James, You have continued this, and related, lines of questioning of multiple staff members and of the community for quite some time now. It is clear that you have not received an answer that you find satisfactory, and I understand that, but may I ask what makes you think that you will receive an answer that is satisfactory to you by continuing to ask the same questions. It is possible, and in my opinion likely right now, that you will never receive an answer that satisfies you given the realities of the conversation. My read of the discussions (and lack thereof) that have happened here and elsewhere over the course of many years when you bring these topics up is that the level of interest in pursuing your specific agenda is not only low but, if anything, actively negative. That is not to say that many of us do not, personally, agree with the goals that you espouse just that we do not believe the foundation should be actively participating in them. Spreading us too thin is not helpful for any of our goals and focus, including in advocacy, is incredibly important. I would encourage you, James, to move on from this line of discussion. Continued work on it, whether it be via passive aggressive emails 'to' staff members (while copying in a public mailing list), attempts to rally up support through different mailing lists or via proposed surveys of the community are unlikely to change the response that has been clear for at least 5 years. I understand that you may not see these emails or proposals in the way I described but I urge you look at them through others eyes. James Alexander User:Jamesofur On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 4:47 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote: