Template talk:FOSS celeb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 October 24. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 Useful? 2 Alphabet sort 3 Alphabet sort 2 4 Alphabet sort 3 5 Damnit 6 Analphabetism 7 This template: a failed experiment? better as a Category? 8 Bill Joy 9 Bob Scheifler? 10 Bring Template name and Title into agreement? 11 Rick Adams? 12 Eric S Raymond? 13 Reader's perspective 14 List people who defect from FOSS? 15 No consensus on recent deletions 16 Please document deletions here on the talk page 17 Paul Vixie

[edit] Useful?

I think this template places an ontology that doesn't otherwise exist or is useful for users. The collection of four individuals under this umbrella is sort of haphazard. --71.254.7.215 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There are now twenty-one individuals on the template. - Lentower 09:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've said it before: if you want it deleted, please nominate it rather than bickering around. WP:TFD - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still thinking through what the right Wikipedia thing is to do with this template. WP editing requires a new mindset for me. I've only been editing on WP for a half year. I'll share my thoughts as they crystalize. What's the link to nominate a template for deletion? Or point me at the documentation? Thanks either way! - Lentower 11:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The right wikipedia thing to do is to fix it or don't complain. pschemp | talk 14:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabet sort

My bad about van Rossum.

I'm not sure about O'Reilly too ... I think the Irish sort by the name and not by the O.

Thanks for the fix - that's what wikis are for. --Amir E. Aharoni 20:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that I've seen both conventions being used even in academic books, but Wikipedia may well have a guideline on it somewhere... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabet sort 2

I'm quite sure about putting van Rossum under R. In categories, he's listed under R - Rossum, Guido van (like Beethoven, Ludwig van).

I'm not that sure about de Raadt, though.

Dutch name and Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Ordering_names_in_a_category seem to contradict each other in this matter ... --Amir E. Aharoni 08:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't dutch, it's not german, it's not french, it's english, thus the rules of the native language of the name don't apply, the english rules do. As far as I know, the english rules are to start with the first letter of a last name, it's definately the way the canadian government does it. 65.94.50.226 11:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at Category:Classical era composers: Ludwig van Beethoven is under B, not V.

Look at: Guido van Rossum is under R, not V (although de Raadt is under D, but there's something weird about it, and i'm checking it.)

There are rules in the English language and in Wikipedia about writine names from non-English cultures. These rules are a part of English language. The Wikipedia policy about Dutch names is inconclusive, though - see Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Ordering_names_in_a_category. The Dutch and some other peoples (Russians, Chinese, Burmans to name a few) understand the concept of "last name" not exactly the same way as English-speakers do.

Out of curiosity - can you show me a place where the Canadian government wrote it the way you say? --Amir E. Aharoni 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The ordering of Dutch names in usually done by the whole name from left to right, thus de Raadt, van Rossum, etc. This used to cause problems for certain specific situations, e.g. an addressbook or file system that did not always provide a large space for "D" and "V" while so many people's name start with De/de or Van/van. Nowadays more often using electronical storage that does not know this problem, the solution by storing on the more varying part of the name, has become even more uncommon. That solution proved to cause problems, for instance if one heard the name Vandecasteele over the phone, it might be spelled Van de Casteele, Van De Casteele, Vande Casteele, Van Decasteele, or Vandecasteele. It can then take much more time to find the right file; time is money and you don't want to put your customer on hold any longer than necessary.

The Beethoven comparison is invalid. The names starting with 'van' or 'Van' originated either as meaning '[son] of' or 'from'. In Beethoven's case the latter is more likely: from [the] turnip field(s). In the early days of common people getting a family name, this literal meaning will still have sounded right, even if one's family was not known to have been growing turnips. One might then more easily drop the prefix. Another historical sample: in the 16th century, Thomas More wrote letters to his friend Hieronymus (Jeroom) van Busleyden, addressing him in the letters shortly by "Busleyden, you ...". Both Busleyden and Beethoven are often named without the 'Van'. Nowadays, the family names are seen as one whole, one never talks of 'Raadt' or 'Rossum' (unless perhaps in a very rude way).

Since ordering by the whole name is standard on Wikipedia, the Dutch language not having a fixed rule on such (there may have been differences at certain times between official records in the Netherlands and in Belgium), but certainly the Wikipedia way now being the most common, I strongly suggest not to make an exception for the Dutch language names. — SomeHuman 22 Aug 2006 16:26 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

My rationale for sorting by the last part is that it seems easier to me to scan an alphabetical list by capital letters, and de and van are usually written with small d and v.

Also, sampling of various Dutch-related categories shows that people with van and de are usually not under d and v.

All that said, i'd go with an accepted Wikipedia standard - but the current one is inconclusive. --Amir E. Aharoni 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Most names are written with capital D or V, I assume you now a lot of people of nobility, whose names are written with small d or v.
One more practical note: in electronical storage, at least one company with about 40,000 employees in the Netherlands and Belgium, allows looking up people in an addressbook disregarding any spaces and capitalization. Thus a search on Vandecasteele may return on screen:

• Van de Casteele, Anton
• Vande Casteele, Bart
• Van De Casteele, Chris
• Vandecasteele, Danny
• Vande Casteele, Erica
• Van De Casteele, Felix (etc) – and is very practical compared with any other system. — SomeHuman 22 Aug 2006 16:55 (UTC)

That's nice to know - i wish that Hebrew searching software was that efficient.

But here we are talking about van Rossum and de Raadt and i don't remember that i have ever seen their names written with capital V and D, except in the beginning of a sentence. --Amir E. Aharoni 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot another series of real names: DHaese, Dhaese, dHaese, D'Haese, D'haese, d'Haese, d' Haese. As for Van Rossem, Van Rossum and van Rossum, one has only one spelling for a particular family, though historically they might once have had a same name that became distorted from some time onwards. — SomeHuman 22 Aug 2006 17:24 (UTC)

That's all interesting - but how should i sort van Rossum and de Raadt?

The only place on the www that in which found Guido van Rossum's name alphabetically sorted is here: Python/XML package credits and it supports my opinion about sorting by the R. --Amir E. Aharoni 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

To make decisions, a single sample is statistically worthless. There's another problem: many Flemish people have French language firstnames: Jean-Louis, or Jean Louis. How would you handle the "-" versus the blank? I think a recent law allows parents to pass the family name of the father, of the mother, or both to their children. I assume we will come to see 'Alex van Rossum-de Raadt' soon... and perhaps sometimes (mis?)spelled with blanks beside the dash 'Alex van Rossum - de Raadt'. The only practical method is (here simplified pseudo programming):

IndexOn field:( UpperCase ( ReplaceIn ( field:Familyname field:Firstname, " " or "-" or "'", "") ) )

Anyone can easily do this in mind, just discard the funny characters. Thus one does not have to think about alphabetical positions of normal characters or capitals, blanks, apostrophes, dashes (which have different positions in code tables on a PC or a mainframe, for instance: ASCII, EBCDIC). — SomeHuman 22 Aug 2006 18:32 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabet sort 3

Guido van Rossum's home page

Says: "Alphabetization: in America, I show up in the alphabet under "V". But in Europe, I show up under "R". And some of my friends put me under "G" in their address book..."

So i judge in favor of R.

Logic: English is not only American, but European too; Guido is European.

Plus, it's easier to me to scan an alphabetical list by capital letters, and de and van are usually written with small d and v :)

Regards. --Amir E. Aharoni 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damnit

Crap, why can't i get van Rossum right?

(Probably 'cuz my favourite language is Perl afterall ... ) --Amir E. Aharoni 20:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analphabetism

That's the impression I'm getting: After numerous arguments in favour of ordering by the complete family name, while I showed what kind of problems one will encounter in the future – like where to put very real family names as d'Haese or D'haese or D'Haese or with a blank d' Haese or starting with a small character dHaese (there goes the argument of taking the last part because it's easier to sort on capitals), not to mention Fayd'herbe or Faydherbe (names that occur in the Netherlands and in the US) – and having disproven the validity of the 'Beethoven' argument, after showing a method that works for all names, which also orders by capitalizing everything before ordering, no argument is countered but based on one single sample and van Rossum's ridiculizing remark (the G of his firstname, showing he's too much a man-of-the-world to make a fuss about these little things): all simply discarded because it doesn't fit the made-up mind. Thus a talk page is just an excuse to do whatever one intended to do in the first place.

The idea that ordering by the last part of a family name would be European, is untrue; it only used to be one of several methods. I'm as European as van Rossum and encountered more often, and almost exclusively nowadays, ordering on the complete name. The white telephone guide in Belgium for instance, follows the same logic as I had promoted (discarding blanks and other hard to alphabetically order characters and put everything in uppercase before ordering to determine the position where of course the unaltered proper name is shown, see the sample ordered list in section Alphabet sort 2. The method of ordering 'van Rossum' as 'Rossum, van' is as outdated as manual filing systems and even in those days both methods had been in use. Where this had led to (rarely) reading one's name as 'Rossum, van', it looked ridiculous to many and had often upset people: they see their name as something you can't go juggling around – unless one is used to things, as Mr. Rossum, van. — SomeHuman 23 Aug 2006 16:19 (UTC)

I'm sorry if i hurt you.

I wouldn't re-sort it if i didn't see that he wrote it on his own homepage. Wikipedia likes sources - i gave two of them about the van Rossum in question and re-sorted de Raadt for consistency.

Thanks for all the input, anyway - i learnt a lot about Netherlands and Belgium. --Amir E. Aharoni 17:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Wikipedia likes references. Some from the Netherlands? .*.****..**.*...., or some Flemish ones? ........ — I just googled on "lijst van familienamen" (list of family names) and "lijst van achternamen" (list of surnames) and picked all the results in their common Dutch language with mainly Dutch or Flemish language names and not obvious reproductions of old archives, that appeared first. Of course, I took just one sample per site (else one phone guide with lists per town might outweigh those of all other authors). Not all of these are very useful samples: to avoid any personal bias I did not want to make choices. The ones with an * in front follow your preference to some extent; the others either my preference, or – just a few – a variation on the latter taking blanks in account (which I strongly oppose to; that method had been used in Belgian telephone guides and became replaced with the one I promote, indicating its superiority: forcing everyone to adapt is not readily done without good reason and then only after long time complaints about the former method). Even in the Netherlands, the balance does not support your preference, in Belgium that method seems nearly non-existent (or, Hollandic is not a synonym of European, and on that matter, van Rossum has no authoritative voice). Does my earlier one sample is statistically worthless start to make sense now? (That's why I skipped the one from Dutchspeaking Suriname. though it does prove the method I defend, is at least known in the former Dutch colony). Notice also how biased your repeated "usually written with small d and v"' was.

Conclusion: In the Netherlands, both methods occur about evenly. Choosing precisely that particular method that enforces a "Dutch Nation branding" onto every reader of the English Wikipedia, most of whom are totally unaccustomed to this method, instead of the method just as common in the Netherlands and normal in most other countries using the same alphabet, even where the Dutch language is spoken, and which is promoted by the English Wikipedia, is a blatant demonstration of POV. I do not feel hurt, but I feel I should not have needed to spend this much time to something I had hoped to make clear enough by my first comment in section Alphabet sort 2 — SomeHuman 24 Aug 2006 00:53 (UTC)

Your time was not wasted. Now i am much more educated about the Dutch language than i was a few days ago.

If you seriously think that your method is better, you are more than welcome to promote it at the Wikipedia style guide page instead of this silly little template talk page for FOSS fanboys like me :). That style guide mentions Dutch names separately, but it is very inconclusive on the matter and you could improve it.

For these two particular names, though, i gave my rationale above. If you still think that it's wrong, then i've got a wonderful proposal - let's sort them by the first name! :-)

And again, thanks a lot for your time. --Amir E. Aharoni 10:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Since User:Amire80 knows the link, I cannot figure out why he keeps saying 'very inconclusive', quote:

People with multiple-word last names: sorting is done on the entire last name as usually used in English, in normal order and not (for example) according to the Dutch system that puts some words like "van", "vanden", etc... after the rest of the last name. Example: [[Categorie:Nederlands voetballer|Basten van Marco]]; [[Category:A.C. Milan players|Basten, Marco van]] → [[Category:A.C. Milan players|Van Basten, Marco]]

It cannot be more definitely and clearly stated. Obviously, as I had pointed out in my former comment, Amir E. Aharoni is set on staying utterly blind regarding anything that does not match his preoccupation. The text in his reference mentions "Exceptions" (I assume "Warnings" might be more correct): 1) only for Beethoven and a few similar names that are generally known without the prefix part of their original name. For all other, the prefix is fully part of the name for all puposes, including for ordering. 2) once more not an exception but in fact a warning: some names appear like 'van den ...' but are not so, e.g. the architect Mies van der Rohe did not have a firstname 'Mies' and surname 'van der Rohe', but used the surname 'Mies van der Rohe' (his firstname was Ludwig, like that other exceptional artist). The template text is now again ordered as it had been on several occasions before.

For all clarity, the quote comes from a Wikipedia style guide, the link to Dutch name mentioned under section Alphabet sort 2 does not go to a style guide for Wikipedia but simply to a regular article on how names are sorted, in fact not in Dutch but by the Dutch (and then only by some, as I already had demonstrated). Moreover, the article on Dutch names says, quote:

However, Dutch names in English directories (e.g. reference lists of scientific papers) tend to be ordered on the full name including all prefixes (Van Rijn would be ordered under 'V').

This does not look very inconclusive to me. — — SomeHuman 24 Aug 2006 19:10 (UTC)

Let me explain why i think that it is inconclusive.

De Raadt is indeed used with de more often then van Beethoven used with van.

However actual Wikipedia practice shows that Dutch, Belgian and South African names are more often not listed in categories under d or v, but after the word with the capital letter.

So i should have wrote "practice" and not just "policy". Such discrepancy between practice and policy can mean two things - either nobody cares or the policy is inconclusive afterall.

I'm sorry if this discussion makes you think that i'm blind, illiterate and stubborn. I actually hope that it may make the policy and the practice better, although i'll be surprised if it's the first ever of its kind on Wikipedia. Call me naive, if you will. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Both the policy and the article on Dutch names state clearly that in an English text or article, the 'Dutch' style is not proper (see both quotes above). Of course, Dutch people are used to their method and appl sorting simply the (only) way they know. It is only after finding out that this is not as common to everyone, that one will – as you did – start looking for guide lines. The problem is that one does not always (and possibly more often not) become aware of the need for those, and thus a lot of 'Dutch' method lists may exist. That does not make them 'right' (there are also many people who ever get involved in a car accident...). Unless you find a discussion about this on such article's talk page, that actually mentions the Wikipedia style guide on the subject and gives proper argumentation why to deviate from it, you should follow the style guide and – if you have the time – improve the 'Dutch' method lists that you had found so as to follow the style guide; and/or put a message on its talk page (perhaps to the discussion here). This may invoke others to avoid making the same mistake – because that's what it is, really. I had realized you were only a little naive (not uncommon when confronted with an unfamilar and unexpected way of thinking as a different method of sorting than one has been used to), and just wanted to do someting about it. — SomeHuman 27 Aug 2006 12:36 (UTC)

[edit] This template: a failed experiment? better as a Category?

It gives me no pleasure to say, I think the content of this template is dull, and is getting worse. I don't think this is the fault of the contributors - I think that this level of quality, and the decline in quality, was unavoidable and is unfixable. I can see how this would have seemed to be a coherent and interesting template before it was made, but now, it looks like a failed experiment.

If this was a Category, it would be easier to ignore, but templates occupy larger and more distinguished space on the screen. The quality standard to justify a template should be high.

The topic lacks definition, and I think the general concept is fundamentally undefinable (or insufficiently definable). This is a particularly difficult problem for a template since, unlike Categories which have pages where the definition can be stated and viewed by normal readers, templates have to rely solely on the name of the template. They are thus only really suited to concepts that can be summed up and defined in a title.

Now we have Brendan Eich, Mitch Kapor, and Andrew Tridgell being called "FOSS celebs" - for one of those people, the first time I saw their name was in this template, and I've been on the FOSS circuit since the mid- or late-90s.

I'm not going to nominate this for deletion, but I wanted to note my thoughts somewhere. I think it is worth considering re-implementing this as a category. I hope I haven't come across too negative. It was worth trying, but now it needs some re-thinking. Gronky 19:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The truth about these navigational templates is that they need to be either aggressively defended or periodically deleted and then recreated (as invariably they will be, the list of empires template has been created and deleted twice already afaik). Removing edit buttons, for instance, lengthens the expected useful lifespan of such templates, but detracts from the "freedom" element of the encyclopaedia. Categories are only more valuable because editing them is less accessible. I may have already suggested that there should be a GUI tool for editing templates, drag-and-drop style. Again, more freedom, less intellectual elite (I bet I'll get roasted for that one, kaw (exclamation)!) So the drill is, remove any article you feel misplaced in the template, but be prepared to defend your decision, because it will be contested. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What does this template mean? Wrote a lot of software that later was made free software by others? (Note #Bill_Joy.) Be a major proponent of free software, but have written no code? Both? Won a reward that the FSF gives? (Even though their award committees have been top-notch.) Something else? Recently, I added Keith Bostic and John Gilmore to this template. Both had made major contributions as large, and usually larger to FOSS, then anyone else on the list other then Richard Stallman. I considered several dozen and settled on those two. Then tonight Tim O'Reilly (I verified this outside of the WP site.) added four of those dozens and Bill Joy who I would never have considered. Rationales could be made for hundreds of people. And then the list would be diluted and increasingly meaningless. I'n not enough of a WPian to know how to get the template considered for deletion, but it be a good idea. Make it a category instead. - Lentower 07:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning being that a category has no central place for discussion? Or how does a category avoid the problems you describe? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories have the same central place for discussion as any other article. Click on a Category link at the bottom of an article, which brings up the article listing all the articles in the category. Click on the discussion tab at the top, which brings you to the Talk page for the category. - Lentower 01:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer your other question in a few days. And raise some others. As I think about this, I'm still finding new prespectives on it. Respectfully - Lentower 01:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories are also subject to bloating in the same way as a template. There is nothing to stop the category from becoming diluted and meaningless either, so that's not a very good argument for changing it. Rationales also apply to a category in the same ways, so that's not a good reason either. In either, rationales are developed as we go along, like everything else on the wiki. Rather than complain about the lack of rationales, work on making them. Really, the template is better as it allows an overview with one glance on the article. For categories one must navigate to the category first and then muck around in it. As for dull, um templates will never be exciting things. Look at that ones for the succession of Kings of England. They could not be duller, but are more useful than a giant category. pschemp | talk 02:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Lentower, you may be aware that from the way categories are currently implemented, they are not watchable - only the talk and lead text can be watched, not the content. So in addition to what has been said before, categories are very easy to vandalise, and require one more click than a template to navigate through. Category implementation will improve eventually, but until that time, templates are far preferable for major categorisations. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As someone who criticized this template when it started, I'd like to state that it was never really "coherent" or "interesting" in its beginning. Even though the templates gain the technical benefit of being watchable (which can be managed by shared watchlists, no?), they are no excuse for poor categorization. They're also no excuse for people to not contribute to the project to categorize articles at Wikipedia. More coherent alternatives to this template are categories like Category:free software programmers. --69.54.29.23 12:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks, anon, for coming along to paint with your own broad POV brush. I guess we shouldn't create concepts like "public face of free and open source software" because they're outside the box, and Wikipedia has to be strictly inside the box, right? How could anything that's outside the box possibly be useful? Surely the history of science and technology should have taught us something about this by now? But I digress. You have apparently missed the point that there is no obligation for anyone to contribute anything to Wikipedia, and even less of an obligation for Wikipedians to boss each other around. So smile and enjoy the ride. Peace. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely, this is the reaction of the person who started the template that is under discussion? If only criticism didn't bring bad feelings. All I can say is that I know I tried in good faith to contribute to the template in a manner congruent with it's original spirit. --69.54.29.23 15:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's that boring, how come it's not dying in oblivion? Seems if we've spent this much time discussing what the template should contain, it must be relevant, or people wouldn't care. Sure, everyone wants their favourite hacker to be in it, but I don't see that as a reason to kill the template. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Joy

I removed him. Bill Joy is not a proponent of free software. Once he got his degree, he went off to a start-up and became a multi-millionare by writing and supervising the production of proprietary software. It is true, that while at Berkeley, he wrote much of the software that was in BSD. And some of that became FOSS software through the efforts of Keith Bostic and others. Some also consider him a great programmer, though others have said that his code is obscure, subtle and hard to maintain. The final release of BSD from CSRG at Berkeley had little of his code left in it. It had all been replaced. Before you add Bill back, you should first add to the Bill Joy article, stating how he has been a proponent of FOSS software, with adequete citations. Respectfully, Lentower 07:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If anyone should be noted as a Key figures of FOSS history for the start of Berkeley Unix, it is Prof. Bob Fabry, who secured the grants that allowed Unix development to occur at Berkeley, and supervised it. He had the vision that UCB could make a big difference in Unix. He was responsible for getting Bill Joy involved. Bill Joy lucked into the environment that Prof. Fabry set up. Still Respectfully, Lentower 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Scheifler?

I dunno if Bob Scheifler belongs in this list. Sure, he was the progenitor of the X window system, but ... nobody celebrates him for it, nor does he seek any limelight. When, for example, was the last time Bob gave a talk about X11? The last time I saw him speak publicly was at the X conference in 1987. You remember 1987, don't you? It was in all the history books. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RussNelson (talk • contribs).

To me the point of this template is NOT to celebrate those who are famous in the FOSS world, but those who have made a large difference to the world through the FOSS movement. It's about Contribution, Effort, Vision, and Effect -- that sets an example for others to follow. By these criteria, Bob Scheifler belongs. BTW, Bob was celebrated at the time. - Lentower 01:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Len. FWIW, I would cite Bob as the single biggest influence on my thinking about free and open source software. I was doing documentation for various free software programs before X, but it was Bob whose generosity of spirit first impressed me with the broader ideals of FOSS. What's more, the X model had an indirect role in the commercialization of the web. We started the development of Docbook, and released Viola (the first graphical web browser) as free software because of Bob's notion that you should release a reference implementation and let others innovate on what you built. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tim oreilly (talk • contribs).

[edit] Bring Template name and Title into agreement?

The template is currently called FOSS celeb, and since it seems that people went with the theme implied by the title, key figures, rather than the name, it may be time to bring the two in line, so either change the content to include only people that can be considered part of the public face of FOSS, or rename the template to FOSS figures or FOSS bios or some such. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This has been perking in my head. I prefer FOSS key figures unless there is a limit of two words. Celeb could be mistaken for people who merely have fame, which is what Celebrity usually means. If WP wants to go with a template for those who are part of the public face of FOSS FOSS spokepeople would be better then FOSS celeb. - Lentower 09:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is the heading. All of the people on this template might fit appropriately under "FOSS celebrities", or (better) "notable FOSS advocates and contributors", or "well-known FOSS personalities", but I'm not convinced it is appropriate to class them as "key figures of FOSS history." How do you define a key figure? And how long is history? I wouldn't say ESR was a key figure, he is well-known but I think his contributions have been largely fringe and derivative rather than key. Brian Paul and Paul Vixie have such pathetic WP articles I really find it hard to believe they are truly key figures either. Good as he is, has Eben Moglen really been contributing and well-known for long enough to be a key historical figure? And Bruce Perens? Theo de Raadt, Miguel de Icaza and Andrew Tridgell are well-known, and highly-important in their own fields and projects, but are they really key figures in FOSS history? NicM 23:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC).

Yes, and if you care to look back, this is exactly what I've been saying all along. However, everybody seems to be enjoying criticising the same point over and over and over and over and over and over again rather than making any constructive, actionable suggestions towards a solution. Is asking questions so much fun? Apparently! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I hardly see a wealth of suggestions from you either. At least I give three options for alternative headings. NicM 11:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

E.g. [1] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So, what is your suggestion for the title? I don't like just "FOSS figures" or the template will end up with everyone on it. "Key FOSS figures" reads well but still seems open to a lot of interpretation. What about "notable FOSS figures"? Even that still leaves a major problem of criteria: I would suggest either that they must have a significant Wikipedia article, or that we start with the current contents and that there must be a consensus to include or remove them on the talk page before further changes are made. This would leave ESR, at present, as there doesn't seem to be a consensus to remove him. NicM 12:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

Yes, I don't like ESR, but he belongs in the context. Now, notability would be good. I see two criteria being bandied around that people seem to feel are relevant to a greater or lesser extent:

• Coding contributions
• Advocacy or discussion of FOSS concepts

A third criterion, probably the one that's hardest to defend, is recognition by the general public - this includes book contributions, appearances in documentary films, and especially magazine coverage. Lastly, there are awards like the FSF awards which seem to be aiming to move deserving people out of obscurity, but Brian Paul would seem to be an example where this wasn't successful - I'd never heard of him before. So what do we think of these criteria, and putting "notable" on the template? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the criteria you suggest can work, but they need to be well-defined to avoid stuff that is just a matter of opinion and inevitably ends up with endless disagreements and discussions. What about including people only if they:

• Are the author of a published book about FOSS philosophy or concepts (not web, not self-published, not a textbook), this one is easy to prove;
• Are the founder or chief developer of a significantly influential FOSS project, something unarguable large, significant and widely used (Linux, one of the big three *BSDs, Apache, Bind, Sendmail, X, GCC). This one is fairly easy to show too, although for some edge-case projects a consensus will need to be reached if they are significant enough;
• Are the head of a significant FOSS organisation, again some edge-cases may need discussion;
• Are a well-known FOSS "personality," although this one is maybe too subjective;
• Have made a significant enough contribution in some other way that enables consensus to be reached that they should be included.

Even this list has some scope for disagreement, but it may at least be clearer by what rules people are to be judged and what the focus of the discussion should be. I think it would be best to avoid things like recognition, it is terribly hard to measure even subjectively (it is far too easy to end up with an endless "i've heard of him"/"i haven't" exchange). And I think we should use our criteria rather than the ones other people have used when giving out their awards. This would probably keep most of the current list and give better scope for discussing any edge cases and new additions.

In the end, if criteria like this are chosen, there is going to have to be discussion and consensus on some additions and removals: I see no way to make them clear enough not to require it in some cases. Unless we can come up with some other, simple, easily verifiable criteria instead (length of WP article? google hits with "OSS OR FOSS"? straight vote, or consensus a la AfD, for each additition/removal? something else?). NicM 16:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

Okay, we're having difficulty developing a framework here. I would say that the template will become quite useless if we include all the people that are founders or lead developers of the projects you have listed plus Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora (which would have to be given similar weight to the BSDs, since, although they're less of a separate development effort, they have much wider distribution and hence recognition). That would be a good criterion to use for a category, but not for a template. If we want to go that way, we really should delete this template and convert the content to a category. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So, what do you propose? NicM 12:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC).

Leave out the project founders and lead developers. Debian elects a new leader every year iirc. Too many. If they've been more vocal, or have an additional point of notability (e.g. starting a second big project), they can be included. Bruce Perens would be a case in point. He was co-initiator of the open source vs. free debate/initiative, and regularly provides commentary for magazines and such like. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Adams?

I don't think Rick Adams belongs here, the article gives no link to anything open source or free software, only to the internet, while the internet has played a large part in the growth and popularity of both open source and free software projects, it is not one in and of itself. The organization he was involved with helped with the ISC, but Adams was not UUNET. Feel free to debate that one. Janizary 00:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you read that paragraph about Rick Adams jump starting Software as a Service? Is that not important to the development of FOSS? The UUNET article has a link that explains it a bit more: Tim O'Reilly discusses UUNET as an open source-derived business. Includes some history. Yes, the Rick Adams article needs some work here. Perhaps you can do it? Hunt down some more citations? Etc. - Lentower 02:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get your info about Adams and UUNET? He founded UUNET! I was there when he came up with the idea of UUNET, and then sold it to the USENIX Association. And watched it as he took from non-profit to for-profit. He left a nice piece of change behind that was used for a number of non-profit activities. This is all mentioned in the article. The rest is not. With some of the money he made on the transformed for-profit UUNET, he funded BSDI and was part of their management team. This included paying for their half of the legal costs of fighting with UCal Berkeley against AT&T Bsd#Net.2F2_and_legal_troubles to free BSD, which allowed all the freed versions of BSD to exist, and for all the BSD software to be available to be part of GNU/Linux distributions. Without Rick's dollars, as well as his and Keith Bostic's work on the law suit, there would be no freed BSD software. Yes, the Rick Adams article needs some work here. Perhaps you can do it? Hunt down the citations? Etc. - Lentower 02:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And Jimbo Wales founded Wikipedia, but how much has he actually done here and how much has been the people around him? Just because Jimbo founded Wikipedia does not mean I would credit him with anything accomplished by Wikipedia, I apply the same logic to Adams. He didn't do specific things for free or open source software from any of the sources I've seen, UUNET did - he was no more UUNET than Wales is Wikipedia. Being a part of the closed source derivative of BSD doesn't really make him a big open source proponent, his fight was not to free the BSDs, it was to not be sued into the ground for trademark and copyright infringement. The non-profits he helped to create I suppose can lend credibility to the idea of him being here, but I don't think the man had any intent on anything free or open based on anything I've yet seen, or would you credit Dave Mustaine with Saint Anger? Janizary 04:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric S Raymond?

I have the same to say about Eric S Raymond -- I don't think he belongs here. He has to date contributed nothing but an essay that is at best sometimes recognised as being vaguely insightful. Maintaining the jargon file is hardly noteworthy either, since we're doing much the same thing right now, I don't think my name belongs on this list just because I piddled around with the OpenBSD article. Janizary 00:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree on the subject of Eric Raymond. He does, however, seem to have managed to promote himself so relentlessly that he is now included in every noteworthy edited volume or film on the subject. I also disagree with people who think that Richard Dawkins is an influential evolutionary biologist - he merely popularised ideas of other people, but I think this gets to the heart of the "Wikipedia is not about truth" issue. (btw, Raymond also claims he was influential in the open-sourcing of Netscape - difficult to verify beyond the claim that he was an advisor to the board). We may disagree with including Raymond on moral grounds due to his limited contribution, but it's a fact that he's widely being treated as an open source figurehead. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people have ideas. Other people are able to successfully communicate those ideas to the public. You can call it self-promotion if you like, but it's hard to argue that Eric isn't a FOSS celeb. Argue instead that there are too many such to list in a template. RussNelson 17:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Raymond makes strong assertions about his own notability that are not entirely in proportion to his achievements. That's what I mean by self-promotion. Popularisation is fine as long as you give credit to the actual originator of the idea, and make a proper effort to correct others incorrectly crediting you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have ideas that people should listen to, first they must listen to you. You can't do that unless you promote yourself. I have great ideas all the time, but I'm the most famous person nobody has ever heard of, so nobody hears my ideas. Sorry to say, but successful popularization never works the way you describe it. It really takes away from your message if you constantly explain that it's somebody else's idea. That always makes people wonder why the other person isn't presenting the ideas. If it's important to get the ideas acrosss to people, then you don't worry about giving credit. If it's more important to give credit, and failure to promulgate the ideas is acceptable, then that is what you do. RussNelson 03:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No disrespect to your particular views, but this is hardly relevant to the template. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just pointing out that Janizary is far off the mark. If he doesn't like the fact that Eric is a FOSS Celebrity, he should work towards deleting the template. I mean, the very FACT that he proposed the deletion is a sign that Eric has celebrity enough to have enemies. Every person on that list has people who don't like them. Janizary doesn't like Eric; so what of it? RussNelson 23:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll note that Janizary also marked another person, Rick Adams for removal, does Janizary hate him too? Is Janizary writing death threats to Rick Adams and Eric Raymond? No, Janizary pointed to the simple fact that the man has done nothing of note, except for perhaps posture about and make wild claims that noone really buys into. Perhaps you should let Janizary speak for Janizary, instead of putting words in his mouth. Janizary didn't say this template should be deleted, he said that two of the people on it don't seem to be worth mentioning, so, just to repeat Janizary's point, since Raymond has done nothing, why should he be listed here? Janizary 03:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that your concern is about notability, in which case, the thing to do is to nominate the article about Raymond for deletion. Unfortunately, he is a book author, and this is usually enough argument to sway people to keep an article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me like you think a FOSS celebrity needs to be a coder. People who merely promote the works of others are doing something, so your claim that "Raymond has done nothing" is patently false. Clearly people buy into Eric's claims, so "noone really buys into" is patently false. Since I think that anybody reading this can see that your charges are meritless, so I'll leave you to have the last word (because I know it'll be yet another falsehood.) RussNelson 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• fetchmail
• http://freshmeat.net/~esr/

Nothing hugely exciting, but he does code. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence Lessig - if I thought only coders mattered why do you suppose I support him being on this list? As Raymond has accomplished nothing and made wild claims about being an important contributor to Linux, I don't support him, yet here I am supporting Lawrence Lessig. Curious, perhaps it is because I can see no merit to listing Raymond but can see a reason for Lessig? And what of Eben Moglen? Tim O'Reilly? I seem to think all three of them belong, or at the very least, have merit for being on this template. Perhaps you are one of the people that buy into Raymond's posturing and bragardry, but I have yet to see the man accomplish anything and the article on Wikipedia does not show him as being anything more as a sideshow that detracts from open source's image and communal cohesion. Most others on the template have done significant things. Do you have anything other than, "some people buy into him," to support him being on this list? Sure, Raymond is noteworthy enough to merit an article, he's more famous than say Todd C. Miller, the developer of sudo, but he is not a key figure to anything about free software or open source. Janizary 22:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This should cheer you up, Russ. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reader's perspective

I think it's worth reminding ourselves that what we are trying to achieve here is deliver value to the reader, not pander to the ego of FOSS personalities. Who are the three or five leading figures that people should read about if they read nothing else? Note these should be people that have substantial articles written about them. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List people who defect from FOSS?

E.g. Jordan Hubbard. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone changes their opinions, dies, moves job, whatever, I don't think it should make their historical contributions vanish. NicM 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

I agree. You either shaped the landscape or you didn't. There is something else useful though: the box could be split into lifelong contributors and others, or it could be split into dedicated contributors and incidental contributors, etc. Gronky 21:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Beyond that (unless it has changed recentl), Jordan has help keep the kernel of MacOS X open source software. Though I prefer people who are not partial defectors from FOSS, people who make significant partial contributions belong in this "FOSS Key Figures" template. Though such actions are not part of the Free Software Movement, they are part of the Open Source Movement.

There are a number of ways this template could be partitioned. Lentower 19:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No consensus on recent deletions

Samsara seems to be the only editor who is deleting people from the template, with the exception of my deleting Bill Joy, months back. He has not built any consensus here. I have no problem with the template growing alot, as long as each person has made a significant FOSS contribution. BTW, Eric Raymond belongs in this template. Lentower 19:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope your comment is taking into account what I and NicM discussed, and the fact that if this template bloats significantly more, it will likely fail its next AfD, as this was one of the concerns. Nobody was going to take Eric out, although his semi-significance is regretted by several of us. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please document deletions here on the talk page

Edit summary documentation of deletions is quickly "lost". Near term, below the first screen. Long term, on older pages. It would help prevent re-adds and edit wars, if each deletion was noted here, with a short explanation, and both edit summaries (for the template page and the bio page), wikilink to the revision of this talk page that had the deletion explanation. Perhaps as sub-sections of a "Deleted Figures" section on this talk page. Lentower 19:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the nature of Wikipedia is such that those that edit frequently and persistently will eventually get their will. However, I am a strong advocate of WP:BB and consider your suggestion to contradict it. Typically such procedure as you describe is only followed on semi-protected featured articles frequently subject to vandalism. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Vixie

Paul Vixie belongs on this "FOSS Key Figures" template. He not only has done and supervised significant FOSS software development. He has also worked to keep the Internet free for all, and net neutral. For several decades now. I plan to add him back, when I have a chance during or after my Thanksgiving travels. Lentower 19:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Both Paul Vixie and Rich Salz had significant influence on the development of FOSS and the Internet in general. While they haven't had as much impact lately, they certainly were a huge influence back in the 1980s. I guess maybe "celebrity" status does fade, but I think that is more a problem with the name of this template than the list. Wrs1864 14:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)