Re: Making the Association aims more clear -- proposal

[Davi Leal]

FS contributors
     NO because it can imply "gratis".

FS producers
     NO because http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Consumer

FS authors
     Let's try this one.



MJ Ray wrote:
> > Also, I would remove the world "professional".  It has negative
> > connotations that someone is only doing a task because they are paid
> > to do so, not because they want to do it anyway.

John Darrington wrote:
> I disagree that the word has "negative connotations", or that it
> implies that pay is the incentive.  To me a "professional" is someone
> who performs a service, and in doing so assumes an extra duty of care
> (over and above that expected by non-professionals).  In order to
> allow the professional  to perform this service on a regular basis,
> (s)he would normally charge a fee for service.
>
> Removal of the word "professional" means a total change from what I
> had understood the organisation would do.  I thought it was aimed at
> persons who do Free Software as paid work (either full time or part
> time) but now that word has been removed, there's nothing to suggest
> that.  I recommend keeping the word.

Let's try to keep "professional".


> With regard to the "persons" versus "people" argument, both are
> correct in modern English.  However one or other may be more
> appropriate depending on what you wish to emphasise.  I think that
> "helping people" implies the association will have a more general,
> indirect role, whereas "helping persons" suggests helping them on a
> personal, one-to-one basis.

Therefore, let's keep "helping people".


We should heard the MJ's opinion, and other if any.  In the meantime I have 
modified again the strings at gnuherds.org, but not committed it yet.

  * producers --> authors
  * professional (added again)

Just my current personal opinion, after reading this new email. As usual 
flames are needed.

Davi