Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alex Taylor]

Recently we have been "invited" to approve a thing which is being called
the "social contract".   If the text is read, it will be seen that it has
three parts.

The first part is the four freedoms established by Stallman many years
ago.  No problem there, we all agree with those.  Or do we?  Well I
personally do.  But GNU has for many years received contributions from
people who do not agree with its philosophy.  Many such contributors are
even employed by proprietary software companies.   So if contributors are
pressured into "endorsing" these it is likely to discourage some of the
very people who have helped us.

The second part talks about basic cooperation on technical and practical
matters within GNU.  That seems sensible too.  But wait!  When I became a
maintainer many years ago I was also asked to agree to something very
similar, and up until I stepped down, nobody told me I was relieved from
that commitment.  Non-maintainers are not asked to agree to this, because
they do not have to make high level decisions - that's the maintainer's job.
Nobody else has to agree, nor should they be asked to.

Finally the text has a non-discrimination clause.  Surely nobody could be
against that either?   Well personally I'm not.   But I don't think we
should exclude people because they have other ideals which are nothing to
do with a Free Operating System.   For example, I would vehemently disagree
with  a person who passionately believes that white people are
intellectually, morally and physically superior to black people.But
like Voltaire, I would defend to the very end that person's right to
believe it.This is basic freedom of rights which has made GNU (until
recently) the tolerant successful community it was.

I hope that all GNU users and contributors will support the free software
ideals.   I also think if they want to support anti-apartheid,  the
suffragette movement, pro-choice movement, animal rights, plant breeders'
rights, nuclear disarmament, pro life movement or whatever other movement
...   then that's great too.   But  I will not insist upon it nor imply
that non-support is somehow morally deficient.

Finally "endorsing" the text would give the rebel group a legitimacy which
they neither have, nor deserve.  It's instructive to look at the track
record of these renegades.   The Guile and Guix projects have both excluded
and/or vilified people who disagree with the people in power (the same
people who push the "social contract").If you choose to endorse this
text, bear in mind that the words are imprecise so don't be surprised if,
sometime down the road, your endorsement is used as a weapon against you
when you fall out of favor with the powermongers.

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Ruben Safir]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:50:28PM +0100, Alexandre François Garreau wrote:
> Le samedi 15 février 2020, 19:07:36 CET Daniel Pocock a écrit :
> > Maybe you could call your new group "GNU Europe",
> 
> But many of them are USAians, aren’t they?


No - they are all in France as far as I can well.  This is centered on
Bordeaux


-- 
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com 

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive 
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com 

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, 
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Ruben Safir]

Not - they are adding GNU to their names, at the behest of GNU, as a
matter of fact.

They are not claiming to be leaders of the GNU project and purposely 
breaking GNU policy.

Just because an organization allows you to use their trademark for a
purpose, that doesn't give someone permition to rip it off and then
claim they are GNU leadership



On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:57:47PM +0100, Alexandre François Garreau wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 février 2020, 19:50:49 CET Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) a 
> écrit :
> > On 2020-02-10 07:32, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > There were several pieces of feedback that were either not sent to the
> > > public list, or are still held up in moderation.
> > 
> > Maybe that contract should include a few clauses about not engaging
> > in deceptive and illegal behavior.
> 
> I disagree in regards to illegal. RMS and then GNU and FSF (at least by 
> the past) as well supported the view according  which obeying an unjust 
> rule is unjust.  They never prominently encouraged actively a blatant law-
> breaking, as I’ve rarely seen such ambitious initiatives in free-software 
> projects, beside warez, but changing that would be a loss, and a radical 
> change we shouldn’t take
> 
> There’s something present in several social movement, and in 
> free software and neuter/acentered internet as well that is called 
> “illegalism”.  It can be reconduced to civil disobedience. It is present 
> in anarchism.  This is a powerful tool, that’s part of «direct action” 
> (something you should be familiar with, given your behavior) that free-
> software movement should be encouraged to use against hard things such as 
> DRM, tivoization, deceptive/emprisoning hardware, surveillance, etc.
> 
> > You should not be using the GNU logo in that website or the word "gnu"
> > in the domain name.
> 
> Plenty of websites already do that.  See any GLUG or free-software distro 
> supportive of GNU, or even gnuplot’s website.  GNU is not really regarding 
> of brands.

-- 
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com 

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive 
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com 

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, 
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

Re: Richard Stallman should be reinstated to President of the FSF

[徐继哲 - Xu Jizhe]

I support this idea!

在 2020年02月17日 03:42, Ruben Safir 写道:

Richard Stallman was bullied from his position at MIT and FSF and the
FSF should take the couragous move of reinstating Richard as President
of the FSF

Nobody but Stallman can do what he does, as a spokeman, and strategic
planner to protect end users from the abuses of non-free software.

The reevaluation of the FSF and GNU should be put on hold and RMS needs
to put back in his rightful place.

Please see http://www.nylxs.com/ for a yet incomplete, but more detailed
explanation as to why this is correct course for the FSF and GNU.  It is
the best response to those who abuse the GNU trademarks, and resources
for their own purposes.

Ruben



--
徐继哲 - Xu Jizhe

生生不息，繁荣昌盛！Live long and Prosper!

xuji...@xujizhe.com  +86 186 1279 0101
http://www.xujizhe.com

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

[DJ Delorie]

a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> That speaks more to the fact that the GNU project leadership has no
> impact on project adaptation, or contributor activity.  But rather it
> is a individual effort by each project maintainer.

One could argue that this indicates that what you term "GNU leadership"
is not providing leadership to the projects, and that the maintainers
must provide that leadership themselves.  What is the point of
leadership that has no impact?

Perhaps this view does not align with your view, but we must also
consider how the general public (or at least the general
free-software-involved public) views us from the outside.  If they are
more likely to be influenced by the maintainers than by RMS, from
*their* point of view, the maintainers *are* the GNU leadership.  We
should not be blind to how we are perceived by others.

And don't fall into the trap of thinking leadership can only come from
one person.  RMS may be "the leader" but he's not the only one providing
leadership to others.

Re: Endorsement of the GNU Social Contract

[Andreas Enge]

Hello,

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 05:26:12PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Today is “I Love Free Software” day and we want to thank you for being
> part of GNU!

nice point, I also love free software, even a few days later! So thanks
to all GNU people, among others, for providing us with free software.

Nonsurprisingly,
   I, Andreas Enge, maintainer of package GNU MPC, endorse version 1.0
   of the GNU Social Contract, available at
   .
I think it is a really nice document that summarises our commitments
to the world. :)

Andreas



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-20 10:06, a...@gnu.org wrote:

I'm not saying that GNU will necessarily stop growing and decline. What
   I'm afraid is that it might just become insignificant compared to
   others, and thus its voice for the 4 freedoms become less and less
   heard.

I think everyone would agree that we do not want the four freedoms to
become irrelevant, or that the GNU project be forgotten.  And I think
everyone can also agree that there are groups that are working against
it (see e.g. the whole idea of "ethical" licenses).


There are more issues than four freedoms.

For instance, the software developed under the GNU license, conforming
to all the required freedoms, can easily be the platform for a weapons
system used to strike non-military targets in contravention of the
UN Charter.

The suffering caused by users not having the right to build from
source, modify and share the programs they use is rather one
of these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World_problem

Don't you think?

Debates that are hinged to First World Problems get so heated
precisely because the stakes are so small.

It's just a bourgeoise thing. Look, I have a good
tech job in a safe country, my belly is full. What to do? I know,
I will get pissed off at proprietary software!

Fast forward a few decades, and Microsoft is making in boatloads
of money running a cloud business on GNU/Linux.

Don't get me wrong; there are important issues this Digital Age.

Unfortunately, most of them are not fixable simply via copyright.

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-20 11:42, Andreas R. wrote:

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 02:45:02PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:


> On the flip side, an argument is made that your initiative might make GNU
> more exclusionary because of the extra conditions on what it takes to be a
> part of it.

At some point you have to exclude some people in order to include 
other

people, yes.  We can see that in various communities:


One group whose inclusion is being specifically promoted by the
proposed social contract is people with a low level of experience.
The exact rhetoric is that people must be included regardless of
their level of experience, which can only possibly mean
regardless of how low is their level of experience.

So, if people have to be excluded to bring about inclusion,
let us ask: whom do you have to exclude in order to include
people with a low level of experience?

I suspect that the answer is: some experienced people,
who would block their bad work.

I smell age discrimination in disguise: experienced
people tend to be old farts.

Why not just make a simpler social contract: people are to be
retired out of GNU on their 50th birthday.

Older people are politically insensitive, and too smart to
accept crap software changes. These factors work together to
create an environment which prevents snowflakes from
contributing to the GNU project.

Am I getting warmer?

Some examples of those communities and their problems might be helpful 
here

to see if these communities can provide a useful parallel with GNU.


Screw examples! Let's see the actuals.

Under the proposed governance:

- who is going to be included who currently isn't included?

- who is going to be kicked out?

Because ... that's obviously what this must be about, right?

Or, if there are no such specifics, then this initiative is then
simply about being able to wield that power. To wave it people's
faces, and from time to time, use it.

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

[Samuel Thibault]

Alexandre François Garreau, le ven. 21 févr. 2020 11:59:42 +0100, a ecrit:
> Le jeudi 20 février 2020, 18:39:52 CET Samuel Thibault a écrit :
> > Alfred M. Szmidt, le jeu. 20 févr. 2020 12:32:16 -0500, a ecrit:
> > > How does that have to do with the overall project leadership, which
> > > hasn't changed significantly over the years, and yet had significant
> > > growth in new projects for several decades (if we take the graphs by
> > > Wingo at face value).
> > 
> > "Significant growth" is very little compared to the huge growth that can
> > be seen on other platforms.
> 
> So when measuring we should only dare to measure GNU stuff in comparison 
> with other software projects and platforms.  Very interesting.

I never said you should *only* do that.

I just said it is a comparison worth making, because it *does* have an
impact on what platform people find about, and thus where they get
ideas.

> > I'm not saying that GNU will necessarily stop growing and decline. What
> > I'm afraid is that it might just become insignificant compared to
> > others, and thus its voice for the 4 freedoms become less and less
> > heard.
> 
> That’s a reasonable fear, so that should be what should have been measured 
> in the metrics discussed in this thread.

But how can you measure *that*?

Samuel

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

[Samuel Thibault]

Alexandre François Garreau, le ven. 21 févr. 2020 12:39:37 +0100, a ecrit:
> It is defeatist because it departs from the basic idea you’ll *have* to 
> exclude someone at some point.  No solution will ever be found.

Yes.  Been there a few times, had to resort to it, I remember a case
where it was after a couple of *years* trying with others to find a
solution.

> And rather than taking the risk of not reacting immediately
> (“tolerance zero”, another right wing thing)

I never said reaction had to be immediate.

> you prefer to “aknowledge” this “will have to be done at some
> point”.  Is if there wasn’t any middle ground for compromision
> there.

Sometimes you can't find any.

> The idea of shared kill/blacklist or /ignore have been already proposed.  
> That solves it.

Not necessarily for less strong people. Just leaving out is simpler than
having to yet again set up some filters and everything.

> It is paternalist because it assumes *the chiefs* have to take care for 
> “uncomfort” and “stuff people couldn’t stand”.

In my book, parts of chiefs' role is making sure people are comfortable,
yes.

> It always will be, because “excluding” these “toxic” people won’t make 
> them disappear away, they always will be somewhere.

Possibly, unfortunately. That said, sometimes some people are only toxic
in a given situation, and just excluding them from it avoids the issue.

> Now, in the previous case, with no exclusions, these people who learnt to 
> stand anything could, as soon as there is no official exclusion, participate 
> in anything, that is good.

Sure. But not everybody can (I'm not sure anybody can really in all
situations).

Samuel

Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Eli,

On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 12:09 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Ludovic Courtès 
> >
> > See the timeline at:
> > 
> >   https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback
> 
> If, as that page says, the proposed "contract" is entirely voluntary,
> then what is its significance?  IOW, what would those who endorse it
> have or be entitled to that the others won't?  And why are you going
> to such lengths trying to advance and promote a document which is not
> mandatory for endorsement by GNU developers and maintainers?  Those
> promotion efforts imply that the document is somehow very central to
> your ideas of governance and the call for changes in the GNU
> leadership, whereas dismissing its importance by saying the
> endorsement is entirely optional seems to fly in the face of those
> efforts.  This apparent contradiction needs to be clarified, IMO,
> because its existence makes your intention unclear and even somewhat
> mysterious.

These are good questions and my apologies we didn't make this more
clear. The GNU Social Contract is important because it defines what the
GNU project stands for. It is a mission statement. The core ideas that
we all believe in. It doesn't prescribe any policies, but is worded so
that it isn't in conflict with any of the current policies of the GNU
project. To work on the GNU project you do not need to endorse it. But
those who do are promising to uphold its values while working on GNU.
It isn't directly related to governance issues. But discussing
governance issues (or any policy issues) will be easier if we at least
have a set of core principles we all value. Promoting those values is
what is important.

> More generally, I don't think that page answers Dmitry's concerns.
> The disputes we witness here and elsewhere about your initiative
> involve much more than just that single short declarative document,
> they are about several more specific ideas of yours, such as that GNU
> maintainers and developers should have more say in the GNU political
> decision-making, and that RMS should be removed from his current role
> because you think he is unfit for leading GNU and even causes harm to
> GNU.  There's nothing in your Wiki about dissent over these and other
> related ideas, AFICT.

You are right that some months ago there was discussion on this
mailinglist about some of those issues. Yes, there are GNU participants
who have strong opinions about those issues. But they are often
expressed in the negative. I don't believe there is consensus on some
of those ideas yet. And it was probably a mistake to start with those
(my mistake, because I started that discussion). Without first having a
clear definition of what GNU is and what the core values of the GNU
project are that we all agree on, it is unproductive to tackle more
controversial topics. That is why the GNU Social Contract is so narrow,
focused and concentrates on the positives.

Cheers,

Mark

Re: Endorsement of the GNU Social Contract

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi GNU,

I, maintainer of GNU Classpath, endorse version 1.0
of the GNU Social Contract, available at
.

Thanks,

Mark


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

[Andreas Enge]

Hello John,

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:54:19PM -0500, John Darrington wrote:
> Therefore I'm extremely dissapointed that recently a small group of
> GNU maintainers has started spreading nagative and misleading propaganda
> about others within GNU

this is not founded in any argument, but seems to be pure propaganda itself.
Can you instantiate this claim? Who has spread which negative propaganda
about whom?

> demanding conformance to rules - sometimes
> capricious ones - which have no relevance to GNU, and spreading of 
> extremist and quite orthogonal rhetoric.

Can you give a concrete example? As I see it, the GNU Social Contract
contains only trivialities in the sense that it summarises values of the
GNU project that are already there, and as such it is far from extremist.

> None of these actions are going to attract people to GNU.  Quite the opposite.
> They are driving people away.   It has to stop - and the sooner the better.

Well, you are of course entitled to that opinion, but I am naturally of the
opposite one. And we have received feedback going exactly in that direction,
that our initiative would be a good starting point to make someone come
back to GNU.

Andreas

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 16 février 2020, 21:27:51 CET Ruben Safir a écrit :
> It is objected to and resisted by the GNU
> Project.

No.  rms said people could publish whatever they want, and GNU project 
doesn’t oppose a such initiative, but doesn’t support either.  What it 
object to, is calling it “GNU”.

Just to lower the confusion.  Nuances have to be taken.

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

[nipponmail]

They got rid of RMS because "the industry" (working white men) don't 
want to see a repeat of the Cisco suit, where RMS was victorious, and 
won big.


The rest of the current FSF are do-nothings and won't sue anyone for 
copyright infringement of the GPL.


On 2020-02-21 16:27, Ruben Safir wrote:

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 09:02:34AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

Hi Dmitry,

Dmitry Gutov  skribis:

> On 20.02.2020 11:47, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> I think it’s important for GNU hackers as a group to be able to reflect
>> on the project’s procedures and discuss whether/how to improve them.
>
> So what GNU hackers who disagree with you lot on this or other
> subjects are supposed to do?

They can choose to ignore the Social Contract, or better yet, they can
let us know they do not endorse it and (ideally) why.  It’s a process.




There is no process.  There is you trying to water down GNU to a
technology clubhouse of a few coders with too much time on there hands.



> I don't see the opposing viewpoints reflected in your documentation
> anywhere. You have formed a subgroup, discussed your views in private,
> and are now soliciting positive feedback within the project, while
> largely ignoring negative one.

This is wrong.  See the timeline at:

  https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback

> And you're misrepresenting yourselves as a project-wide official
> initiative. "We are GNU, and here are our values".

Our first message¹ to maintainers started with:

  The authors of this message have started an effort […]

I don’t think there’s any misrepresentation.



Oh come on, yes you do!  You intentionally created a misrepresentation
when you tried to turn GUIX into GNU, then again when you openly
attacked RMS without cause, and not this attempted take over where you
are openly claiming to represent GNU, as if you have any authority.

Your cohorts have openly expressed that if this works, you won't need
Stallman and GNU leadership, that you will just sidestep it..."it will
become irrelevent"

Clearly here it is your intention to misrepresent it, and misrepresent
GNU.

The process we want to see is the one where you shut down this wiki, 
and

where your social justice warior attempts come to an end.  Also we want
to see you banned.  The only reason your not banned is because Stallman
is protecting you.  Most of the rest of us want to see you banned.

Ruben



Thanks,
Ludo’.

¹ https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-wiki/tree/code/sc-email.txt


--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

___
Hangout mailing list
hang...@nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout

Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 21.02.2020 12:09, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

From: Ludovic Courtès 
Cc: "Alfred M. Szmidt" , gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org,
  christo...@poncy.fr
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:02:34 +0100


I don't see the opposing viewpoints reflected in your documentation
anywhere. You have formed a subgroup, discussed your views in private,
and are now soliciting positive feedback within the project, while
largely ignoring negative one.


This is wrong.  See the timeline at:

   https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback


If, as that page says, the proposed "contract" is entirely voluntary,
then what is its significance?  IOW, what would those who endorse it
have or be entitled to that the others won't?  And why are you going
to such lengths trying to advance and promote a document which is not
mandatory for endorsement by GNU developers and maintainers?  Those
promotion efforts imply that the document is somehow very central to
your ideas of governance and the call for changes in the GNU
leadership, whereas dismissing its importance by saying the
endorsement is entirely optional seems to fly in the face of those
efforts.  This apparent contradiction needs to be clarified, IMO,
because its existence makes your intention unclear and even somewhat
mysterious.


I would also agree and rephrase this by saying that the item (g) (at 
least) on the feedback page is unsatisfactory.


Though both the suggestion (adding "this is entirely voluntary" to the 
description) and the response ("omitted for brevity") look rather stupid 
(apologies to whoever this might offend), because it's not how these 
documents should be introduced.


If it's an optional, voluntary initiative inside GNU, say so! Proudly, 
at the beginning of the document. This would both make a lot of 
"old-timers" happier and make the document more fresh and relevant. And 
not to mention, honest.


Whereas the word "simply" here in "simply defines the core values of the 
GNU Project" is, like in software development: a curse word.



More generally, I don't think that page answers Dmitry's concerns.
The disputes we witness here and elsewhere about your initiative
involve much more than just that single short declarative document,
they are about several more specific ideas of yours, such as that GNU
maintainers and developers should have more say in the GNU political
decision-making, and that RMS should be removed from his current role
because you think he is unfit for leading GNU and even causes harm to
GNU.  There's nothing in your Wiki about dissent over these and other
related ideas, AFICT.


I didn't want to touch on these details in this particular branch of the 
discussion, but yes, overall I feel a lack of clarity and, dare to say, 
openness from this new movement. Which isn't great to see from people 
who aim to lead GNU.

Re: avoiding the bias in vocabulary

[Daniel Pocock]

On 19/02/2020 23:26, Alexandre François Garreau wrote:
> Le samedi 15 février 2020, 18:56:21 CET Daniel Pocock a écrit :
> 
>> There are a lot of words used in various discussions today that have
> 
>> some bias.
> 
>>
> 
>> For example, the word /ban/ is quite disparaging to the victim. Simply
> 
>> using the word continues the bias.
> 
>>
> 
>> From a technical perspective, banning somebody from a mailing list and
> 
>> censoring somebody on a mailing list are both achieved by clicking the
> 
>> same button.
> 
>>
> 
>> Use the word ban, it leaves a lingering feeling that the volunteer may
> 
>> have done something questionable.
> 
>>
> 
>> Use the word censor, it implies the organization is avoiding some
> 
>> questions.
> 
>  
> 
> Use the word “moderate” it implies something has gone (irrelevantly?)
> too much or excessive;

No two people have the same definition of too much or too little.

To put it another way, each person values a different set of issues.

Avoiding the issue by ridiculing the person is a disturbing trend.

Making character attacks against somebody because /you/ think they
respond too quickly is as bad as kicking people out when somebody else
thinks they didn't respond quickly enough.

The only course of action left is for people to sit in the middle and
not say anything controversial, in other words, sell their souls to the
gods of groupthink.


> use the word “toxic” it implies you’re contaminated (it’s transitive),
> from an evil you can’t see right-away.

That reminds me of the woman who gives talks about humiliating people.
I'm not a fan of the term toxic woman but that's the expression that
comes to mind.

enforcement => bullying

safe space => cult

community => unpaid workforce

twitter storm => lynching

harassment (in a free software community) => speaking truth to power



Regards,

Daniel

--
Debian Developer
https://danielpocock.com

torture in online communities, FSF, Debian, etc

[Daniel Pocock]

There is news today about expanding the definition of torture to include
the psychological abuse we see in online communities.

They specifically talk about the practices of shaming and humiliating
people, as we've seen in FSF abusing RMS and Debian abusing a number of
volunteers.

Misquoting people and gaslighting both appear in PsyOps manuals.

Regards,

Daniel


1.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/feb/21/un-rapporteur-warns-of-rise-of-cybertorture-to-bypass-physical-ban

Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-20 02:07, Dmitry Gutov wrote:

On 20.02.2020 11:47, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
I think it’s important for GNU hackers as a group to be able to 
reflect

on the project’s procedures and discuss whether/how to improve them.


So what GNU hackers who disagree with you lot on this or other
subjects are supposed to do?

I don't see the opposing viewpoints reflected in your documentation
anywhere. You have formed a subgroup, discussed your views in private,
and are now soliciting positive feedback within the project, while
largely ignoring negative one. And you're misrepresenting yourselves
as a project-wide official initiative. "We are GNU, and here are our
values".


There is something important that these "gnu.tools" reprobates
are deliberately hiding.

They want to change the GNU governance in such ways that people can
be excluded from the GNU project.

What they are hiding is the list of people they would kick out
if they were to have their way.

They know that if you publish such specifics, it's harder to obtain
endorsement, because even gullible people who are duped by political
rhetoric can comprehend the meaning of a concrete list of names.

Re: Endorsement of the Social Contract 1.0

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-20 05:43, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

Hello,

I, co-maintainer of GNU Guix, GNU Guile, the GNU Shepherd, and
GNU Guile-RPC, and a contributor to other GNU packages, endorse
version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at:

  https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract

This endorsement means that I believe in the values stated in the
document and that I’m willing to uphold them as part of my GNU
maintainer role.


That's nice. I know of a GNU maintainer who believes in Buddhism,
and upholds those values as part of his maintainer role (and
any other role).

Good thing it's not required of everyone, isn't it!


I’m looking forward to more fellow maintainers judging the document on
what it actually says and taking this opportunity to express a firm
commitment to GNU and free software.


... plus two other other clauses not having a darn thing to do with
freedom, and one that is just PC inclusivity rhetoric with a twist:
no minimum level of experience required!

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 21.02.2020 10:07, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

I don’t think so, but I’d rather emphasize “symbiosis” with some
projects than disagreements with others.


Oh well. So I'm yet to witness a practical disagreement that you have 
with RMS.

Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ludovic Courtès 
> Cc: "Alfred M. Szmidt" , gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org,
>  christo...@poncy.fr
> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:02:34 +0100
> 
> > I don't see the opposing viewpoints reflected in your documentation
> > anywhere. You have formed a subgroup, discussed your views in private,
> > and are now soliciting positive feedback within the project, while
> > largely ignoring negative one.
> 
> This is wrong.  See the timeline at:
> 
>   https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback

If, as that page says, the proposed "contract" is entirely voluntary,
then what is its significance?  IOW, what would those who endorse it
have or be entitled to that the others won't?  And why are you going
to such lengths trying to advance and promote a document which is not
mandatory for endorsement by GNU developers and maintainers?  Those
promotion efforts imply that the document is somehow very central to
your ideas of governance and the call for changes in the GNU
leadership, whereas dismissing its importance by saying the
endorsement is entirely optional seems to fly in the face of those
efforts.  This apparent contradiction needs to be clarified, IMO,
because its existence makes your intention unclear and even somewhat
mysterious.

More generally, I don't think that page answers Dmitry's concerns.
The disputes we witness here and elsewhere about your initiative
involve much more than just that single short declarative document,
they are about several more specific ideas of yours, such as that GNU
maintainers and developers should have more say in the GNU political
decision-making, and that RMS should be removed from his current role
because you think he is unfit for leading GNU and even causes harm to
GNU.  There's nothing in your Wiki about dissent over these and other
related ideas, AFICT.

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

[Ludovic Courtès]

Dmitry Gutov  skribis:

> On 20.02.2020 15:12, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> As I see it, the point of the Social Contract you’re referring to is a
>> commitment to work hand in hand with our natural allies.  These could be
>> projects that build software the GNU system or GNU applications rely on,
>> or it could be projects fighting the same fight.
>
> To clarify: does LLVM fit either of the descriptions, in your opinion?

I don’t think so, but I’d rather emphasize “symbiosis” with some
projects than disagreements with others.

Ludo’.

Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Dmitry,

Dmitry Gutov  skribis:

> On 20.02.2020 11:47, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> I think it’s important for GNU hackers as a group to be able to reflect
>> on the project’s procedures and discuss whether/how to improve them.
>
> So what GNU hackers who disagree with you lot on this or other
> subjects are supposed to do?

They can choose to ignore the Social Contract, or better yet, they can
let us know they do not endorse it and (ideally) why.  It’s a process.

> I don't see the opposing viewpoints reflected in your documentation
> anywhere. You have formed a subgroup, discussed your views in private,
> and are now soliciting positive feedback within the project, while
> largely ignoring negative one.

This is wrong.  See the timeline at:

  https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback

> And you're misrepresenting yourselves as a project-wide official
> initiative. "We are GNU, and here are our values".

Our first message¹ to maintainers started with:

  The authors of this message have started an effort […]

I don’t think there’s any misrepresentation.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

¹ https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-wiki/tree/code/sc-email.txt