personally I'm against banning users, or unlinking projects. I cannot make that decision though. I have ping'ed Ico and Dave (Director and chair of the management board, respectively) and they may or may not take action. -- robin

On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 1:44 PM Robin Gareus <robin(a)gareus.org> wrote: I fully agree, and Nils has agreed in a new thread, so I feel like we are all pretty well on the same page. Let's move forward. _spencer

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 7:53 PM, rosea.grammostola In addition: there are also no practical objections for transferring the repository to their own github account. Things like issues and history can easily be transferred on github: https://docs.github.com/en/github/administering-a-repository/transferring-a… When they keep using the linuxaudio github account, you'll keep having issues and discussions. Then the boundary is still too vague. When they've their own spot instead (which is very reasonable), then you're sure this issue is permanently solved for the linuxaudio.org consortium. Then we can move forward indeed.