5 ms·

Open Letter to the European Commission

60 points by giraj 2y ago

PedroBatista 2y ago
With all the nasty drama inside the nixOS organization, while reading this "open letter" I can't help myself viewing this as some wolf playing as the sheep. Let's cut the BS, they want money and the whole low key gaslighting about the " sovereignty of a European infrastructure", "country widening" and the whole "Look! USA, China or Russia are way ahead of you guys, you suck and are in danger, please give us money." tell us more about the nixOS organization than the EU one. I'm not that salty I swear :) Just don't waterboard us with theatrics and BS when all you want is the money like anyone else.
- shswkna 2y ago
  Everyone needs money, it doesn’t matter who you are and what your circumstances are. So to bring this up as an argument against someone is kind of pointless. But someone needing money still needs to motivate the reasons-for to the money-giver. So this is perfectly valid. I will go as a far as saying that your post portrays an ideologically skewed world-view by insinuating that wanting money is something “bad or morally tainted”. But yes- of course the money-giver has the right to view the pros-and-cons of giving money and decide who receives it. Because the money-giver has the right to push an agenda according to their value system, by deciding who they give money to. The open letter is about more than nixOS and appeals to the stated ideals of the EU.
  - PedroBatista 2y ago
    > Everyone needs money, it doesn’t matter who you are and what your circumstances are. So to bring this up as an argument against someone is kind of pointless. Yes, that's why my whole point of contention is not the money but the half-assed cheap tactics to get it. > "and appeals to the stated ideals of the EU." This whole letter looks like a toddler with an oversized business suit writing a letter to Santa. It's not the end of the World, it really doesn't matter that much. But I find it funny how they think the EU works and how they think this will get them money.
    - scrollaway 2y ago
      The people who wrote the original letter (https://ps.zoethical.org/pub/lettre-publique-aux-ncp-au-sujet-de-ngi/ https://ps.zoethical.org/pub/lettre-publique-aux-ncp-au-suje...) understand how the EU works just fine. Funny that; I live in Brussels and have that “Brussels specific expertise” some other commenter is talking about upthread. They noticed NGI was not present in a draft and wrote a call out addressed to NCPs (National Contact Points, the contact points of horizon calls) as feedback that the NGI scheme has been funding good project and it should remain prioritised. What actually is your problem with it? Do YOU know how the EU works?
  - lkadh 2y ago
    GP did not write that wanting money is something “bad or morally tainted”. GP questioned the way in which money was asked for and whether NixOS deserved money due to internal drama. I do not know the politics of NixOS, but if they indeed harm dissenters like other software projects, that would be contrary to the original EU values and therefore they should not get money. That was the argument as I understood it.
latexr 2y ago
I have a lot of suggestions for this open letter. Not because of the request itself, but the structure is atrocious. An open letter must be convincing not only to the recipient but everyone else who reads it. * It is written in almost broken English. * It does not explain one of its core concepts. What the heck is Cluster 4? This is an open letter; explain (or at the very least link to¹) what you’re talking about so that people can understand your message. * It’s a wall of text with (comparatively) too much spacing between lines and not enough between paragraphs. * It asks people to sign the letter by republishing it “on your website and add to the list of signatories”, like it’s an email chain from the early 2000s. Talk about limiting your own reach. Most people don’t have their own website, and even if they did you’re making it nigh impossible to count who signs it. * It meanders instead of going straight to the point. I was lost trying to figure out what the hell the letter was about until I jumped to the very last sentence: > In this perpective, we urge you to claim for preserving the NGI programme as part of the 2025 funding programme. That should have been the first sentence! The goal of the letter looks good, but the execution leaves it in a poor state for success. ¹ Here’s what I found: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/cluster-4-digital-industry-and-space_en https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding...
seydor 2y ago
This is a closed letter by some people who live on EU money protesting about some other people receiving EU money. It is only comprehensbile in the context of EU-funded employment schemes and you need Brussels-expertise to understand it. I have worked with Horizon funded projects before, a wonderful waste of my time in adding an adequate amount of logos to powerpoint slides.
- kkfx 2y ago
  Well, I have no issue imaging how bureaucratic, inconclusive, how much flow of public money on some friends of friends etc it could be but the point is simple: public money, public code need or public developers, or the State hire them to develop it's own infra, ENTIRE infra, or the public pay FLOSS projects that use, according to certain criteria to ensure public money, public code principle. In such terms most EU States have done "something", and the EU have done something (for instance the digital euro actually in an initial phase is based on GNU Taler, with the development badly handled in semi-secrecy by a private-public consortium), but most of their actions was bad in design terms. Sometimes the public have offered mere FLOSS supporting infra, of dubious quality and ultimately not that needed (if you develop a serious FLOSS project you likely already have a personal infra to work on it, you might like funds to keep it up but not change it for a State offered "as is" new infra) but they do not provide a damn FLOSS coherent evolutionary line. We have for instance eIDAS (digital identity, form ID docs to e-signature, e-invoicing etc) ANY EU country have it's own personal variant, formally compatible with all the others except for some "extensions" that breaks practical compatibility most of the time, large parts of eIDAS are public money, public code, but most interesting parts are proprietary with even unclear ownership. The point is that's about time to MANDATE FLOSS the entire sw stack (with target for the hw one, we can't have open now) and a clear public development and public support to FLOSS projects so we can have one, FLOSS is free, but not gratis.
waihtis 2y ago
NixOS may be legitimate, but the amount of BS funded under these EU programs is atrocious. The application processes are wildly untransparent, run by local bureaucrats under multiple layers of abstraction. I won't suggest anything here except that there's a lot of favourable conditions here to funnel money into dead-on-arrival projects. EU should just focus on reducing legislation, bureaucracy, regulation and taxation instead of trying to construct layers upon layers of "instruments" for achieving something.
- rafaelmn 2y ago
  EU is corrupt on all levels (EU, member states, local government) and is deteriorating rapidly with normalization of corruption. They are grabbing as much power as they can, not letting up existing legislation. Used to be politicians had shame and would get punished for scandals - these days they just double down and shrug it off. I think Trump pioneered the approach but the EU is following suit, as much as us Europeans like to look down on US politics. Shit is just as bad here, we're just smug and pretend we're better on top of it. Worst part is even if say 10% of the government is egregiously corrupt now - this will be the focus of public discourse and with the bad actors getting rewarded instead of punished it normalizes and encourages their behavior.
  - waihtis 2y ago
    wait until we get the politicians dream, the chat control bill, not only will Brussels shrug off everything but you'll enjoy a suitable penalty for criticizing them
- DoingIsLearning 2y ago
  > The application processes are wildly untransparent, run by local bureaucrats under multiple layers of abstraction. I was surprised to find a few years back that the big consultancy companies actually have teams dedicate to advising companies on these applications and supporting documents. Helping them navigate the complexity. If you need to pay consultancy companies to navigate the process then you just killed access to smaller companies and universities in less well off economies.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rmkn 2y ago
Formally, it seems to me that the political effectiveness of an open letter depends primarily on two factors: 1. the level of public responsibility, particularly media-related, of the concerned decision-makers, and 2. the exceptional nature of the situation, meaning its severity combined with a lack of other types of possible political actions. In this case, I feel that, on one hand, the decision-makers are mainly technical experts who are not well known to the general public and receive little media attention; and on the other hand, there was a period of public consultation open to all two months ago, which seems adequate as a means of political action. Therefore, it seems to me that this letter reopens a debate that has already been addressed, expressing widespread dissatisfaction with a provisional decision that has not yet been formalized. This could potentially weaken the impact of open letters in general. Regarding substance, our society appears to be moving towards increased centralization of policies, regulations, and funding. This centralization requires more accountability and transparency. Perhaps NGI faces difficulties justifying these funds while supporting independent individuals. In particular, the EU expects investments to produce impacts at a European scale with real and significant adoption. It might be interesting to have a dashboard of key performance indicators (KPI) to demonstrate growth and usage of NGI projects. On the other hand, it must be noted that adoption remains low within the community. The graph on funding is explicit: two-thirds of projects are again funded by NGI. This may indicate a lack of community buy-in. However, the goal of this European funding is to demonstrate an ability not to rely exclusively on this funding and to generate profitable activity. This confirms my impression that the tech community continues to focus on developing new solutions independently while perhaps forgetting that this community funding should generate real and useful usage. Shouldn't we prioritize usage in our objectives? The report clearly states that new technologies must compete with existing usages. We need to find other solutions—perhaps non-technological ones. In conclusion, I suggest that the most constructive response to this potential reduction in funding would be to acknowledge that NGI faces competition from other initiatives for similar funding sources. It would then be wise to evaluate our approaches and propose new measures in order to meet expectations. An open letter protesting sends a contrary message against a willingness for adaptation and collaboration. What should we learn from this situation? origin https://notes.rmkn.fr/share/response-public-letter-ngi https://notes.rmkn.fr/share/response-public-letter-ngi

60 points by giraj 2y ago

With all the nasty drama inside the nixOS organization, while reading this "open letter" I can't help myself viewing this as some wolf playing as the sheep. Let's cut the BS, they want money and the whole low key gaslighting about the " sovereignty of a European infrastructure", "country widening" and the whole "Look! USA, China or Russia are way ahead of you guys, you suck and are in danger, please give us money." tell us more about the nixOS organization than the EU one. I'm not that salty I swear :) Just don't waterboard us with theatrics and BS when all you want is the money like anyone else.

shswkna 2y ago
Everyone needs money, it doesn’t matter who you are and what your circumstances are. So to bring this up as an argument against someone is kind of pointless. But someone needing money still needs to motivate the reasons-for to the money-giver. So this is perfectly valid. I will go as a far as saying that your post portrays an ideologically skewed world-view by insinuating that wanting money is something “bad or morally tainted”. But yes- of course the money-giver has the right to view the pros-and-cons of giving money and decide who receives it. Because the money-giver has the right to push an agenda according to their value system, by deciding who they give money to. The open letter is about more than nixOS and appeals to the stated ideals of the EU.
- PedroBatista 2y ago
  > Everyone needs money, it doesn’t matter who you are and what your circumstances are. So to bring this up as an argument against someone is kind of pointless. Yes, that's why my whole point of contention is not the money but the half-assed cheap tactics to get it. > "and appeals to the stated ideals of the EU." This whole letter looks like a toddler with an oversized business suit writing a letter to Santa. It's not the end of the World, it really doesn't matter that much. But I find it funny how they think the EU works and how they think this will get them money.
  - scrollaway 2y ago
    The people who wrote the original letter (https://ps.zoethical.org/pub/lettre-publique-aux-ncp-au-sujet-de-ngi/ https://ps.zoethical.org/pub/lettre-publique-aux-ncp-au-suje...) understand how the EU works just fine. Funny that; I live in Brussels and have that “Brussels specific expertise” some other commenter is talking about upthread. They noticed NGI was not present in a draft and wrote a call out addressed to NCPs (National Contact Points, the contact points of horizon calls) as feedback that the NGI scheme has been funding good project and it should remain prioritised. What actually is your problem with it? Do YOU know how the EU works?
- lkadh 2y ago
  GP did not write that wanting money is something “bad or morally tainted”. GP questioned the way in which money was asked for and whether NixOS deserved money due to internal drama. I do not know the politics of NixOS, but if they indeed harm dissenters like other software projects, that would be contrary to the original EU values and therefore they should not get money. That was the argument as I understood it.

latexr 2y ago

I have a lot of suggestions for this open letter. Not because of the request itself, but the structure is atrocious. An open letter must be convincing not only to the recipient but everyone else who reads it. * It is written in almost broken English. * It does not explain one of its core concepts. What the heck is Cluster 4? This is an open letter; explain (or at the very least link to¹) what you’re talking about so that people can understand your message. * It’s a wall of text with (comparatively) too much spacing between lines and not enough between paragraphs. * It asks people to sign the letter by republishing it “on your website and add to the list of signatories”, like it’s an email chain from the early 2000s. Talk about limiting your own reach. Most people don’t have their own website, and even if they did you’re making it nigh impossible to count who signs it. * It meanders instead of going straight to the point. I was lost trying to figure out what the hell the letter was about until I jumped to the very last sentence: > In this perpective, we urge you to claim for preserving the NGI programme as part of the 2025 funding programme. That should have been the first sentence! The goal of the letter looks good, but the execution leaves it in a poor state for success. ¹ Here’s what I found: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/cluster-4-digital-industry-and-space_en https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding...

seydor 2y ago

This is a closed letter by some people who live on EU money protesting about some other people receiving EU money. It is only comprehensbile in the context of EU-funded employment schemes and you need Brussels-expertise to understand it. I have worked with Horizon funded projects before, a wonderful waste of my time in adding an adequate amount of logos to powerpoint slides.

kkfx 2y ago
Well, I have no issue imaging how bureaucratic, inconclusive, how much flow of public money on some friends of friends etc it could be but the point is simple: public money, public code need or public developers, or the State hire them to develop it's own infra, ENTIRE infra, or the public pay FLOSS projects that use, according to certain criteria to ensure public money, public code principle. In such terms most EU States have done "something", and the EU have done something (for instance the digital euro actually in an initial phase is based on GNU Taler, with the development badly handled in semi-secrecy by a private-public consortium), but most of their actions was bad in design terms. Sometimes the public have offered mere FLOSS supporting infra, of dubious quality and ultimately not that needed (if you develop a serious FLOSS project you likely already have a personal infra to work on it, you might like funds to keep it up but not change it for a State offered "as is" new infra) but they do not provide a damn FLOSS coherent evolutionary line. We have for instance eIDAS (digital identity, form ID docs to e-signature, e-invoicing etc) ANY EU country have it's own personal variant, formally compatible with all the others except for some "extensions" that breaks practical compatibility most of the time, large parts of eIDAS are public money, public code, but most interesting parts are proprietary with even unclear ownership. The point is that's about time to MANDATE FLOSS the entire sw stack (with target for the hw one, we can't have open now) and a clear public development and public support to FLOSS projects so we can have one, FLOSS is free, but not gratis.

waihtis 2y ago

NixOS may be legitimate, but the amount of BS funded under these EU programs is atrocious. The application processes are wildly untransparent, run by local bureaucrats under multiple layers of abstraction. I won't suggest anything here except that there's a lot of favourable conditions here to funnel money into dead-on-arrival projects. EU should just focus on reducing legislation, bureaucracy, regulation and taxation instead of trying to construct layers upon layers of "instruments" for achieving something.

rafaelmn 2y ago
EU is corrupt on all levels (EU, member states, local government) and is deteriorating rapidly with normalization of corruption. They are grabbing as much power as they can, not letting up existing legislation. Used to be politicians had shame and would get punished for scandals - these days they just double down and shrug it off. I think Trump pioneered the approach but the EU is following suit, as much as us Europeans like to look down on US politics. Shit is just as bad here, we're just smug and pretend we're better on top of it. Worst part is even if say 10% of the government is egregiously corrupt now - this will be the focus of public discourse and with the bad actors getting rewarded instead of punished it normalizes and encourages their behavior.
- waihtis 2y ago
  wait until we get the politicians dream, the chat control bill, not only will Brussels shrug off everything but you'll enjoy a suitable penalty for criticizing them
DoingIsLearning 2y ago
> The application processes are wildly untransparent, run by local bureaucrats under multiple layers of abstraction. I was surprised to find a few years back that the big consultancy companies actually have teams dedicate to advising companies on these applications and supporting documents. Helping them navigate the complexity. If you need to pay consultancy companies to navigate the process then you just killed access to smaller companies and universities in less well off economies.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rmkn 2y ago

Formally, it seems to me that the political effectiveness of an open letter depends primarily on two factors: 1. the level of public responsibility, particularly media-related, of the concerned decision-makers, and 2. the exceptional nature of the situation, meaning its severity combined with a lack of other types of possible political actions. In this case, I feel that, on one hand, the decision-makers are mainly technical experts who are not well known to the general public and receive little media attention; and on the other hand, there was a period of public consultation open to all two months ago, which seems adequate as a means of political action. Therefore, it seems to me that this letter reopens a debate that has already been addressed, expressing widespread dissatisfaction with a provisional decision that has not yet been formalized. This could potentially weaken the impact of open letters in general. Regarding substance, our society appears to be moving towards increased centralization of policies, regulations, and funding. This centralization requires more accountability and transparency. Perhaps NGI faces difficulties justifying these funds while supporting independent individuals. In particular, the EU expects investments to produce impacts at a European scale with real and significant adoption. It might be interesting to have a dashboard of key performance indicators (KPI) to demonstrate growth and usage of NGI projects. On the other hand, it must be noted that adoption remains low within the community. The graph on funding is explicit: two-thirds of projects are again funded by NGI. This may indicate a lack of community buy-in. However, the goal of this European funding is to demonstrate an ability not to rely exclusively on this funding and to generate profitable activity. This confirms my impression that the tech community continues to focus on developing new solutions independently while perhaps forgetting that this community funding should generate real and useful usage. Shouldn't we prioritize usage in our objectives? The report clearly states that new technologies must compete with existing usages. We need to find other solutions—perhaps non-technological ones. In conclusion, I suggest that the most constructive response to this potential reduction in funding would be to acknowledge that NGI faces competition from other initiatives for similar funding sources. It would then be wise to evaluate our approaches and propose new measures in order to meet expectations. An open letter protesting sends a contrary message against a willingness for adaptation and collaboration. What should we learn from this situation? origin https://notes.rmkn.fr/share/response-public-letter-ngi https://notes.rmkn.fr/share/response-public-letter-ngi