Re: [ELPA] New Package: minuet-ai.el

--===============8357467486181012294==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002a2030063be90164"

--0000000000002a2030063be90164
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

> This may happen, but we can't be sure of the future.  If it does
> happen, we don't know when that will be.

When a premise is uncertain and all participants have strong, cogent
arguments, we have to ask if a pluralist solution is optimal.  A pluralist
solution can be optimal in the sense that the risks of all outcomes are
prepared for and learned about.  Pluralism is robust.  It is also
inherently aligned with broader communities.  Only when the actions of one
harm another do we need to study an exclusive solution.  If indeed local
LLMs or successors meeting the standards of free software adherents never
emerge, they may abandon the technology later, and all will remain as it
was already destined to be.  If that's accepted, then free software
advocates have no grounds to discourage the activities of open software
advocates.

> we never give users orders about how to use or not use Emacs

I have no specific complaints about patches being rejected, but this
community holds numerous security runes that gate the primary development
of Emacs.  The existence of a master branch is an instance of an exclusive
solution, one which has much more costly pluralist solutions (forking,
patching) and is more difficult to make robust.  What happens to naturally
exclusive resources is a topic of governance that I will leave alone.  I
bring it up to highlight the importance of respecting independence when the
resources in question are non-exclusive, such as using or not using Elisp
packages.

However, I want to focus on the natural outcome of mass-volunteerism.  Some
rightly observe that the tactics of the FSF become stronger when adopted
more broadly.  This leads them to reason that a great deal of shared
interest lies in "aggressively encouraging" mass adoption of the tactics.
A fraction of FSF believers who I must say are too numerous view this
shared interest as justification to shape conversations, dissuade competing
ideas, and disrespect participants in any dialog that does not reinforce
the politics of mass adoption of the principles.  The popular movement
becomes a consensus by social coercion.  While not expressly a principle of
the FSF, it *is a natural emergent consequence of those tactics.*

*Without a means of coordinating signalling, action, and the flow of
non-code contributions*, when we say "let's get a lot of people together,"
to make our group-amortizing tactics cheaper for each of us, it is immoral
because we are laying what will happen on the shoulders of those who are
generous with no means of recruiting those who understand the shared
interest but hope that someone else will do it first.  This is the
volunteers' dilemma, and it must be solved to make all but calls for the
most individualistic of cooperation moral.

Let's talk about the well-known line of reasoning that states that
individual incentive is the foundation of open software development (I have
not read if free software advocates differ on this view).  Non-programmers
(and indeed many programmers) do not specialize in the tools used to build
the tools they rely on.  If the unit of cooperation cannot be measured in
code, it must be some other unit.  Otherwise the outcome is that we are
expecting all non-code contributing users to ride on the back of those who
build the tools.  While we may state that those who program the tools got
what they wanted from their individual incentive, this rationalization
leaves alone a mass of demand that could be served by open software but is
not.  Abandoning these needs to the proprietary software creates a great
deal of harm.  For example, instead of strong enough federation tools to
pull apart SNS services, we have Facebook.  Not solving the volunteers'
dilemma and providing means of non-code contributions to convert to open
technologies is, in my view, a practical failure so severe that it must be
immoral in its consequences.

> This may be no coincidence.  Your message says "open" many times and
> "free" never (although "libre" once).  I think you are starting from
> the values of the open source camp, rather than the values of the free
> software movement.

It is no accident.  I do not mean the "Open Source" as the FSF has framed
it, and I have taken to using the abbreviation "_OSS" to deliberately
exclude the "free/libre" and provoke conversations such as these.  The
formative values compelling my support of open technology and media in
general were:

- Having access to technology, literature, and media that enabled me to
progress according to my virtues instead of my lucky position within the
esoteric funnels of the pre-internet society.
- Not being asked to pay for things that I could not yet buy as I was
following society's recommended course of studying, sometimes by compulsion
in public schools.
- Witnessing how raising the competitive floor by technology lead to a
healthier industry landscape where one misstep would leave an incumbent
lagging behind a hard-working startup with a more innovative approach and
without the entrenched disadvantages of the innovator's dilemma
- Observing high quality open source used to perform valuable work in
research and development that makes real technologies go faster, solving
critical problems that really can improve our lives and oust
stagnation-interested incumbents from their rent-seeking moats.
- Being exposed to ideas and cultures I would not have paid to traverse
into as I didn't know there was value on the other side

These are all very practical and concrete kinds of value with a lot of very
practical and concrete kinds of side-effects.  For example, when more
programmers benefit from open technologies, they are less prone to becoming
so lazily immersed in at-risk open technologies that critical skills would
diminish until Microsoft would close VS Code, knowing that a sufficient
fraction of the users had been captured and that open technologies had
become an insufficient deterrent.  The abstract ideas of freedom also tell
us to prevent this outcome, but my more charitable formulation of Open IP
focuses on concrete benefits that more reliably motivate achieving the same
end.

As long as the emergent coercive consensus behaviors of free software
advocates are not clearly denounced by the organization, I will feel
compelled to recommend others to turn away from the FSF.  As long as the
ideologies are too rigid and self-entertaining to adapt and evolve in a
world with persistent internet, the potential for global community, and
e-commerce, I will again have to recommend others to turn away from the
FSF.  Experiments grow and evolve, and if there is one thing the FSF is
known for more than anything, it is beating a consistent drum.  I have
observed that beat to be falling away from many pragmatic
opportunities identifiable by my formative values, like an energizer bunny
rolling forward down a steadily steepening hill.  It is immoral not to
demand radical change, the embrace of pluralism in the FSF governance
structure, and the introduction of means of evolution so that what was once
an experiment can finally begin to reach its next stages.

--0000000000002a2030063be90164
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">&gt;=C2=A0This may happen, but we can&#39=
;t be sure of the future.=C2=A0 If it does<br><div>&gt; happen, we don&#39;=
t know when that will be.</div><div><br></div><div>When a premise is uncert=
ain and all participants have strong, cogent arguments, we have to ask if a=
 pluralist solution is optimal.=C2=A0 A pluralist solution can be optimal i=
n the sense that the risks of all outcomes are prepared for and learned abo=
ut.=C2=A0 Pluralism is robust.=C2=A0 It is also inherently aligned with bro=
ader communities.=C2=A0 Only when the actions of one harm another do we nee=
d to study an exclusive solution.=C2=A0=C2=A0If indeed local LLMs or succes=
sors meeting the standards of free=20
software adherents never emerge, they may abandon the technology later, and=
 all will remain as it was already destined to be.=C2=A0 If that&#39;s acce=
pted, then free software advocates have no grounds to discourage the activi=
ties of open software advocates.</div><div><br></div><div>&gt;=C2=A0we=C2=
=A0never give users orders about how to use or not use Emacs</div><div><br>=
</div><div>I have no specific complaints about patches being rejected,=C2=
=A0but this community holds numerous security runes that gate the primary d=
evelopment of Emacs.=C2=A0 The existence of a master branch is an instance =
of an exclusive solution, one which has much more costly pluralist solution=
s (forking, patching) and is more difficult to make robust.=C2=A0 What happ=
ens to naturally exclusive resources is a topic of governance that I will l=
eave alone.=C2=A0 I bring it up to highlight the importance of respecting i=
ndependence when the resources in question are non-exclusive, such as using=
 or not using Elisp packages.<br><br>However, I want to focus on the natura=
l outcome of mass-volunteerism.=C2=A0 Some rightly observe that the tactics=
 of the FSF become stronger when adopted more broadly.=C2=A0 This leads the=
m to reason that a great deal of shared interest lies in &quot;aggressively=
 encouraging&quot; mass adoption of the tactics.=C2=A0 A fraction of FSF be=
lievers who I must say are too numerous view this shared interest as justif=
ication to shape conversations, dissuade=C2=A0competing ideas, and disrespe=
ct participants in any dialog that does not reinforce the politics of mass =
adoption of the principles.=C2=A0 The popular movement becomes a consensus =
by social coercion.=C2=A0 While not expressly a principle of the FSF, it *i=
s a natural emergent consequence of those tactics.*</div><div><br></div><di=
v>*Without a means of coordinating signalling, action, and the flow of non-=
code contributions*, when we say &quot;let&#39;s get a lot of people togeth=
er,&quot; to make our group-amortizing=C2=A0tactics cheaper for each of us,=
 it is immoral because we are laying what will happen on the shoulders of t=
hose who are generous with no means of recruiting those who understand the =
shared interest but hope that someone else will do it first.=C2=A0 This is =
the volunteers&#39; dilemma, and it must be solved to make all but calls fo=
r the most individualistic of cooperation moral.</div><div><br></div><div>L=
et&#39;s talk about the well-known line of reasoning that states that indiv=
idual incentive is the foundation of open software development (I have not =
read if free software advocates differ on this view).=C2=A0 Non-programmers=
 (and indeed many programmers) do not specialize in the tools used to build=
 the tools they rely on.=C2=A0 If the unit of cooperation cannot be measure=
d in code, it must be some other unit.=C2=A0 Otherwise the outcome is that =
we are expecting all non-code contributing users to ride on the back of tho=
se who build the tools.=C2=A0 While we may state that those who program the=
 tools got what they wanted from their individual incentive, this rationali=
zation leaves alone a mass of demand that could be served by open software =
but is not.=C2=A0 Abandoning these needs to the proprietary software create=
s a great deal of harm.=C2=A0 For example, instead of strong=C2=A0enough fe=
deration tools to pull apart SNS=C2=A0services, we have Facebook.=C2=A0 Not=
 solving the volunteers&#39; dilemma and providing means of non-code contri=
butions to convert to open technologies is, in my view, a practical failure=
 so severe that it must be immoral in its consequences.<br><br>&gt; This ma=
y be no coincidence.=C2=A0 Your message says &quot;open&quot; many times an=
d<br>&gt; &quot;free&quot; never (although &quot;libre&quot; once).=C2=A0 I=
 think you are starting from<br>&gt; the values of the open source camp, ra=
ther than the values of the free<br>&gt; software movement.<br><br></div><d=
iv>It is no accident.=C2=A0 I do not mean the &quot;Open Source&quot; as th=
e FSF has framed it, and I have taken to using the abbreviation &quot;_OSS&=
quot; to deliberately exclude the &quot;free/libre&quot; and provoke conver=
sations such as these.=C2=A0 The formative values compelling my support of =
open technology and media in general were:</div><div><br></div><div>- Havin=
g access to technology, literature, and media that enabled me to progress a=
ccording to my virtues instead of my lucky position within the esoteric fun=
nels of the pre-internet society.</div><div>- Not being asked to pay for th=
ings that I could not yet buy as I was following society&#39;s recommended =
course of studying, sometimes by compulsion in public schools.</div><div>- =
Witnessing how raising the competitive floor by technology lead to a health=
ier industry landscape where one misstep would leave an incumbent lagging b=
ehind a hard-working startup with a more innovative approach and without th=
e entrenched disadvantages of the innovator&#39;s dilemma</div><div>- Obser=
ving high quality open source used to perform valuable work in research and=
 development that makes real technologies go faster, solving critical probl=
ems that really can improve our lives and oust stagnation-interested incumb=
ents from their rent-seeking moats.</div><div>- Being exposed to ideas and =
cultures I would not have paid to traverse into as I didn&#39;t know there =
was value on the other side</div><div><br></div><div>These are all very pra=
ctical and concrete kinds of value with a lot of very practical and concret=
e kinds of side-effects.=C2=A0 For example, when more programmers benefit f=
rom open technologies, they are less prone to becoming so lazily immersed i=
n at-risk open technologies that critical skills would diminish until Micro=
soft would close VS Code, knowing that a sufficient fraction of the users h=
ad been captured and that open technologies had become an insufficient dete=
rrent.=C2=A0 The abstract ideas of freedom also tell us to prevent this out=
come, but my more charitable formulation of Open IP focuses on concrete ben=
efits that more reliably motivate achieving the same end.<br><br></div><div=
>As long as the emergent coercive consensus behaviors of free software advo=
cates are not clearly denounced by the organization, I will feel compelled =
to recommend others to turn away from the FSF.=C2=A0 As long as the ideolog=
ies are too rigid and self-entertaining to adapt and evolve in a world with=
 persistent internet, the potential for global community, and e-commerce, I=
 will again have to recommend others to turn away from the FSF.=C2=A0 Exper=
iments grow and evolve, and if there is one thing the FSF is known for more=
 than anything, it is beating a consistent drum.=C2=A0 I have observed that=
 beat to be falling away from many pragmatic opportunities=C2=A0identifiabl=
e by my formative values, like an energizer bunny rolling forward down a st=
eadily steepening hill.=C2=A0 It is immoral not to demand radical change, t=
he embrace of pluralism in the FSF governance structure, and the introducti=
on of means of evolution so that what was once an experiment can finally be=
gin to reach its next stages.<br><br></div></div></div>

--0000000000002a2030063be90164--


--===============8357467486181012294==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline

LS0tCnZpYSBlbWFjcy10YW5nZW50cyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QgKGh0dHBzOi8vbGlzdHMuZ251Lm9y
Zy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2VtYWNzLXRhbmdlbnRzKQo=

--===============8357467486181012294==--