It's not a good idea to disrespect the Gnu Father. --------------------- Christopher Dimech General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Geophysical Simulation - Geological Subsurface Mapping - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation - Natural Resource Exploration and Production - Free Software Advocacy
> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 5:12 AM > From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" <siddh...@gotplt.org> > To: "Alexandre Oliva" <ol...@gnu.org>, "Nathan Sidwell" <nat...@acm.org> > Cc: "GCC Development" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee > > On 3/27/21 7:08 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote: > > It may be very convenient to paint a boogey-man and expel it because > > that became fashionable. But sacrificing a goat or a lamb does not > > expiate our own sins, and expelling someone who hasn't even been present > > in the community can't be expected to make any real difference to that > > matter; it would rather make us seem *less* welcoming and more > > intolerant, and suggest other motivations for the move. > > Except that it's not a boogeyman. There is evidence for the documented > instances of misconduct and have been corroborated by multiple people. > > > Let's be real and honest, when was the last time anyone in the GCC > > community was called out for sexist behavior? When was there even > > conversation about it, and about how sexist behavior is not acceptable > > and not to be accepted among participants in the GCC community? What > > was our latest collective action to promote e.g. gender equity within > > the community? > > The discussion is about RMS' damaging conduct (especially with > non-privileged groups) over the years and the steering committees stand > on it, not about steps we take to make the community more welcoming to > non-privileged groups. The latter definitely needs a discussion, but as > far as this thread is concerned, it is a digression. > > > If we were to shift our collective blame over this very real and > > undesirable problem to someone who has any direct authority over the > > project, why not suggesting expelling e.g. the entire Steering Committee > > for its evident failure to address the problem? (I don't think it's a > > good idea, but that would be the first thing to try if we were to blame > > "management"/"leadership" rather than ourselves for it) > > Nope, you're the one shifting blame for RMS' conduct on to the steering > committee and the gcc community. > > > What could support any rational belief that having RMS one extra level > > removed from our technical community would bring about anything > > resembling a solution to the very undesirable and unjust gender > > imbalance you've correctly identified? > > No but it will make it clear that toxic behaviour has no place in the > gcc community. That's step zero. The FSF still hasn't got its act > together in that regard unfortunately. > > > How about we set out to take individual and collective actions that > > actually address the problem *in* our community? We don't need anyone's > > approval to call out sexist acts, nor to invite and train people with an > > interest in compiler technology, nor to maintain a welcoming atmosphere. > > Sexist acts, discriminatory comments and inappropriate behaviour by RMS > have been called out. It is now the steering committee's responsibility > to share their stand on it. > > On 3/27/21 9:15 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote: > > It looks like statements of any position whatsoever are invitations > > for pressure and trouble right now. > > On the flip side, not making a statement would be a statement in itself. > You know that though, which is why you advocate silence. > > Siddhesh >
