13 Jan
2004
13 Jan
'04
5:29 p.m.
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 11:43, Daniel James wrote:
I could help with that. I didn't know about that.
Exactly, 'personally' is your problem.
It doesn't matter who registers the site.
Are you kidding me? Who's the one taking action? Did i suggest to take a
look at xiph foundation or gnome foundation...?
Do you think they will - without any users?
So you do have official status then?
Did you ask anybody? Any voting?
What should it tell me?
Sorry. I didn't know that criticism = trolling for you.
Is there any
chance you'd postpone it and announce the project and
the beta site on lad for further discussing before launching it?
No. As I've already explained, my view is that membership of a
particular mailing list does not confer veto rights over any project
that happens to have the words Linux and Audio in its name.
Unfortunately, not much people did know about it,
except those
you've contacted.
er... perhaps that's because I haven't made the initial public
announcement yet, which will go out tomorrow. I've been working on
this for less than two weeks, and some things take a few days to
prepare. there are lots of people who would like to
contribute to such project and lots of people with great ideas on
how to move on. It's just different when you make decisions on your
own.
We obviously have very different ideas about project management. Where
would the Linux kernel be if Linus hadn't started it by himself? (not
that I'm comparing my technical ability to Linus's for one moment.)
The alternative is to pre-announce the project, then form a committee
to discuss the issues for 20 years or more - examples would be
Xanadu, or GNU Hurd, or the lean and stable version of Windows.
I know from experience with libre software, wireless networks and many
other areas that it's all very well talking about a project, but if
there isn't one or two people to actually do the work then it won't
happen. You can call it leadership if you like, but I'm not out to
found a dictatorship here. I just happen to be the only person who
bothered registering the domain name and committed to seeing the
project through to launch.
Discussion is what shapes a project
No, action shapes a project. Discussion without action is just a
pressure wave in air.
The problem is that we should follow
basic principles of democracy. This didn't happen.
I think you're pre-judging an organisation that hasn't even launched
yet. If you read the Policy page of the website, you'll see I have
deliberately set up an organisation with a management board made up
of members representatives, which oversees the Director.
Did any voting
happen?
Not yet.
Any discussion?
Yes.
You have obeyed lots of lad members by not
asking them.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean here.
My intention was based on following principles:
1. inform about plans, ideas
2. discuss, try to form conclusions
3. take action
You've still got time to take action.
Seems like you'd like to go the other way
around.
Actually, I don't see project management working in such a linear
fashion. There has to be 1, 2 and 3 happening in parallel.
The problem is that the name 'linux
audio' actually *represents*
both the linux audio developer community and the linux audio user
community
Not at all. Neither linux.com or linux.org have any special status in
the Linux community - they're just domain names.
both meet at a common place which is the lad or
lau
mailing list. It's where the discussion takes place
But not the action?
Second problem is to find a way for new users and
developers to
find everything they need related to linux audio *and* to make it a
meeting point, or even provide necessary resources to help new
audio projects grow.
Personally, I saw little value in replicating the work of existing
sites, or creating an all-encompassing portal. The key is the name of the domain. It's
www.linuxaudio.org.
Not any more, I'm afraid. If you wanted that domain name six months
ago you should have registered it then. The problem is lots of people won't find what
they actually wanted to find on such place.
Until a couple of weeks ago there was nothing at all there, so I hope
this site will be an improvement.
The consortium isn't the most necesary
solution that will boost
linux audio
I disagree. If you don't want to co-operate, you are free to start a
better project.
it's not something people might find
interesting
if they want to know about linux audio.
The new user might be better off at other sites, it's true.
linux-sound.org or djcj.org already exist.
It's
1. providing information,
2. providing a meeting place for devs and users,
3. providing necesary resources, similar to sf.net
That's your project, not mine. No-one is stopping you doing that.
the members should be *natural persons*, lad
members, and the organisation should be focused on the *community*,
not on companies.
Again, you're talking about a different project. As for companies, who
do you think employs members of the community to work on Linux audio?
Linuxaudio.org gives libre software projects and companies equal
status - that's pretty rare for an industry body.
The
organisation should exist to protect the interests of the LAD
community.
As defined by yourself? All I'm trying to do here is bring people
together for mutual benefit, be they manufacturers, developers, or
users.
??
That's why i *strongly* suggest - let's
postpone it. Let's
discuss it. Let's make a decision at ZKM LAD meeting 2004 :)
I can't do that now. You're demanding veto power again. But a formal org. has no meaning if it isn't
governed by law.
Plenty of important Linux-related organisations aren't legal entities.
If it proves necessary later, we can go down that path.
How
should it act and protect the interests of lad community?
We'll find out after the launch.
time to start a organisation - a foundation
consisting
of lad members.
If you look at the current membership list you'll see they mostly are
LAD members already.
The question is not whether it's
*yours* or *mine*.
I'm afraid it is, because you're trying to impose your decisions on
me.
The point is that it's an *acknowledged*
place
Yes, for discussion among developers - Linuxaudio.org is both
different and complementary to the LAD list.
every little thign
happened to be discussed there, teh name of jack, the logo of lad,
the content of www.linuxaudiodev.org site, the LAD meetings etc and
i'm just mentioning thing which aren't related to coding
That's hardly everything. Let me be explicit about the limitations of
the current set-up.
1. Generally, very poor relations between hardware manufacturers and
LAD community. You'd think that anyone writing a driver, or otherwise
offering gratis support for the audio hardware of a particular
manufacturer, would be welcomed with open arms. Not so - hackers
can't even get full specs sometimes, let alone technical partnership
or 'free as in beer' test kit.
2. Fragmentation - what organisation there is, is informal. Companies
that want to have better relations with the LAD community don't know
where to start. Result - those companies aren't taking Linux based
audio products to the mainstream. Also see 1. above.
3. Developers are busy. They don't always have the time or skills to
do advocacy, write articles for magazines or organise public events.
The result is that advocacy just isn't being done as much as it could
be. Linux has been around more than a decade, but it hasn't been
until this year that we'll see the first appearance of libre software
at audio industry trade shows.
If the
linuxaudio.org project intends to have official status, then
you should *first* take LAD and ZKM conference seriously
I do. They have a certain amount of natural authority.
as
something with official status.
You're just wrong here. They have no official status which allows them
to dictate how advocacy is done - neither do you. By not doing that, you're actually completely
careless about the
entire LAD community.
I think you're just complaining because you feel like the last to know
- even though it doesn't even launch until tomorrow. In the
pre-launch phase, I've discussed linuxaudio.org with every LAD member
that I know.
So how come you're the director of a
consortium before lots of
linux audio people know about it
Lots of Linux audio people do know about it. The reason I made myself
the director is that someone has to take responsibility, and put in
the hours of unpaid work it requires to launch the project. If you
read the Policy page you'll see that the director has to answer to
the management board, which means I can easily be replaced after the
launch.
a director of a consortium
which you wouldn't even think of if those people didn't develop
such apps?
I took this unpaid job on because no-one else was doing it. So far,
I'm funding linuxaudio.org out of my own pocket. I'm quite aware of
the fundamental contribution of libre software developers to the
systems I use, which is why they have equal weight with companies on
the linuxaudio.org management board.
Sorry but 'equal' just isn't the right word for it, 95% vs. 5% would be.
Woudln't it be better if those people
we're acting in
such position?
LAD members have had plenty of time to set up an organisation of this
nature, and none of them have. What does that tell you? Are you sure you're protecting the interests
of the
community?
Quite sure. Now please stop trolling and make a positive contribution.
Cheers
Daniel James
Director
http://linuxaudio.org
Marek
13 Jan
13 Jan
5:57 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 12:29:45AM +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
(snip a whole lot)
What the heck is this all about?
Looks like a discussion cross-posted from elsewhere mid-argument?
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
Look! Up in the sky! It's BUSHY NINJA!
(random hero from isometric.spaceninja.com)
14 Jan
14 Jan
6:11 a.m.
If the linuxaudio.org project intends to have official
status,
then you should *first* take LAD and ZKM conference seriously
I do. They have a certain amount of natural authority.
as
something with official status.
You're just wrong here. They have no official status which allows
them to dictate how advocacy is done - neither do you. I took this
unpaid job on because no-one else was doing it.
Did you ask anybody? Any voting?
We can't take a vote on anything until there's some sort of structure
in place to organise the voting - that's exactly what we're trying to
do with the linuxaudio.org management board.
I'm quite
aware
of the fundamental contribution of libre software developers to
the systems I use, which is why they have equal weight with
companies on the linuxaudio.org management board.
Sorry but 'equal' just isn't the right word for it, 95% vs. 5%
would be. LAD members
have had plenty of time to set up an organisation of
this nature, and none of them have. What does that tell you?
What should it tell me? I didn't know that criticism = trolling for you.
My definition of trolling would be persistent, unfair and unhelpful
criticism. I'm all favour of positive criticism - I'd settle for
neutral criticism. Please give us a break until after the launch at
least.
Cheers
Daniel James
Director
http://linuxaudio.org
7:39 a.m.
Daniel,
Would you mind putting your case to the wider community here?
Marek has objections which appear to have some weight but
i'm sure i'm not the only one who doesnt really know what is
going on here.
There are some thorny subject matters involved. It is very important
that representation of linux audio to the outside world is done
correctly. It is not an easy thing to do. Likewise, corporate
involvement is also pretty controversial.
regards
--
Tim Orford
8:13 a.m.
Would you mind putting your case to the wider
community here?
It's my intention to do that with the launch of the project later
today.
Marek has objections which appear to have some weight
Only if you don't know what we're doing. Given that the project isn't
even underway yet and has only been in preparation for the last
couple of weeks, it's premature for Marek to attempt to both force
the direction of the project and prevent the site from being
launched. He wanted the domain name himself for a different site, but
he didn't bother to register it.
but
i'm sure i'm not the only one who doesnt really know what is
going on here.
Hence the need for the launch to be done properly, which takes time of
course. As I explained to Marek, I'm not going to launch a project
with zero community support. All I've been doing in the last couple
of weeks is putting the idea to the LAD members that I know (or know
by their software), and asking for their support. We can now launch a
project with 17 members organisations rather than zero members, which
in my view is now far more likely to succeed. It's not a cabal, and
we haven't stopped anyone from joining.
It is very
important that representation of linux audio to the outside world
is done correctly. It is not an easy thing to do.
You're quite right, especially as there is little financial support
for advocacy work. I'm launching this on my own time and funding it
out of my own pocket, but after that it's up to the management board,
representing the membership, to decide if I need to be replaced as
Director. But someone has to get the project started.
corporate involvement is also pretty controversial.
Corporates are already critically involved in Linux audio. Andrew
Morton is paid for his kernel work through OSDL - check their
membership list. ALSA is supported financially by SUSE, owned by
Novell. These firms are as corporate as it gets.
What matters to me is that corporate interests don't overrule other
interests. Linuxaudio.org is mostly composed of libre software
projects, who get a seat on the management board, just like companies
- regardless of size. 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.
Cheers
Daniel
9:20 a.m.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 12:10:52PM +0000, Daniel James wrote:
there is an argument that once the project has launched, it is
too late.
without wider community discussion, the accusation - rightly or
wrongly - is that it is exactly that: a cabal. How can we join something
that doesnt exist and that we havnt been told about? Its all a bit
surreal.
So how do i join? You need a european sound engineer perhaps.
As you havnt made a case, i couldnt comment on whether the project
is needed. And we are all doing this on our own time...
Ok, although i didnt say so, i was referring to the proaudio
industry, which i view as being quite different. I agree that
the work done by companies such as SUSE on system infrastructure
is valuable.
But the last few months has seen a big increase in corporate
stakes in linux. I beleive that the controversies are only just
beginning to be felt. There has always been disagreement over
how much their involvement is a good thing. The main danger for
me is that commercial pressures inevitably produce systems similar
to other existing systems aimed at the lowest common denominator.
Would you mind
putting your case to the wider community here?
It's my intention to do that with the launch of the project later
today.
Marek has objections which appear to have some
weight
Only if you don't know what we're doing. Given that the project isn't
even underway yet and has only been in preparation for the last
couple of weeks, it's premature for Marek to attempt to both force
the direction of the project and prevent the site from being
launched. He wanted the domain name himself for a different site, but
he didn't bother to register it. but
i'm sure i'm not the only one who doesnt really know what is
going on here.
Hence the need for the launch to be done properly, which takes time of
course. As I explained to Marek, I'm not going to launch a project
with zero community support. All I've been doing in the last couple
of weeks is putting the idea to the LAD members that I know (or know
by their software), and asking for their support. We can now launch a
project with 17 members organisations rather than zero members, which
in my view is now far more likely to succeed. It's not a cabal, and
we haven't stopped anyone from joining. It is very
important that representation of linux audio to the outside world
is done correctly. It is not an easy thing to do.
You're quite right, especially as there is little financial support
for advocacy work. I'm launching this on my own time and funding it
out of my own pocket, but after that it's up to the management board,
representing the membership, to decide if I need to be replaced as
Director. But someone has to get the project started. corporate involvement is also pretty
controversial.
Corporates are already critically involved in Linux audio. Andrew
Morton is paid for his kernel work through OSDL - check their
membership list. ALSA is supported financially by SUSE, owned by
Novell. These firms are as corporate as it gets.
What matters to me is that corporate interests don't overrule other
interests. Linuxaudio.org is mostly composed of libre software
projects, who get a seat on the management board, just like companies
- regardless of size. 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.
I'll wait until your announcement. But i'm sorry that you
dont appreciate the danger that you are alienating people here
by doing things behind closed doors. I cant imagine why you chose
not to discuss it openly. Dont forget that community
is what makes linux what it is.
-------------
i just saw the url posted by Fred Gleason.
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?
Its way too vague. What exactly are you promoting?
Its also a very wide range of companies you have there - too wide?
No offence to these companies, but do i really want Mandrake and
4Front speaking for me?
cheers
--
Tim Orford
10:19 a.m.
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. If it isn't doing valuable work, it won't
survive, since it depends on volunteer input.
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?
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.
So how do i join?
Just ask. At the moment linuxaudio.org is conceived as a
meta-organisation, representing existing projects and companies,
rather than individuals directly. Is there a particular project
you're involved in?
You need a european sound engineer perhaps.
Without a doubt.
As you havnt made a case, i couldnt comment on whether
the project
is needed.
Can you wait a day?
And we are all doing this on our own time...
Not all of us. I run my own studio (Linux based of course), and I also
write for audio and Linux magazines, which I do get paid for. Not a
lot, perhaps, but by contrast the linuxaudio.org role is completely
voluntary. And there are other people who are paid to work on Linux
audio, or with it.
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? If so, can we make
the bad ones into good ones by working with them on an equitable
basis?
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. 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.
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.
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. But i'm sorry that you
dont appreciate the danger that you are alienating people here
by doing things behind closed doors.
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 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. 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.
Dont forget that community
is what makes linux what it is.
I won't.
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.
Its way too vague.
I find it clearly describes what I'm trying to do - which part is
vague?
What exactly are you promoting?
Whatever the members are doing, I suppose.
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.
Cheers
Daniel James
Director
http://linuxaudio.org
10:41 a.m.
Perhaps a little more openness would be appreciated by the
open source community.
"I wonder who they are,
the men who really run this land.
And I wonder why they run it
with such a thoughless hand.
What are their names, and
on what street do they live?
I'd like to ride right over
this afternoon and give
them a piece of my mind
about peace for mankind.
Peace is not an awful lot to ask."
David Crosby
What are their names?
If I could only remember my name. 1971
((C) Guerrilla Music/BMI)
Your temporary html page seems a little rushed.
<html>
<head>
<title>Linux Audio dot Org</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
This site will be launched on 14th January 2004.<br><br>
In the meantime, please contact daniel at linuxaudio dot org for any enquiries.
</bodies.
</bod></bod>
11:39 a.m.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:16 am, Daniel James wrote:
...
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. They're not going
away, and neither are we.
A lot of folks on, and off, this list have spent many years of work
toiling with hard-to-use tools with very little outside support, in
general (there are a few exceptions), to bring linux audio up to the
level of becoming quite useful and on the final run home to becoming
a professionally usable, even desirable, audio/whatever platform.
It's probably a bit of a wake up call to some folks on this list that
this cosey LAD-cabal is about to be usurped, absorbed and displaced by
a cororate-cabal and you're aim is to encourage this procedure. There
is some uneaze about whether the likes of Steinberg and M$ are in any
way welcome on the same planet, let alone involved in any decisions
about the future of ALSA/Jack/*, now that all the hard work has been
mostly done without them. Circling shark analogies come to mind.
My point is: don't take it for granted that everyone here will smile
upon your efforts. The reason the long hard route has been taken in
the first place is to avoid being shafted by corporate hidden agendas
and unabashed profit motives... which you are now openly promoting
using a debatably iconic netmark and without any obvious signs of
merit other than doing what _you_ think is appropriate.
My apologies for posting a message to this list without providing a
patch or a bug report.
--markc
12:04 p.m.
It's probably a bit of a wake up call to some
folks on this list
that this cosey LAD-cabal is about to be usurped, absorbed and
displaced by a cororate-cabal and you're aim is to encourage this
procedure.
Are you an ironist of some kind, Mark?
There is some uneaze about whether the likes of
Steinberg and M$ are in any way welcome on the same planet, let
alone involved in any decisions about the future of ALSA/Jack/*
Firstly, neither Steinberg or Microsoft have been invited to join
linuxaudio.org, nor have they asked to. Secondly, I'm not at all
clear how membership of a consortium designed to promote the use of
libre software would allow these two companies to steer the ALSA
project, or any other. Thirdly, did you fail to notice that ALSA
development is now paid for by Novell?
My point is: don't take it for granted that
everyone here will
smile upon your efforts.
I certainly won't. I think I'll concentrate on talking to people
actually making a positive contribution to Linux audio from now on.
The reason the long hard route has been
taken in the first place is to avoid being shafted by corporate
hidden agendas and unabashed profit motives...
You presume I'm in favour of corporate shafting? You know nothing
about me, then.
which you are now
openly promoting using a debatably iconic netmark
If it's iconic, one of you should have bothered registering it before
two weeks ago - you had years to do it.
and without any
obvious signs of merit other than doing what _you_ think is
appropriate.
Actually, I've spoken to a lot of people in the community about this,
who have nearly all been supportive.
Cheers
Daniel
6:12 p.m.
a couple of things...
first, the reason (or one of) i think you are seeing such strong
reaction is that this website has come as rather a suprise to a lot of
people on here. i think everyone involved in linux audio development (in
any way, be it writing, bugfixing or testing apps or libraries) has
become rather used to having a voice in the process, and being able to
appoint 'leaders' if needs be. linuxaudio.org is one persons effort to
set up a central focus for that, and until now it was done in secret.
that makes a lot of people feel cut out which is not a good thing. this
has the potential to be an important thing, so it should be some sort of
democratic process.
second, there has been a little anti corporation sentiment kicking
around in this thread. personally i think it would be fantastic to get
big audio companies giving input on how they think things should work.
that way the linux audio world could give them the things they need to
get their products working in linux. obviously they can't adopt the open
source model for their software, but having it work alongside open
source stuff would be a huge boost for linux audio. corporations aren't
evil, and open source isnt the only way!
ian
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 11:01, Daniel James wrote:
--
ian esten <deviant(a)custard.org>
It's
probably a bit of a wake up call to some folks on this list
that this cosey LAD-cabal is about to be usurped, absorbed and
displaced by a cororate-cabal and you're aim is to encourage this
procedure.
Are you an ironist of some kind, Mark?
There is some uneaze about whether the likes of
Steinberg and M$ are in any way welcome on the same planet, let
alone involved in any decisions about the future of ALSA/Jack/*
Firstly, neither Steinberg or Microsoft have been invited to join
linuxaudio.org, nor have they asked to. Secondly, I'm not at all
clear how membership of a consortium designed to promote the use of
libre software would allow these two companies to steer the ALSA
project, or any other. Thirdly, did you fail to notice that ALSA
development is now paid for by Novell?
My point is: don't take it for granted that
everyone here will
smile upon your efforts.
I certainly won't. I think I'll concentrate on talking to people
actually making a positive contribution to Linux audio from now on.
The reason the long hard route has been
taken in the first place is to avoid being shafted by corporate
hidden agendas and unabashed profit motives...
You presume I'm in favour of corporate shafting? You know nothing
about me, then.
which you are now
openly promoting using a debatably iconic netmark
If it's iconic, one of you should have bothered registering it before
two weeks ago - you had years to do it.
and without any
obvious signs of merit other than doing what _you_ think is
appropriate.
Actually, I've spoken to a lot of people in the community about this,
who have nearly all been supportive.
Cheers
Daniel
12:11 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 02:16:24PM +0000, Director James wrote:
the problem for me is that it purports to represent linux pro audio
in general, and as someone who sees his career and personal fulfillment
reliant on this, i feel it is not something that i can completely ignore.
A technical project is not the same as a campaigning organisation.
Its not fair to compare the two. Having said that, if an organisation
such as KDE releases something which is detrimental to proaudio,
they are rightly criticised for not consulting.
sound engineers are not organised as either projects or companies.
So can i join? Pls consider this a formal request.
yes, no.
You cannot work with a corporation on an "equitable basis". You
lick their asses till they hand over the money.
I'm not sure what we are sposed to make of that statement. But i'll
wait to see what kind of corporate involvement you want to encourage.
pro audio is way behind mainstream linux concerns. But if linux ever
becomes a more viable platform for general music production
then that will obviously change. I dont see it
happening, but i dont want eg Steinberg here.
They are industry consortia addressing a particular niche market. OK,
we may not have their funding, but the principle is the same.
Both the scale and the principle are different. OSDL and CELF are
'selling' their 'product' to large-scale enterprises and hence need
a corporately acceptable face. With the exception of some media
companies, audio users are either individuals or companies of less
than 10. This lack of user coordination is a definite factor in
users getting a bad deal from commercial suppliers. Eg the film
industries forcing of Avid/Digidesign to allow cross-product file
transfer (this may be a bad example but i hope you see the point).
dont mean to split hairs, but that is not my definition of
open. You are presenting it as a done deal. You already have
a web page and a large number of members who have apparently agreed to
some fairly strong legal commitments.
:-)
Linux Audio or Linux Pro-Audio? From your About page:
"audio work, with an emphasis on professional tools for the music,
recording and broadcast industries". Should companies that have
no interest in pro audio or music production be involved? How is
that helpful?
Thats the problem. For such an organisation to have respect from
outside, it needs to be seen as representative. And to a large degree
your consortium already is, having most of the major players as members.
Therefore it speaks for me whether i want it to or not.
Daniel, i dont mean to give you a hard time. I appreciate the effort
that is going into this, and it could end up being a very good thing,
but unless you think it through some more and seriously acknowledge that
your actions are underiming the egalitarian nature of the community and
have the potential to split it, then this discussion isnt going to go
anywhere...
In the meantime perhaps you should consider not sending out
press releases?
regards
--
Tim Orford
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. [...] 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? So how do i
join?
Just ask. At the moment linuxaudio.org is conceived as a
meta-organisation, representing existing projects and companies,
rather than individuals directly. Is there a particular project
you're involved in?
You need a european sound engineer perhaps.
Without a doubt. 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? If so, can we make
the bad ones into good ones by working with them on an equitable
basis? 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. 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. 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. But i'm sorry that you
dont appreciate the danger that you are alienating people here
by doing things behind closed doors.
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 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. 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.
there is no detail. However there is a better description on the
About page:
"The consortium aims to co-ordinate joint projects between
members, collaborate on the promotion of Linux based systems for audio
tasks, and provide a single point of contact for both prospective Linux
users and industry partners".
Taking that as 3 distinct parts:
1-project coordination. a consortium should mainly concern itself
with represention to the outside world. Cooperation
should be handled using normal open development methods, imo.
2-promotion. Agreed that this could be useful in the future. Currently
i believe promotion should be aimed at developers not users. I
dont see how corporate involvement will help here. Documentation
and developer oriented articles would be more useful, imo.
3-point of contact. I agree this is a good thing for "industry
partners". Not for users though.
Dont forget that community
is what makes linux what it is.
I won't.
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.
Its way too vague.
I find it clearly describes what I'm trying to do - which part is
vague? What exactly are you promoting?
Whatever the members are doing, I suppose. 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. 
12:46 p.m.
Tim Orford wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 02:16:24PM +0000, Director
James wrote:
the problem for me is that it purports to represent linux pro audio
in general, and as someone who sees his career and personal fulfillment
reliant on this, i feel it is not something that i can completely ignore.
anyone who knows just a bit about GNU/Linux knows there isn't just one
company in charge. those who don't know even that, you can expect
to get the idea as soon as they are browsing the news or applications
sections on linuxaudio, or any linux+audio site for that matter.
please give this guy a break. we've seen nothing yet, let him do as he
wishes. we can flame to our hearts' content once there is some wood
to burn.
tim
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. [...]
1:28 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 05:38:06PM +0100, Tim Goetze wrote:
anyone who knows just a bit about GNU/Linux knows
there isn't just one
company in charge. those who don't know even that, you can expect
to get the idea as soon as they are browsing the news or applications
sections on linuxaudio, or any linux+audio site for that matter.
companies work in strange ways. I find it constantly surprising
the lack of understanding that management has of GPL'd software
development. I assume that these are the companies that the
consortium would like to communicate.
please give this guy a break. we've seen nothing
yet, let him do as he
wishes. we can flame to our hearts' content once there is some wood
to burn.
:-)
Ok, point taken, although i disagree that we have seen nothing.
I intended to be constructive, but am admittedly frustrated at the
complete lack of acknowledgement/understanding of any of my points.
regards
--
Tim Orford
1:49 p.m.
companies work in strange ways. I find it constantly
surprising
the lack of understanding that management has of GPL'd software
development. I assume that these are the companies that the
consortium would like to communicate.
We can only communicate with those companies if they are sufficiently
interested in the area. If they are interested, then we'll certainly
have to help them understand libre software principles. Better to do
it that way, than let them go it alone and violate the GPL out of
ignorance.
I intended to be constructive, but am admittedly
frustrated at the
complete lack of acknowledgement/understanding of any of my points.
I do acknowledge and understand your points Tim, I just don't agree
with all of them.
Cheers
Daniel
6:23 p.m.
Daniel,
i'd like to make a few things clear, first of all, how come there's a
mailing list called p-consortium which isn't mentioned on the site?
How can i subscribe? Can i read all discussions that happened there - is
a mail archive available somewhere?
thanks
Marek
15 Jan
15 Jan
7:53 a.m.
i'd like to make a few things clear, first of all,
how come there's
a mailing list called p-consortium which isn't mentioned on the
site?
consortium-p was set up as a temporary list. I think the p stands for
Preparation. If it's not mentioned on the site it's because I haven't
got around to setting up proper lists yet.
In the next few days I hope to set up a mailing list for consortium
members and another for the management board, as it comes together.
How can i subscribe?
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium-p
I warn you though - if you're looking for cabalistic material you'll
be disappointed. We're currently discussing T-shirt printing.
Can i read all discussions that happened
there - is a mail archive available somewhere?
Yes, there is the usual Mailman archive.
Cheers
Daniel
16 Jan
16 Jan
2:52 a.m.
On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 12:50, Daniel James wrote:
What's the point in creating a dozen of other mailing lists if we can
have one?
Why is consortium-p a *private* mailing list?
I propose to make the list public and rename it to 'linux audio
advocacy', 'laad'.
Why are you in such hurry with t-shirt printing? What should be on those
t-shirts? Do we have a logo?
Private. :(
I think there's nothing to hide.
Marek
i'd like
to make a few things clear, first of all, how come there's
a mailing list called p-consortium which isn't mentioned on the
site?
consortium-p was set up as a temporary list. I think the p stands for
Preparation. If it's not mentioned on the site it's because I haven't
got around to setting up proper lists yet.
In the next few days I hope to set up a mailing list for consortium
members and another for the management board, as it comes together. How can i subscribe?
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium-p
I warn you though - if you're looking for cabalistic material you'll
be disappointed. We're currently discussing T-shirt printing. Can i read all discussions that happened
there - is a mail archive available somewhere?
Yes, there is the usual Mailman archive. 
5:15 a.m.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 09:53:16 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Why are you in such hurry with t-shirt printing? What should be on those
t-shirts? Do we have a logo?
Are we going to the Sounds expo? The reson for the hurry is that it
starts soon.
To subscribers.
What's the point in creating a dozen of other
mailing lists if we can
have one?
Some of us have code to write. LAD went from a list where I read every
message to one where I read maybe 50% year or two back. I just dont have
time to read every message. If other business gets added to LAD I will
inevitably miss some of it.
How can i subscribe?
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium-p
I warn you though - if you're looking for cabalistic material you'll
be disappointed. We're currently discussing T-shirt printing. Yes, there is
the usual Mailman archive.
Private. :( I think there's nothing to hide.
You're right :)
- Steve
1:13 p.m.
On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 10:12, Steve Harris wrote:
Why are you in such hurry with t-shirt printing? What should be on those
t-shirts? Do we have a logo?
Are we going to the Sounds expo?
Are we? :) I don't know.
To subscribers.
Why?
So? :)
Marek
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 09:53:16 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
And the organisation should promote and protect those who write code.
What's the point in creating a dozen of other
mailing lists if we can
have one?
Some of us have code to write. LAD went from a list where I read every
message to one where I read maybe 50% year or two back. I just dont have
time to read every message.
I think it's the case with every ml with high traffic.
If other business gets added to LAD I will
inevitably miss some of it.
I think a linux audio advocacy mailing list should do.
How can i subscribe?
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/consortium-p
I warn you though - if you're looking for cabalistic material you'll
be disappointed. We're currently discussing T-shirt printing. The reson for the hurry is that it
starts soon.
But it's not even sure what we should represent.
Yes,
there is the usual Mailman archive.
Private. :( I think there's nothing to hide.
You're right :)
14 Jan
14 Jan
4:22 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 20:33, Tim Orford wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 05:38:06PM +0100, Tim Goetze
wrote:
I fear there is if Daniel doesn't acknowledge LAD and the LAD community.
anyone who knows just a bit about GNU/Linux knows
there isn't just one
company in charge. those who don't know even that, you can expect
to get the idea as soon as they are browsing the news or applications
sections on linuxaudio, or any linux+audio site for that matter.
companies work in strange ways. I find it constantly surprising
the lack of understanding that management has of GPL'd software
development. I assume that these are the companies that the
consortium would like to communicate.
> please give this guy a break. we've seen nothing yet, let him do as he
> wishes. we can flame to our hearts' content once there is some wood
> to burn.
:-)
Ok, point taken, although i disagree that we have seen nothing.
I intended to be constructive, but am admittedly frustrated at the
complete lack of acknowledgement/understanding of any of my points.
Tim (Orford), i agree with everything you've said in this thread.
Marek
16 Jan
16 Jan
1:33 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 11:23:08PM +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Marek, I'm very sorry i dont have the energy to give you more support.
Penetrating the LAD Reality Distortion Field seems particularly
difficult this week.
I have to face the fact that i have been spectacularly
unproductive here over the last 2 years, despite my best efforts.
Its time for me to leave and get on with my life. I have two
pieces of advice which people can interpret however they wish:
Firstly, i wish the consortium well, but i think that whether the
members agree with individual criticisms or not, tact and diplomacy are
two vitally important characteristics of such an organisation, and as
such it should aim for criticisms to be constructively diffused rather
than enflamed with platitudes. I do hope lessons have been learnt.
Secondly, before actively undertaking promotion, i strongly urge all
developers to think seriously and objectively about what exactly they
are promoting and how it compares with commercial software in terms of
features and usability. It appals me that certain people are putting
their lives on the line without a _much_ better understanding of the
current state of the art.
Best wishes to all
--
Tim Orford
:-)
Ok, point taken, although i disagree that we have seen nothing.
I intended to be constructive, but am admittedly frustrated at the
complete lack of acknowledgement/understanding of any of my points.
Tim (Orford), i agree with everything you've said in this thread.
Marek
17 Jan
17 Jan
10:21 a.m.
On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 20:39, Tim Orford wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 11:23:08PM +0100, Marek
Peteraj wrote:
Marek, I'm very sorry i dont have the energy to give you more support.
That's ok, thanks :)
:-)
Ok, point taken, although i disagree that we have seen nothing.
I intended to be constructive, but am admittedly frustrated at the
complete lack of acknowledgement/understanding of any of my points.
Tim (Orford), i agree with everything you've said in this thread.
Marek Penetrating the LAD Reality Distortion Field seems
particularly
difficult this week.
I have to face the fact that i have been spectacularly
unproductive here over the last 2 years, despite my best efforts.
Its time for me to leave and get on with my life.
Hey, you can read the archives offline and join a discussion whenever
you feel the need.. :)
Marek
15 Jan
15 Jan
8:15 a.m.
Tim Goetze wrote:
please give this guy a break. we've seen nothing
yet, let him do as he
wishes. we can flame to our hearts' content once there is some wood
to burn.
yeeeeees! puh-leeze.
everybody have a coffee.
or better yet, some herbal tea :-D
--
"I never use EQ, never, never, never. I previously used to use mic
positioning but I've even given up on that too."
- Jezar on http://www.audiomelody.com
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Kurfürstenstr 49, 45138 Essen, Germany
http://spunk.dnsalias.org (my server)
http://www.linuxaudiodev.org (Linux Audio Developers)
16 Jan
16 Jan
12:52 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [OT] tea
On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 13:19, Vincent Touquet wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 01:12:21PM +0100, Joern
Nettingsmeier wrote:
Herbal tea doesn't contain theine. Green tea, oolong(partially fermented
tea) and black tea does :)
Marek
yeeeeees! puh-leeze.
everybody have a coffee.
or better yet, some herbal tea :-D
Isn't theine as bad as caffeine ? ;)
14 Jan
14 Jan
5:28 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 06:11:03 +0000, Tim Orford wrote:
Thats an opinion.
- Steve
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 02:16:24PM +0000, Director
James wrote:
the problem for me is that it purports to represent linux pro audio
in general, and as someone who sees his career and personal fulfillment
reliant on this, i feel it is not something that i can completely ignore.
It doesnt AFAICT, looking at the website, it claims to be a
"not-for-profit consortium of companies and libre software projects using
Linux kernel based systems and other libre software for audio work, with
an emphasis on professional tools for the music, recording and broadcast
industries" - thats not what you said at all, and its true as far as I
know.
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. [...] So there are
good corporates and bad corporates? If so, can we make
the bad ones into good ones by working with them on an equitable
basis?
yes, no.
You cannot work with a corporation on an "equitable basis". You
lick their asses till they hand over the money.
3:47 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 15:16, Daniel James wrote:
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?
It's not about the site. It's about the consortium or whatever
organisation we're about to form. That's a *big* difference.
You can't be serious with such statement.
You haven't read one of my previous emails i posted here i guess.
http://www.eca.cx/lad/2004/01/0063.html
The "project" as it is now isn't going to help the lad community and its
members leading various projects.
You're ignoring it. See my previous email.
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.
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.
You did. And still do.
Let's find it out here.
Which members? Companies? You want to promote what companies are doing?
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
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. 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? 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. 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? 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. They're not going
away, and neither are we.
What's your point?
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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
> 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. 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. 
6:49 p.m.
On Wednesday 14 Jan 2004 9:48 pm, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I'm sorry to say that, but you were about to
destroy the importance
of LAD with your ignorance.
I hadn't intended to join this thread, but this kind of talk is
ridiculous.
As far as I can see, Daniel has had an idea for something, polled a
few familiar names to see if there would be any interest, found that
there might be, taken the initiative in talking to a number of
industry contacts, created a provisional website and prepared to
announce the consortium project. This is surely the moral equivalent
of the way practically any successful free software project starts
up: by producing some decent code for people to work from and
releasing it, rather than creating half a dozen web forums and
spending hours on IRC discussing what colour the logo should be and
whether drop shadows are cool or a bit last century.
Now Daniel has his own agenda, and you have yours, and others here
have their own, and they're different enough for you to be arguing
about them now. So, the world of Linux audio developers is not one
with a nice uniform viewpoint that's somehow encapsulated in this
mailing list. Doesn't that suggest that if this were to be debated
here endlessly before anything could be done, nothing would be done?
Surely the lesson from any successful free software project is that
you have to have a kernel of a worthwhile implementation before you
throw your idea open to ridicule. If the people who are actually
trying to do work in and with and around this consortium perceive, as
the project runs, that Daniel is too autocratic or the consortium in
general is being too ineffectual or the balance of power is wrong,
then it will change or it will fail. Personally I think he has a
good idea and he's going about it in a reasonable, if hurried, way.
There's room for discussion, but at this stage I think an energetic
attempt to do more-or-less the right thing is much better than
nothing.
Now of course I'm biased because I work on Rosegarden and Rosegarden
is represented in the members list. And Rosegarden is an enterprise
with a commercial eye, just like Ardour and some of the other free
software audio projects that we all love so much. So I knew about
this before it turned up on here. But it's a brief, informal
acquaintance, and I think anyone who looks at this and thinks there's
a big cabal making strange legal promises to each other is wrong.
I can entirely understand people feeling frustrated that they didn't
know about this, but it is true that it's at a very early stage, and
that sort of thing always happens no matter what you do. For
example, one reason there were no Rosegarden developers at the first
ZKM meeting was that it was only announced on LAD, and none of the
Rosegarden developers were subscribed to LAD at the time, and I
remember some misplaced frustration that nobody had bothered to tell
us about it. Daniel may not have contacted LAD about his idea, but
at least he contacted many of the people on the projects that he knew
about directly. I have two points here: it's wrong to think of LAD
as the one distinct voice of the community because it's a very
self-selecting group; and being resentful is counterproductive and
churlish, because nobody is trying to get at you in the first place.
Fix the mistakes, don't moan about them.
Chris
7:49 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 23:45, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Wednesday 14 Jan 2004 9:48 pm, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
What are you talking about? I'm suggesting to keep the community in one
place, and build it around something which has got tradition and a
growing number of members/subscribers. The linuxaudio.org is more an
attempt to split the community IMHO.
I'm sorry to say that, but you were about to
destroy the importance
of LAD with your ignorance.
I hadn't intended to join this thread, but this kind of talk is
ridiculous.
As far as I can see, Daniel has had an idea for something, polled a
few familiar names to see if there would be any interest, found that
there might be, taken the initiative in talking to a number of
industry contacts, created a provisional website and prepared to
announce the consortium project. This is surely the moral equivalent
of the way practically any successful free software project starts
up: by producing some decent code for people to work from and
releasing it, rather than creating half a dozen web forums So, the world of Linux audio developers is not one
with a nice uniform viewpoint that's somehow encapsulated in this
mailing list. Doesn't that suggest that if this were to be debated
here endlessly before anything could be done, nothing would be done?
Jack, ladspa, does it ring a bell? See the lad archive.
Surely the lesson from any successful free software project is that
you have to have a kernel of a worthwhile implementation before you
throw your idea open to ridicule. If the people who are actually
trying to do work in and with and around this consortium perceive, as
the project runs, that Daniel is too autocratic or the consortium in
general is being too ineffectual or the balance of power is wrong,
then it will change or it will fail. Personally I think he has a
good idea and he's going about it in a reasonable, if hurried, way.
There's room for discussion, but at this stage I think an energetic
attempt to do more-or-less the right thing is much better than
nothing.
So discussion means nothing to you?
I can entirely understand people feeling frustrated
that they didn't
know about this, but it is true that it's at a very early stage, and
that sort of thing always happens no matter what you do. For
example, one reason there were no Rosegarden developers at the first
ZKM meeting was that it was only announced on LAD, and none of the
Rosegarden developers were subscribed to LAD at the time,
Well, i'm glad you are now. :) ZKM was announced publicly ~6 months
before.
and I
remember some misplaced frustration that nobody had bothered to tell
us about it. Daniel may not have contacted LAD about his idea, but
at least he contacted many of the people on the projects that he knew
about directly.
Why do you think that linuxaudio.org consortium is going to solve
exactly this issue?
How about those who are still not subscribed to LAD or reading its
archives and those who don't know about linuxaudio.org?
I have two points here: it's wrong to think of
LAD
as the one distinct voice of the community because it's a very
self-selecting group;
...of 700+ people (and growing)?
Marek
9:40 p.m.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I promised myself not to get involved but now I just have to, although
only commenting this one specific statement.
JACK ---> Paul Davis. Discussions happened on LAD but mostly
concentrating on the n+1 different proposals and
implementations on doing an audio server, and of course,
making more proposals. Paul just went ahead and did it.
LADSPA -> Richard Furse. Although LADSPA is still _the_ example
of LAD people working together, we were not closing
in on any kind of solution in our discussions back
in 1999-2000. Richard went ahead and put the pieces
together, and ta-daa, we had a standard.
LAD web site
-> Jörn Nettingsmeier. Again, this is another mostly
one man show, that is run so well that others
have silently approved it as the official frontend
to LAD.
... so history shows (and personal memories of many endless discussions
prove it), that Chris is very much right - LAD is not one unified
community. We have personal agendas, ties to companies or developer
groups, we want _our_ solutions to succeed, etc, etc... but that's not
really new. But still, we desperately want to share our ideas about audio
development on Linux, and that is something that we share - whether it
fits our hidden agendas or not.
IMHO the magic of LAD is that it has survived the overblown egos of us
developers for so long, and even witnessed few cases of random
collaboration. :) And perhaps most importantly, LAD has been a fun place
to be - let's try to keep it that way.
--
http://www.eca.cx
Audio software for Linux!
So, the
world of Linux audio developers is not one
with a nice uniform viewpoint that's somehow encapsulated in this
mailing list. Doesn't that suggest that if this were to be debated
Jack,
ladspa, does it ring a bell? See the lad archive.
16 Jan
16 Jan
2:06 a.m.
On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 02:35, Kai Vehmanen wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I promised myself not to get involved but now I just have to, although
only commenting this one specific statement.
JACK ---> Paul Davis. Discussions happened on LAD but mostly
concentrating on the n+1 different proposals and
implementations on doing an audio server, and of course,
making more proposals. Paul just went ahead and did it.
That's what i said in my prevoius email. First discuss then take action.
Of course nobody is bound to first discuss then take action if it
concerns a oss sw project. But as i see it, a project such as jack or
ladspa is of higher importance, since it's also a standard, a technology
which affects a higher number of other specific audio apps. That's why i
think it was brought onto LAD.
LAD plays an important role in this regard. It's a pool of linuxaudio
developers leading their own projects or contributing. If i want to
propose a standard or an idea, i know that i can do it here since it's a
known access point for all la developers. It gets discussed so that i
can see if it fits the needs of other developers and what the other
needs of those developers are. This discussion is forming/shaping the
standard. Then it might or might not get adopted depending on its
importance.
The 'known access point for all la developers' is a part of linuxaudio
advocacy.
To summarize:
1. LAD should be an access point for all linux audio developers
2. LAU should be a known access point for many linux audio users
3. a linux audio developer foundation should be an access point for the
music industry
OTOH linuxaudio.org is no oss sw project and affects whole community.
So, the
world of Linux audio developers is not one
with a nice uniform viewpoint that's somehow encapsulated in this
mailing list. Doesn't that suggest that if this were to be debated
Jack,
ladspa, does it ring a bell? See the lad archive.
LADSPA -> Richard Furse. Although LADSPA is still _the_ example
of LAD people working together, we were not closing
in on any kind of solution in our discussions back
in 1999-2000. Richard went ahead and put the pieces
together, and ta-daa, we had a standard.
Lots of issues have been discussed before and after the standard
release. I guess there are significant contributions from at least Steve
and Paul.
You just can't say that these projects we done without any discussion.
They were *born* on LAD. It doesn't matter if it's a one man action or
700 man action. If it's a one man action then the people responsible for
that action will get the respect they deserve. Nobody is going to
disagree that Paul is the father of Jack. :)
But i hope that nobody is going to disagree that LAD is the mother of
all standards that affect linux audio projects.
To Quote the JACK homepage:
"Jack was inspired by and partially designed during discussions on the
Linux Audio Developers mailing list. Particularly significant
contributions to those discussions came from (in alphabetical order):
* Paul Davis
* Richard Günther
* David Olofson
* Benno Sennoner
* Kai Vehmanen
Paul Davis was the principal author of the Jack API and of its sample
implementation. Very significant contributions have been made by:
* Kai Vehmanen
* Jack O'Quin
* Bob Ham
* Steve Harris
* Stephane Letz
Many other members of LAD contributed ideas and code to Jack."
LAD web site
-> Jörn Nettingsmeier. Again, this is another mostly
one man show, that is run so well that others
have silently approved it as the official frontend
to LAD.
... so history shows (and personal memories of many endless discussions
prove it), that Chris is very much right - LAD is not one unified
community.
I say it already is, and we should all encourage such process.
IMHO the magic of LAD is that it has survived the
overblown egos of us
developers for so long, and even witnessed few cases of random
collaboration. :) And perhaps most importantly, LAD has been a fun place
to be - let's try to keep it that way.
It wasn't really a fun place to be during jack related discussions :)
Marek
5:08 a.m.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 09:06:49 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote:
It was before my time.
- Steve
To summarize:
1. LAD should be an access point for all linux audio developers
Maybe, but its not. I'm not even sure it should be. There a lot of people
who just dont have time to read LAD, and if there were even more
traffic then some existing subscribers would have to leave.
I'm not knocking LAD, but it can't (and shouldn't) speak for all linux
audio developers (and neither can or should linuxaudio.org). LAD has its
own agenda that not all linux audio developers will agree with.
LADSPA ->
Richard Furse. Although LADSPA is still _the_ example
of LAD people working together, we were not closing
in on any kind of solution in our discussions back
in 1999-2000. Richard went ahead and put the pieces
together, and ta-daa, we had a standard.
Lots of issues have been discussed before and after the standard
release. I guess there are significant contributions from at least Steve
and Paul.
1:36 p.m.
On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 10:05, Steve Harris wrote:
It was before my time.
But you did contribute after?
"The original LADSPA proposal was included in an email to the Linux
Audio Developer Mailing List as part of an ongoing discussion on plugin
API design."
http://www.ladspa.org/original_api.txt
http://www.eca.cx/lad/2000/19991108-0307/0535.html
http://www.eca.cx/lad/2000/19991108-0307/0678.html
http://www.eca.cx/lad/2000/19991108-0307/0680.html
...etc
Marek
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 09:06:49 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
If they have time to read slashdot, i'm sure they'll find time to read
LAD :)
To summarize:
1. LAD should be an access point for all linux audio developers
Maybe, but its not. I'm not even sure it should be. There a lot of people
who just dont have time to read LAD, and if there were even more
traffic then some existing subscribers would have to leave.
Lots of people have been reading LAD 'offline'.
LAD has its
own agenda that not all linux audio developers will agree with.
Could you explain?
LADSPA
-> Richard Furse. Although LADSPA is still _the_ example
of LAD people working together, we were not closing
in on any kind of solution in our discussions back
in 1999-2000. Richard went ahead and put the pieces
together, and ta-daa, we had a standard.
Lots of issues have been discussed before and after the standard
release. I guess there are significant contributions from at least Steve
and Paul. 
14 Jan
14 Jan
10:30 a.m.
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 07:10, Daniel James wrote:
What matters to me is that corporate interests
don't overrule other
interests. Linuxaudio.org is mostly composed of libre software
projects, who get a seat on the management board, just like companies
- regardless of size. 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.
And I think there are some good reasons for that. Think about it for a
moment: *who* is empowered to speak authoritatively for a "project"? Who
has the right to decide who gets the seat on the management board? The
copyright holder? What about others? Should it be limited to those who have
made substantial contributions of code? What about the folks who write
documentation, or maintain web sites? And who decides what constitutes
"substantial"? While some projects (Apache comes to mind immediately) have
instituted a more formal organization, for most projects, this lack of
structure gives rise to thorny issues of governance and control. This is
precisely why an organization such as the FSF exists: to provide a legal,
authoritative entity to hold and (if needs be) enforce copyright.
A good working definition of what constitutes a "project" is needed here as
well. One person with an account on SF can found a "project" -- does that
entitle that person to a seat on the board with rights and powers equal to
those of ALSA, Jack and the others?
You see, Daniel, there are some real questions here that need clarification.
I've just scratched the surface. That's what a community is for. *None* of
us have all the answers -- you can't do this alone! "A couple of weeks" is
a
miniscule amount of time to spend in organizing an initiative of this scope.
Cheers!
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. | Director of Broadcast Software Development |
| | Salem Radio Labs |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules: |
| The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of |
| time, and the last ten percent take the other ninety percent. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
10:57 a.m.
You see, Daniel, there are some real questions here
that need
clarification. I've just scratched the surface.
You're quite right. I'm not sure how the significance of a particular
project can be factored in to the amount of influence in management
decisions - or if it should be. The same would go for large and small
companies.
That's what a
community is for. *None* of us have all the answers -- you can't
do this alone!
Absolutely. But someone has to take the first step.
"A couple of weeks" is a miniscule amount of
time
to spend in organizing an initiative of this scope.
I agree - but it should be sufficient to talk to a few people, put a
simple website together, write one press release, and make an
announcement. Already I'm being criticised for spending too long on
preparation!
Cheers
Daniel
11:30 a.m.
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 09:54, Daniel James wrote:
You're quite right. I'm not sure how the
significance of a particular
project can be factored in to the amount of influence in management
decisions - or if it should be. The same would go for large and small
companies.
It's a conundrum, no question about it. The point though, is that some sort
of precise *identity* needs to attach to members. At the end of the day,
that likely means membership will need to be limited to either individuals or
corporations (a legal "person"). I think "project" is too vague and
amorphous a term.
I agree - but it should be sufficient to talk to a few
people, put a
simple website together, write one press release, and make an
announcement. Already I'm being criticised for spending too long on
preparation!
Advocacy can be a thankless task. By all means, put the website up, talk to
people, send press releases if you wish. It's a necessary starting point.
But I'd strongly recommend holding off the *legal* establishment of any
entity until a broader consensus exists. I suspect that a lot of the
suspicion which has been expressed in this thread was engendered by the
appearance that much of the prior discussion to this point took place via
private communications. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, but there
does come a time when those discussions need to "go public". Such public
discussion needs to happen well before any "official" establishment of an
organization.
Part of the confusion, too, comes from some vagueness in your terms. What
exactly do you mean when you say you're "launching" Linuxaudio.org today?
Are you putting a website up? Instituting some sort of legal entity? What
exactly is the legal organizational structure of the proposed organization?
Lots of unanswered questions here...
Cheers!
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. | Director of Broadcast Software Development |
| | Salem Radio Labs |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| A man is known by the company he organizes. |
| -- Ambrose Bierce |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
11:46 a.m.
The point though, is that
some sort of precise *identity* needs to attach to members.
At the moment this is expected to be by nominated representative to
the management board. If someone is representing a project publically
and they shouldn't be, then I think that would be fairly obvious.
I think "project" is too vague and amorphous
a term.
I guess libre software projects are amorphous. They aren't
individuals, or companies, or organisations in the traditional sense.
I'd strongly recommend holding off
the *legal* establishment of any entity until a broader consensus
exists.
Quite right. linuxaudio.org has no legal status for the time being.
I suspect that a lot of the suspicion which has been
expressed in this thread was engendered by the appearance that much
of the prior discussion to this point took place via private
communications.
Hardly private, since everyone seems to have found out about it within
days. I just don't believe in opening my mouth in public until I've
got something worthwhile to say.
there does come a time when those discussions need to
"go public".
Absolutely.
Such public discussion needs to happen well before any
"official"
establishment of an organization.
But then we're back to discussing something that doesn't exist.
Part of the confusion, too, comes from some vagueness
in your
terms. What exactly do you mean when you say you're "launching"
Linuxaudio.org today?
Making the website more obvious, a press release. That's all.
Quite honestly, if I had proposed this idea with no support from the
community it would have been shot down in flames - and rightly so.
Cheers
Daniel
4:11 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 16:43, Daniel James wrote:
Agreed.
The point
though, is that
some sort of precise *identity* needs to attach to members.
At the moment this is expected to be by nominated representative to
the management board. If someone is representing a project publically
and they shouldn't be, then I think that would be fairly obvious.
I think "project" is too vague and
amorphous a term.
I guess libre software projects are amorphous. They aren't
individuals, or companies, or organisations in the traditional sense.
I'd strongly recommend holding off
the *legal* establishment of any entity until a broader consensus
exists.
Quite right. linuxaudio.org has no legal status for the time being.
The problem is, in my eyes the term 'linuxaudio' represents linux audio
developers, linux audio users, linux audio projects.
Consortium.linuxaudio.org would then be representing a consortium.
or foundation.linuxaduio.org for that matter.
M
15 Jan
15 Jan
8:20 a.m.
The problem is, in my eyes the term
'linuxaudio' represents linux
audio developers, linux audio users, linux audio projects.
As much as I'd like to have seen definitive portals for Linux (in
general) emerge in the 90's, that didn't happen. Arguably kernel.org
is more official and important than linux.org or linux.com.
Consortium.linuxaudio.org would then be representing a
consortium.
or foundation.linuxaduio.org for that matter.
That's a good suggestion. If there was a project to build a portal for
users, rather than just a simple site for industry partners, then
linuxaudio.org could be the stepping off point for sub-sites. That's
the sort of project I could imagine the consortium helping to make
happen in future. Don't forget linux-sound.org is already doing a
good job though.
Cheers
Daniel
16 Jan
16 Jan
2:27 a.m.
On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 13:18, Daniel James wrote:
That doesn't mean we should go down that path. Let's learn from that.
What's the best term that accurately identifies both linux audio
developers and linux audio users? I think it's 'linux audio'.
We should first attract linux audio developers and users. Industries
come next. They won't be interested if there's a total of 10 la users
around.
The problem
is, in my eyes the term 'linuxaudio' represents linux
audio developers, linux audio users, linux audio projects.
As much as I'd like to have seen definitive portals for Linux (in
general) emerge in the 90's, that didn't happen. Arguably kernel.org
is more official and important than linux.org or linux.com. Consortium.linuxaudio.org would then be
representing a consortium.
or foundation.linuxaduio.org for that matter.
That's a good suggestion. If there was a project to build a portal for
users, rather than just a simple site for industry partners, then
linuxaudio.org could be the stepping off point for sub-sites. That's
the sort of project I could imagine the consortium helping to make
happen in future. Don't forget linux-sound.org is already doing a
good job though.
Agreed. But there are ways of further improving it. I think that it
should be a part of a larger linux audio infrastructure. LAD, LAU,
djcj.org definitely belong to that infrastructure aswell.
Marek
14 Jan
14 Jan
3:55 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 15:54, Daniel James wrote:
Ok so you took the first step, i said,
1. let's wait a bit
(your answer - we can't)
2. let's discuss it on lad
(it's your favorite forum)
3. let's do a foundation...
(...)
4. ...but let's discuss it on lad first, let's postpone the launch
(You're demanding veto power again.) (!)
That + you calling yourself a director without any election + keeping it
all confidential *definitely* *doesn't* sounds like a first step.
Marek
You see,
Daniel, there are some real questions here that need
clarification. I've just scratched the surface.
You're quite right. I'm not sure how the significance of a particular
project can be factored in to the amount of influence in management
decisions - or if it should be. The same would go for large and small
companies.
That's what a
community is for. *None* of us have all the answers -- you can't
do this alone!
Absolutely. But someone has to take the first step.
"A couple of weeks" is a miniscule
amount of time
to spend in organizing an initiative of this scope.
I agree - but it should be sufficient to talk to a few people, put a
simple website together, write one press release, and make an
announcement. Already I'm being criticised for spending too long on
preparation!
4:33 p.m.
Marek has objections which appear to have some
weight
Only if you don't know what we're doing. Given that the project isn't
even underway yet and has only been in preparation for the last
couple of weeks, it's premature for Marek to attempt to both force
the direction of the project and prevent the site from being
launched.
Preventing?? It's online. People have seen it.
He wanted the domain name himself for a different
site, but
he didn't bother to register it.
I wanted to propose (here!) the registration of linuxaudio.org as the
main entrance for linux audio developer and user community on the
internet and i wanted to offer money needed to register the site.
There wasn't much time left to do so.
Marek
7649
days inactive
7653
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
42 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
Chris Cannam -
Daniel James -
Fred Gleason -
ian esten -
Joern Nettingsmeier -
Kai Vehmanen -
Marek Peteraj -
Mark Constable -
Paul Winkler -
Samuel S Chessman -
Steve Harris -
Tim Goetze -
Tim Orford -
Vincent Touquet