Le mercredi 30 octobre 2019, 15:00:16 CET Marcel a écrit : > Having read through the long "Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization" > thread, I have decided to join this mailing list and express support for > GNU (as it has evolved over the past 35 years) and its chief GNUisance, > RMS, as well as criticism of what I perceive as this latest iteration in > the power grab within GNU. > > *First, my reasons for supporting RMS:* > > * I support RMS because he has spent a lifetime selflessly and > successfully championing the Free Software Movement and GNU, which he > created. > > * I support RMS because he is intransigent and blunt when it comes to > his principles and ethics, and his principles and ethics in the area of > free software intersect with my own. I have not met many others I would > want in such an important and difficult position, except perhaps Eben > Moglen. > > * I support RMS because he does not thirst for power and because he > takes no visible pleasure in being a "leader"; it is partly because of > this, I believe, that his project has survived all attempts to coopt it > for 35 years. > > * I support RMS because in his personal and professional life, he takes > the consequences of his ethical principles as regards to free software > to their logical conclusions; this requires a very clear mind; much > fortitude; and either extreme discipline, a rare natural predisposition, > or both. > > * I support RMS because, having followed the Emacs and Org Mode mailing > lists for years, I have witnessed first hand some of his timely and > measured interactions to keep those programs true to the free software > philosophy, and then I have watched him step back. > > * I support RMS because _every single time_ I have communicated with him > over the years he has treated me seriously and responded in a thoughtful > and timely manner. Not only do I feel that RMS does not exclude people, > I feel that he goes out of his way to be extremely inclusive. > > *Now, to express my criticism of the "buttom-up" thread:* > > The main arguments I hear from those in favor of changes within GNU are > being made under the auspices of care for the continued success of GNU > and the Free Software Movement. One of the detractors complained things > were amiss since he joined GNU eight years ago, yet he voluntarily > joined then, and continued to be a part of it until today. > > I hear proposals for GNU to emulate Debian's social contract because it > worked so well for Debian, yet Debian is not an FSF endorsed free > distribution because it creates space for proprietary software to > coesist with free software by splintering the inconvenient > non-free-software packages into a separate repository while making them > accessible and promoting them in their documentation and installer. I > would prefer for Debian to fully follow the GNU philosophy instead, and > I would expect that anyone who understands and adheres to the philosophy > of GNU would also prefer this. > > Above all else though, there is one thing that baffles me about this > thread, proposing fundamental changes in the governance of GNU, while > posing as defenders of GNU: I don't see anybody including RMS in the > conversations and I don't read anything written by RMS for this thread. > What I do see are some of the same names that signed the "joint > statement on the GNU project", which was posted when RMS was being > defamed and is still up at the Guix subdomain of GNU: shame on you. > > What I do see are volunteers trying to opportunistically derail the Free > Software Movement at a moment of perceived weakness for RMS. I read > concerns about the eventual death of RMS to the survival of GNU, yet RMS > is not dead yet, and these detractors are trying to push him out while > he's still alive. I have deep concerns about the day RMS stops being > involved in the Free Software Movement, but that is hardly an argument > to push him out while he's still active and involved. > > What I also see is a list of thirty men pretending that the leader of > the movement they volunteer for excludes women, yet I cannot find the > name of a single woman (forgive me if I missed it) in your list. I know > there are women participating in GNU, so the question is, were none of > them willing to participate in your power grab?
This might be a good point. However, for the sake of correctness, note this is a joint statement of GNU *maintainers*. Though women participate in GNU, are any of them fortunately software package maintainer? Unfortunately, I’m not sure about this :/ That might explain the absence of women in the signatories list. Yet, to better restate what you pointed, you might note that for a statement claiming GNU is too exclusive, it would have been then relevant to include non-maintainers, people who would certainly benefit from a change of status quo, instead of excluding them and just including already included men, for the sake of credit (if that’s a political problem (not a psychological one) they might pretend women participating are no less legitimate to speak than them, and if they’re not maintainer it’s for political reasons (I doubt it)).