Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[Richard Laager]

On 3/26/21 7:09 PM, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:

Perhaps said another way, the only valid reason for directing a bunch of
attention toward the FSF is if they are worth salvaging.  Plenty of
comments in the last few days seem to indicate that such might not be
the case.  Why not form a new organization, like "The Foundation for
Free Software (FFS)"?  Or some name that is better distinguished from
that of the FSF.


If nothing else, the FSF is the license steward of the GNU GPL. They are 
the only entity that can release new versions that automatically trigger 
the "or any later version" clause.


Projects can obviously choose to switch licenses, but only with the 
consent of all copyright holders. If they weren't already doing 
copyright assignment, reaching all the copyright holders can be 
effectively impossible.


--
Richard

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Gunnar Wolf]

Michael Biebl dijo [Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 06:08:36PM +0100]:
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard
> Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.
> 
> Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any of the
> open letters in question is invited to do this in person.
> ---8<---8<---8<---

Language quip: Not "invited to do this in person" (personally flying
to wherever signatures are being gathered), but "in a personal
capacity" or "as an individual action"... ?


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io

[Hilko Bengen]

* Russ Allbery:

> Sruthi Chandran  writes:
>
>> I have an alternate suggestion. Instead of signing the said letter,
>> Debian can issue a position statement similar to the one released by FSF
>> Europe. [1]
>
>> Will share the amended text if this idea has supporters.
>
>>  [1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html
>
> I'm comfortable with Debian signing the original letter, but as an
> organizational statement, I think I like this one somewhat better.  I
> think an organization should try to express what that organization itself
> is going to do, and this seems clearer on that point.  (Personal
> statements are a bit different.)

+1.

The FSF board has shown remarkable short-sightedness and arrogance in
readmitting RMS. I personally agree that he should no longer assume any
kind of leadership position within the Free Software community, simply
because by now he has lost any moral authority that he may or may not
have had in the past. However, the open letter cited in the GR pushes
the issue way too hard without any positive purpose: The damage to the
FSF has already been done and cannot be repaired.

The Debian project should not call for the removal of the FSF's board.
Neither should Debian urge people to refuse contributing to
FSF/RMS-associated software projects, especially not while we are still
shipping a Linux distribution that is built on such software projects.

If irony was generally acceptable for a GR, the Debian project should
simply offer its condolences to the FSF for having acknowledged its own
irrelevance. Since this does not work, let's keep things simple and go
with something modelled after the FSF's or the EFF's statements

Cheers,
-Hilko

Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 12:47:59AM +0100, Dominik George wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > The problem is that for good reason, we no longer trust the FSF under
> > its current governance to do that.  What you are affectively asking
> > people to do is to pursue justice in regard to things rms did in a forum
> > where rms has much more power than they do and where rms (and the voting
> > members of the fsf) have demonstrated they will use that power in non
> > equitible ways.
> > 
> > Given how rms returned to the board, how can you possibly think those
> > people will get a fair hearing.
> 
> Obviously, such a committee would have to be instated in a transparent
> way and in close cooperation with people and organisations not
> involved with rms otherwise. I do think that this is possible by both
> having the current FSF board start such action, but not take control
> of it.
> 
As this thread and the other related threads on the various Debian
lists have developed, it seems that RMS is a symptom of a larger
problem.

It seems to me that any meaningful action (where meaningful is defined
as "helping to advance the cause of libre software) must begin with the
question: "what value does the FSF *brand* have?"

If the answer is along the lines of "excellent reputation, very
influential with leaders in the technology and political spheres, a
proven track record of advancing the cause, an extensive network which
could be preserved and leveraged even after the leadership replacement,
etc.", then it seems like it is something worth fighting for.  If, on
the other hand, the answer is along the lines of "doing more harm than
good to the community, dead weight, nobody much cares what they say/do",
then it seems like effort would be better directed toward bypassing or
ignoring the problematic organization and getting on with the business
at hand.

Perhaps said another way, the only valid reason for directing a bunch of
attention toward the FSF is if they are worth salvaging.  Plenty of
comments in the last few days seem to indicate that such might not be
the case.  Why not form a new organization, like "The Foundation for
Free Software (FFS)"?  Or some name that is better distinguished from
that of the FSF.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io

[Christoph Biedl]

Many things have already been said, I'm not going to comment on them.


There is however a particular sentence that gives me a really sour
stomach. It's the second in:

| We urge those in a position to do so to stop supporting the Free Software
| Foundation.  Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS.

To me, that is very vague, and therefore I ask those in favour of that
resolution to not only clarify the meaning but also explain why from
their point of view that meaning should be obvious.

First, this is certainly not meant to be forever. But without a clause
like "until this situation has been resolved", I understand it quite
so.


Second, how should I understand that second sentence? Putting it into
context ...

| We urge those in a position to do so to stop supporting the Free Software
| Foundation.  Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS.

... it can be read as:

| We urge those in a position to do so to (...)
| [r]efuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS.

... or as:

| We (...) [r]efuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS.

... or (not very likely, though) indeed as an imperative (to whom?):

| Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS[!]

Which one is meant? If it's the second there's quite a chance the
signers are acting contradictory. That depends on ...


Last but certainly not least: What's the understanding of "related"
here, or: Which projects are meant by this?

If I understand "related" as "has in a way to do with it", I see a huge
variety of interpretations, for example: Project that are endorsed by
FSF or have been so in the past. Projects that show the FSF as
copyright holder. Projects that use the GNU word in the name, possibly
being part of the GNU project. Or even, since RMS is no doubt the main
inspiration of the idea of open source software, every GPL-licensed
project. Or even Debian itself, to bring this ad absurdum.

So, where is the line? Which projects should fall under this appeal
(first meaning) or boycott (second meaing), which not? How likely will
that hit innocent bystanders?

And I'm a little surprised nobody else seems to have a problem with
this. Perhaps it's just because I'm not a native speaker.

Christoph


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[Dominik George]

Hi,

> The problem is that for good reason, we no longer trust the FSF under
> its current governance to do that.  What you are affectively asking
> people to do is to pursue justice in regard to things rms did in a forum
> where rms has much more power than they do and where rms (and the voting
> members of the fsf) have demonstrated they will use that power in non
> equitible ways.
> 
> Given how rms returned to the board, how can you possibly think those
> people will get a fair hearing.

Obviously, such a committee would have to be instated in a transparent
way and in close cooperation with people and organisations not
involved with rms otherwise. I do think that this is possible by both
having the current FSF board start such action, but not take control
of it.

An investigation committee consisting of the FSF board, or solely
people nominated by them, of course has no value.

-nik


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to rms-open-letter GR

[M dB]

To add my "only for myself": +1 to all of this.

Cheers,

M.

On 3/26/21 6:22 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 01:02:43PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Can I ask why you didn't call for the recall of all of the voting
>> members rather than just the board?  It seems there are voting members
>> who are not on the board?
> Yeah, sure (as before: speaking only for myself). Because I thought that
> the board/voting members distinction was a too obscure implementation
> detail of the FSF bylaws that would have been lost on 99% of the letter
> readership. On the other hand the notion of a decision making board is a
> fairly common notion that most people who are even vaguely familiar with
> any non-profit organization would understand.
>
> Note also that requesting that all voting members resign is not a
> verifiable demand, given that the list of such members is not publicly
> known. But, again, this just an implementation detail for me. To be
> respected, the spirit of the letter entails that the entire leadership
> at FSF (board + voting members) resign, as a precondition to start
> rebuilding trust in the organization.
>
> Hope this explains,
> Cheers

Re: Willingness to share a position statement?

[Gerardo Ballabio]

Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> That said, let's escalate your example a bit

"Escalate a bit" is quite an understatement, as you turned it into an
example of criminal behavior. Which makes it irrelevant to the subject
of this discussion, i.e., whether people can be discriminated for
expressing their opinions without violating any laws.

The rest of your message is basically a repetition of the concept that
if people do bad things, they should face consequences, which I agree
100% with. Where we seem to disagree, instead, is whether exercising
the right to free speech is a bad thing.

Gerardo

Re: Amendment to rms-open-letter GR

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 01:02:43PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Can I ask why you didn't call for the recall of all of the voting
> members rather than just the board?  It seems there are voting members
> who are not on the board?

Yeah, sure (as before: speaking only for myself). Because I thought that
the board/voting members distinction was a too obscure implementation
detail of the FSF bylaws that would have been lost on 99% of the letter
readership. On the other hand the notion of a decision making board is a
fairly common notion that most people who are even vaguely familiar with
any non-profit organization would understand.

Note also that requesting that all voting members resign is not a
verifiable demand, given that the list of such members is not publicly
known. But, again, this just an implementation detail for me. To be
respected, the spirit of the letter entails that the entire leadership
at FSF (board + voting members) resign, as a precondition to start
rebuilding trust in the organization.

Hope this explains,
Cheers
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli . z...@upsilon.cc . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o
Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director  . . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why does Debian Care about the FSF

[Simon Avery]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 08:25, Andrey Rahmatullin 

> Obviously if you view things differently, you can vote your conscience.

> This sounds like (and this is really a popular opinion inside and outside
> Debian) the FSF is the problem, not just RMS, and it's not clear to me
> whether anything will be actually fixed if RMS holds fewers positions
> inside FSF.
>

I've read many comments on this subject, and  this is the closest that one
has come to the question I've not seen asked yet: Will Debian continue to
support and partner with the FSF if Rms leaves or stays?

There seems to be a lot of doubt about the FSF's operations itself, current
and historical, and not all of it due to Rms. This discussion has served
for some to highlight issues people have (including that FSF appears to
like criticising Debian).

One wonders if the bigger picture is being missed. When the mob has
finished speaking and is standing outside Frankenstein's castle clutching
their torches and pitchforks, hearts filled with righteousness. What
happens then?

So - Are the FSF's objectives AND methods compatible with Debian?

If not, then the rms issue as far as Debian is concerned is moot. No need
for badly written open letters. No need for shaming. No need for a witch
hunt. Just a brief statement that the FSF's ideals and operations are
incompatible with Debian's.

If they are compatible, then they are no matter who is at the helm -
that's likely to be Rms by the way - if they haven't acted yet, it's likely
they'll continue as they are. Thick skins and no shareholders.

S

Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF

[Gard Spreemann]

Sruthi Chandran  writes:

> On 26/03/21 10:45 pm, Sruthi Chandran wrote:
>
> Re-sending with fixed signature and replacing twitter link with
> gnusocial link.
>
>
>>  Begin text 
>>
>> Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
>> following statement:
>>
>> *Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board*
>>
>> We at Debian are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of
>> Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software
>> Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to
>> his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019.
>>
>> One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is to
>> recognise and reflect when other people are harmed by our
>> own actions and consider this feedback in future actions. The way
>> Richard Stallman announced his return to the board unfortunately lacks
>> any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply
>> disappointed that the FSF board elected him a board member again despite
>> no discernible steps were taken
>> by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past
>> actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also
>> disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was
>> belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters.
>>
>>
>> We believe this step and how it was communicated sends wrong and hurtful
>> message and harms the future of the Free Software movement. The goal of
>> the software freedom movement is to empower all people to control
>> technology and thereby create a better society for everyone. Free
>> Software is meant to serve everyone regardless of their age, ability or
>> disability, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion or
>> sexual orientation. This requires an inclusive and diverse environment
>> that welcomes all contributors equally. Debian realises that we
>> ourselves and the Free Software movement still have to work hard to be
>> in that place where everyone feels safe and respected to participate in
>> it in order to fulfil the movement's mission.
>>
>>
>> That is why, we call for his resignation from all FSF bodies. The FSF
>> needs to seriously reflect on this decision as well as their
>> decision-making process to prevent similar issues from happening again.
>> Therefore, in the current situation we see ourselves unable to
>> collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which
>> Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue to
>> work with groups and individuals who foster diversity and equality in
>> the Free Software movement in order to achieve our joint goal of
>> empowering all users to control technology.
>>
> [0] https://status.fsf.org/notice/3796703
>>
>> Heavily based on:
>>
>> [1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html
>>
>> [2]
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-richard-stallman-fsf-board
>>
>>  End of text 

Seconded.


 -- Gard


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter

[Luke W Faraone]

On 26/03/2021 05:56, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
 - I don't like the term "cancel" because I think it doesn't mean 
 much anymore and is too loaded.
>>>
>>> Means too little and too much at the same time?!?
>>>
>>> https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/cancel-culture/ describes 
>>> it as a form of boycott, calling out, and group shaming.

In the United States, "cancel culture" is a bit over-used as a term, to
the point of being somewhat meaningless.

It comes with the connotation of being an overreaction, etc. Whereas,
well, sometimes we're just talking about people facing consequences for
their behaviour.

 Are we discussing a handful of people leaving volunteer positions? 
 Yes. Are we discussing ruining their lives? No.
>>>
>>> Are we disccussing public boycott and shaming? Yes.
>>>
>>> Do public boycott and shaming ruin lives?  Hopefully not, but I 
>>> wonder how you can so confidently dismiss both the term as being 
>>> meaningless and the action as being harmless.  Shame on you for not 
>>> taking responsibility for your action.
>> Did you just "shame" someone because they supposedly call on "shaming" 
>> someone else? Isn't that a contradiction?
> 
> No.  I shame someone for reframing an act of group shaming as harmless.

Don't call for shame on your fellow Debian developers while putting
words in their mouth. mdb's mail didn't assert it's "harmless" --
instead that it wasn't tantamount to "ruining their lives".

Obviously, there's an adverse impact to an individual in no longer
holding a volunteer position of prominence. But the letter didn't
advocate for the board members to be fired from their other employment,
or seek to make them pariahs in the free software community.

> I find it distasteful for Debian to *judge* activities in related 
> organisations.
> 
> Stating that "[RMS] has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and 
> transphobic" is treating allegations (arguably very strong allegations 
> but still not proven in a court of law) as it it was facts.

These aren't justiciable issues in America. Being a misogynist isn't a
crime.

Myself, I signed this letter based on both public information and the
numerous times I've heard, unprompted, stories from women and
female-presenting people who have had uncomfortable / creepy experiences
with Stallman, in the Debian / free software community, the MIT
community, and elsewhere.

I have heard first-hand stories from women who were new to the Free
Software movement and, at a conference, were excited to meet its leader
-- only to be hit on by Richard and invited back to continue the
conversation at a residence. These people did not stay in the Free
Software movement, and our community is poorer for it.

None of those incidents would have turned into a police report, and I'm
not demanding that you rely on it. But it comes up so frequently at
conferences, student clubs, and bar chats from so many different people
that I have little reason to doubt its veracity.

It's also interesting to note that over 12 former FSF staff, who worked
directly with Richard, also saw it fit to sign the letter.

Cheers,
Luke Faraone (they/them)



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF

[Philip Hands]

Sruthi Chandran  writes:

> On 26/03/21 10:45 pm, Sruthi Chandran wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear fellow DDs,
>>
>> Second the amendment text if acceptable to you :)
>>
> Re-sending with fixed signature and replacing twitter link with
> gnusocial link.
>
>
>>  Begin text 
>>
>> Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
>> following statement:
>>
>> *Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board*
>>
>> We at Debian are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of
>> Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software
>> Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to
>> his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019.
>>
>> One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is to
>> recognise and reflect when other people are harmed by our
>> own actions and consider this feedback in future actions. The way
>> Richard Stallman announced his return to the board unfortunately lacks
>> any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply
>> disappointed that the FSF board elected him a board member again despite
>> no discernible steps were taken
>> by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past
>> actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also
>> disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was
>> belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters.
>>
>>
>> We believe this step and how it was communicated sends wrong and hurtful
>> message and harms the future of the Free Software movement. The goal of
>> the software freedom movement is to empower all people to control
>> technology and thereby create a better society for everyone. Free
>> Software is meant to serve everyone regardless of their age, ability or
>> disability, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion or
>> sexual orientation. This requires an inclusive and diverse environment
>> that welcomes all contributors equally. Debian realises that we
>> ourselves and the Free Software movement still have to work hard to be
>> in that place where everyone feels safe and respected to participate in
>> it in order to fulfil the movement's mission.
>>
>>
>> That is why, we call for his resignation from all FSF bodies. The FSF
>> needs to seriously reflect on this decision as well as their
>> decision-making process to prevent similar issues from happening again.
>> Therefore, in the current situation we see ourselves unable to
>> collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which
>> Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue to
>> work with groups and individuals who foster diversity and equality in
>> the Free Software movement in order to achieve our joint goal of
>> empowering all users to control technology.
>>
> [0] https://status.fsf.org/notice/3796703
>>
>> Heavily based on:
>>
>> [1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html
>>
>> [2]
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-richard-stallman-fsf-board
>>
>>  End of text 

Seconded.

Thanks, Sruthi.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,GERMANY


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF

[Steve McIntyre]

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 12:17:58AM +0530, Sruthi Chandran wrote:
>
>On 26/03/21 10:45 pm, Sruthi Chandran wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear fellow DDs,
>>
>> Second the amendment text if acceptable to you :)
>>
>Re-sending with fixed signature and replacing twitter link with
>gnusocial link.
>
>
>>  Begin text 
>>
>> Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
>> following statement:
>>
>> *Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board*
>>
>> We at Debian are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of
>> Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software
>> Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to
>> his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019.
>>
>> One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is to
>> recognise and reflect when other people are harmed by our
>> own actions and consider this feedback in future actions. The way
>> Richard Stallman announced his return to the board unfortunately lacks
>> any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply
>> disappointed that the FSF board elected him a board member again despite
>> no discernible steps were taken
>> by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past
>> actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also
>> disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was
>> belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters.
>>
>>
>> We believe this step and how it was communicated sends wrong and hurtful
>> message and harms the future of the Free Software movement. The goal of
>> the software freedom movement is to empower all people to control
>> technology and thereby create a better society for everyone. Free
>> Software is meant to serve everyone regardless of their age, ability or
>> disability, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion or
>> sexual orientation. This requires an inclusive and diverse environment
>> that welcomes all contributors equally. Debian realises that we
>> ourselves and the Free Software movement still have to work hard to be
>> in that place where everyone feels safe and respected to participate in
>> it in order to fulfil the movement's mission.
>>
>>
>> That is why, we call for his resignation from all FSF bodies. The FSF
>> needs to seriously reflect on this decision as well as their
>> decision-making process to prevent similar issues from happening again.
>> Therefore, in the current situation we see ourselves unable to
>> collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which
>> Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue to
>> work with groups and individuals who foster diversity and equality in
>> the Free Software movement in order to achieve our joint goal of
>> empowering all users to control technology.
>>
>[0] https://status.fsf.org/notice/3796703
>>
>> Heavily based on:
>>
>> [1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html
>>
>> [2]
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-richard-stallman-fsf-board
>>
>>  End of text 

Seconded. I may not personally vote this as the #1 option, but it's a
good option that I think deserves to be on the ballot.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
Into the distance, a ribbon of black
Stretched to the point of no turning back


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Matteo F. Vescovi]

Hi!

On 2021-03-26 at 14:36 (+01), Timo Weingärtner wrote:
> Updated text:
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard
> Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.
>
> Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any of the 
> open 
> letters in question is invited to do this in person.
> ---8<---8<---8<---
>
> This includes the change by Mathias Behrle but changes "the letter" to "any 
> of 
> the letters".

Seconded.


-- 
Matteo F. Vescovi || Debian Developer
GnuPG KeyID: 4096R/0x8062398983B2CF7A


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF

[Richard Laager]

On 3/26/21 1:47 PM, Sruthi Chandran wrote:


On 26/03/21 10:45 pm, Sruthi Chandran wrote:



Dear fellow DDs,

Second the amendment text if acceptable to you :)


Re-sending with fixed signature and replacing twitter link with
gnusocial link.



 Begin text 

Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
following statement:

*Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board*

We at Debian are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of
Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software
Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to
his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019.

One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is to
recognise and reflect when other people are harmed by our
own actions and consider this feedback in future actions. The way
Richard Stallman announced his return to the board unfortunately lacks
any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply
disappointed that the FSF board elected him a board member again despite
no discernible steps were taken
by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past
actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also
disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was
belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters.


We believe this step and how it was communicated sends wrong and hurtful
message and harms the future of the Free Software movement. The goal of
the software freedom movement is to empower all people to control
technology and thereby create a better society for everyone. Free
Software is meant to serve everyone regardless of their age, ability or
disability, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion or
sexual orientation. This requires an inclusive and diverse environment
that welcomes all contributors equally. Debian realises that we
ourselves and the Free Software movement still have to work hard to be
in that place where everyone feels safe and respected to participate in
it in order to fulfil the movement's mission.


That is why, we call for his resignation from all FSF bodies. The FSF
needs to seriously reflect on this decision as well as their
decision-making process to prevent similar issues from happening again.
Therefore, in the current situation we see ourselves unable to
collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which
Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue to
work with groups and individuals who foster diversity and equality in
the Free Software movement in order to achieve our joint goal of
empowering all users to control technology.


[0] https://status.fsf.org/notice/3796703


Heavily based on:

[1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html

[2]
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-richard-stallman-fsf-board

 End of text 


Seconded.

--
Richard



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF

[Holger Levsen]

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 12:17:58AM +0530, Sruthi Chandran wrote:
> >  Begin text 
> >
> > Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
> > following statement:
> >
> > *Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board*
> >
> > We at Debian are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of
> > Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software
> > Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to
> > his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019.
> >
> > One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is to
> > recognise and reflect when other people are harmed by our
> > own actions and consider this feedback in future actions. The way
> > Richard Stallman announced his return to the board unfortunately lacks
> > any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply
> > disappointed that the FSF board elected him a board member again despite
> > no discernible steps were taken
> > by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past
> > actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also
> > disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was
> > belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters.
> >
> >
> > We believe this step and how it was communicated sends wrong and hurtful
> > message and harms the future of the Free Software movement. The goal of
> > the software freedom movement is to empower all people to control
> > technology and thereby create a better society for everyone. Free
> > Software is meant to serve everyone regardless of their age, ability or
> > disability, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion or
> > sexual orientation. This requires an inclusive and diverse environment
> > that welcomes all contributors equally. Debian realises that we
> > ourselves and the Free Software movement still have to work hard to be
> > in that place where everyone feels safe and respected to participate in
> > it in order to fulfil the movement's mission.
> >
> >
> > That is why, we call for his resignation from all FSF bodies. The FSF
> > needs to seriously reflect on this decision as well as their
> > decision-making process to prevent similar issues from happening again.
> > Therefore, in the current situation we see ourselves unable to
> > collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which
> > Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue to
> > work with groups and individuals who foster diversity and equality in
> > the Free Software movement in order to achieve our joint goal of
> > empowering all users to control technology.
> >
> [0] https://status.fsf.org/notice/3796703
> >
> > Heavily based on:
> >
> > [1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html
> >
> > [2]
> > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-richard-stallman-fsf-board
> >
> >  End of text 

Seconded.

Thanks, Sruthi!


-- 
cheers,
Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

I'm looking forward to Corona being a beer again and Donald a duck.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to rms-open-letter GR

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Thu 25 Mar 2021 at 10:33PM +01, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:50:37PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
>> I'm not sure I like this. I believe that removing the board is a
>> critical part of the letter. They are 4 friends that RMS chooses that he
>> chose because they never appose him. They are not elected by members of
>> the FSF but a self-selected cabal.
>
> As one of the first signers, but speaking solely for myself, I can
> confirm that recalling the entire board was for me a critical part of
> the letter. The rationale being that reinstating him shows a severe lack
> of judgment on the part of the board (technically: on the voting
> members, but that's an implementation detail which I thought would be
> lost on 99% of the letter readership and hence was in favor to leave
> out) and institutional failure, which cannot be cured by simply undoing
> the decision.
>
> (Of course a statement by the Debian project, in there is going to be
> one, can take a different stance.)

Can I ask why you didn't call for the recall of all of the voting
members rather than just the board?  It seems there are voting members
who are not on the board?

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to rms-open-letter GR

[Sean Whitton]

Hello Jonathan,

On Thu 25 Mar 2021 at 10:50PM +02, Jonathan Carter wrote:

> I'm not sure I like this. I believe that removing the board is a
> critical part of the letter. They are 4 friends that RMS chooses that he
> chose because they never appose him. They are not elected by members of
> the FSF but a self-selected cabal.
>
> I'm not sure what the plans would be if the board would actually resign,
> clearly RMS and the board have no intention of doing so (at least by
> their choice of language in that announcement), but ideally the board
> would be selected by the community and be held accountable by them,
> currently they answer to no one and let RMS do whatever he feels like
> without consequences.

Thank you for the input.  At least one board member who voted against
the readmission of Stallman has resigned, and it would seem that the
vote was actually among all the voting members, which includes the
board.  So it seems things are quite complicated -- should the call be
for all the existing voting members to be replaced?  I'm not sure, which
is why I suggested just saying something about what's most important,
which is the removal of rms.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to rms-open-letter GR

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Thu 25 Mar 2021 at 01:17PM -07, Sean Whitton wrote:

> The point of this is not to call for the removal of the entire FSF
> board, as the open letter does, while still supporting the main thrust
> of the open letter, which is about Stallman himself.
>
> The vote to restore Stallman to the board was not unanimous, and there
> is some confusion about how the procedure for elections to the board
> actually works, so the call to remove *all* board members does not make
> sense to me.  And the FSF is going to need people with experience to
> help it recover from this whole affair.
>
> There are probably others who think similarly to me about the call to
> remove the whole board, so this amendment gives them something to vote
> for in preference to just signing the open letter.  It's an alternative
> rather than a rival.

Sruthi's new amendment doesn't make specific calls w.r.t. what the
future organisation of the FSF should be, so it achieves the purposes I
had in writing my amendment.

I'm not going to withdraw my amendment because it seems like some people
want to vote for it, but I will probably not be ranking it first myself.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Sat 27 Mar 2021 at 12:17AM +0530, Sruthi Chandran wrote:

>>  Begin text 
>>
>> Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
>> following statement:
>>
>> *Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board*
>>
>> We at Debian are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of
>> Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software
>> Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to
>> his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019.
>>
>> One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is to
>> recognise and reflect when other people are harmed by our
>> own actions and consider this feedback in future actions. The way
>> Richard Stallman announced his return to the board unfortunately lacks
>> any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply
>> disappointed that the FSF board elected him a board member again despite
>> no discernible steps were taken
>> by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past
>> actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also
>> disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was
>> belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters.
>>
>>
>> We believe this step and how it was communicated sends wrong and hurtful
>> message and harms the future of the Free Software movement. The goal of
>> the software freedom movement is to empower all people to control
>> technology and thereby create a better society for everyone. Free
>> Software is meant to serve everyone regardless of their age, ability or
>> disability, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion or
>> sexual orientation. This requires an inclusive and diverse environment
>> that welcomes all contributors equally. Debian realises that we
>> ourselves and the Free Software movement still have to work hard to be
>> in that place where everyone feels safe and respected to participate in
>> it in order to fulfil the movement's mission.
>>
>>
>> That is why, we call for his resignation from all FSF bodies. The FSF
>> needs to seriously reflect on this decision as well as their
>> decision-making process to prevent similar issues from happening again.
>> Therefore, in the current situation we see ourselves unable to
>> collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which
>> Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue to
>> work with groups and individuals who foster diversity and equality in
>> the Free Software movement in order to achieve our joint goal of
>> empowering all users to control technology.

Seconded.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Shengjing Zhu]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:36:40PM +0100, Timo Weingärtner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Updated text:
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard
> Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.
> 
> Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any of the 
> open 
> letters in question is invited to do this in person.
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> 
> This includes the change by Mathias Behrle but changes "the letter" to "any 
> of 
> the letters".
> 
> 
> Grüße
> Timo

Seconded

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iHUEARYIAB0WIQTiXc95jUQrjt9HgU3EhUo4GOCwFgUCYF43awAKCRDEhUo4GOCw
FpuXAP9ucJ2IWo67t3ks3dvNCBL1UoZN387oAm6xhZDPqDeorQD/VayZ3JvDQLqe
POFsC+BKfH8VvV330cYmXX/WuAGysAE=
=YUrm
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Calum McConnell (2021-03-26 20:14:50)
> > Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any 
> > of the open letters in question is invited to do this in person.
> 
> "In person" is a bit unclear, given our times: can I sign it online?  
> How about just adding my name?
> 
> I propose switching it to:
> 
> > Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any 
> > of the open letters on this subject is strongly encouraged to do so.
> 
> It also handles the fact that the open letters aren't really 'in 
> question', since there aren't any accepted amendments that mention 
> them. I also switched out "invite", because I feel that 'invite' 
> implies the ability to UN-invite (ie, block from signing), which is 
> not one that we possess.

I was assuming that "in person" meant "individually", but I can see how 
it can instead mean "by showing up physically" which makes little sense 
in the context.

Replacing "in person" with either "personally" or "individually" or "on 
their own" would in my opinion convey the same intended message as is my 
understanding (as a non-native english speaker) is the message now, and 
I would second proposal with such change.

Removing "in person" would however loose what in my understanding is the 
central point of the message and making the central point implicit, 
causing it to risk becoming ambiguous (although I cannot think up right 
now how any examples of how other meanings could be read into it).  I 
would hesitate seconding a proposal with the phrase removed.

Replacing "invited to do this in person" with "strongly encouraged to do 
so" would in my opinion radically change the message from an unbiased 
"Debian does not recommend if you should personally support a petition 
or not" to a biased "Debian recommends that you personally support a 
petition".  I would *not* second such changed proposal.

Replacing "in question" with "on this subject" seems to me to not change 
to meaning of the message.  I would second a proposed text with that 
change.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Shengjing Zhu]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iHUEARYIAB0WIQTiXc95jUQrjt9HgU3EhUo4GOCwFgUCYF41TwAKCRDEhUo4GOCw
Fv6XAQCvPI/18AtNrtVuZDqwmjXa5WerDiNb+vJYKLomka/08gEArPCBnilXiqT3
SvfVHwvNBb44unghXKjY9ODYpAUJxwc=
=9ZQo
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

"rms-open-letter" choice 4: use debian's resource to perform mitigation

[Roger Shimizu]

since I'm not english native speaker, I'm not going to draft the
official choice 4 text, but just providing the idea.

* rms was, is, and will be playing an important role in the FLOSS
community, whatever now option1 suggests to remove him from leading
position of some team / organization.
* debian is an open community that still has certain amount of rms's
work, such as code, docs, etc.
* debian have a lot of resources, including community team, can
perform mitigation when something unexpected occurs
* if community team can do something mitigation, it will benefit
debian, and the whole FLOSS community

any thought?

cheers,
-- 
Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo
PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1

Re: Having a "DPL committee"?

[Jonathan Carter]

Hi peb

On 2021/03/26 20:54, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> I wonder in that case if such a person sould be either:
> 
> 1. Nominated by the DPL
> 2. Co-elected (ie voting for a couple of people)
> 3. Elected separately on the same time frame (but that could lead to
> issues if the DPL and vice-DPL fail to get along together)

I was wondering about that too. I saw some DPL candidates in the past
mentioned that they wanted a vice-DPL and iirc even named them already
as part of their platform. I suppose that since this cycle is already in
progress it probably only leaves #1 as an option for the DPL of the next
term.

I'm not sure if Sruthi would be interested in being vice-DPL if I get
elected but I would also be happy to serve as vice-DPL if Sruthi would
be elected.

-Jonathan

Re: Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Calum McConnell]

> Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any of
> the open 
> letters in question is invited to do this in person.

"In person" is a bit unclear, given our times: can I sign it online?  How
about just adding my name?

I propose switching it to:

> Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any of
> the open letters on this subject is strongly encouraged to do so.

It also handles the fact that the open letters aren't really 'in
question', since there aren't any accepted amendments that mention them. 
I also switched out "invite", because I feel that 'invite' implies the
ability to UN-invite (ie, block from signing), which is not one that we
possess.


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

Re: concern - proprietary software promotion in Debian

[Jonathan Carter]

Hi Pasha

On 2021/03/26 20:29, Pasha wrote:
> I saw some people are sending github links to promote their cause.
> 
> github is not a free software. It a proprietary service owned by a
> company.
> 
> My question is depending on the side a developer choose he has the
> right not to use any proprietary software. right ?
> 
> I saw in some forums discussin they are using discord beside github. (I
> am not 100% sure - because I did not check or read details.)
> 
> If it is true, how is it possible people are using non-free software
> and proprietary communication to decide who should be in fsf board or
> not ?
> 
> I feel the developers are supporting this cause are forced to signed up
> for proprietary software/service.
> 
> Please, understand this email is about the software/service not the
> cause.
> I dont want to discuss about your personal opinion here.
> 
> I would be happy to see Debian has some policy for discouraging
> proprietary software/service for other developers.
> 
> I have full respect for all Debian developers regardless of their view.
> Thank you.

I agree that using GitHub for that was in poor taste. In Debian we rely
as far as possible on only free software, however, the letter you refer
to were set up by people outside of Debian so we didn't have any choice
in how they set that up.

-Jonathan

Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Sruthi Chandran (2021-03-26 19:47:58)
> 
> On 26/03/21 10:45 pm, Sruthi Chandran wrote:
> 
> >
> > Dear fellow DDs,
> >
> > Second the amendment text if acceptable to you :)
> >
> Re-sending with fixed signature and replacing twitter link with
> gnusocial link.
> 
> 
> >  Begin text 
> >
> > Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
> > following statement:
> >
> > *Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board*
> >
> > We at Debian are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of
> > Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software
> > Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to
> > his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019.
> >
> > One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is to
> > recognise and reflect when other people are harmed by our
> > own actions and consider this feedback in future actions. The way
> > Richard Stallman announced his return to the board unfortunately lacks
> > any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply
> > disappointed that the FSF board elected him a board member again despite
> > no discernible steps were taken
> > by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past
> > actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also
> > disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was
> > belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters.
> >
> >
> > We believe this step and how it was communicated sends wrong and hurtful
> > message and harms the future of the Free Software movement. The goal of
> > the software freedom movement is to empower all people to control
> > technology and thereby create a better society for everyone. Free
> > Software is meant to serve everyone regardless of their age, ability or
> > disability, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion or
> > sexual orientation. This requires an inclusive and diverse environment
> > that welcomes all contributors equally. Debian realises that we
> > ourselves and the Free Software movement still have to work hard to be
> > in that place where everyone feels safe and respected to participate in
> > it in order to fulfil the movement's mission.
> >
> >
> > That is why, we call for his resignation from all FSF bodies. The FSF
> > needs to seriously reflect on this decision as well as their
> > decision-making process to prevent similar issues from happening again.
> > Therefore, in the current situation we see ourselves unable to
> > collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which
> > Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue to
> > work with groups and individuals who foster diversity and equality in
> > the Free Software movement in order to achieve our joint goal of
> > empowering all users to control technology.
> >
> [0] https://status.fsf.org/notice/3796703
> >
> > Heavily based on:
> >
> > [1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html
> >
> > [2]
> > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-richard-stallman-fsf-board
> >
> >  End of text 

Seconded.

Thanks, Sruthi,

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Filippo Rusconi]

---8<---8<---8<---
The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard
Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.

Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any of the open
letters in question is invited to do this in person.
---8<---8<---8<---

seconded

--

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Filippo Rusconi, PhD
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁   Research scientist at CNRS
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀   Debian Developer
⠈⠳⣄  http://msxpertsuite.org
  http://www.debian.org



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Having a "DPL committee"?

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Le samedi 20 mars 2021 à 00:44:52+0530, Sruthi Chandran a écrit :
> 
> On 20/03/21 12:31 am, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> > The idea was discussed two years ago. Sam chose a range of people to
> > help him with delegations.
> >
> > Being a DPL is a high-energy thing even when one doesn't try to "lead"
> > the project /per se/.
> >
> > Do you think the Project should consider the opportunity of trying to
> > establish more clearly a role of "DPL advisors" who would be identified
> > as helpers for the DPL and additional entry points for the
> > developers/external people should the need arise?
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> I definitely think we should have a panel of "DPL advisors/helpers" to
> help out the DPL. There will definitely be a lot of administrative stuff
> that can be delegated to the helpers and DPL can concentrate on other
> important activities.
> 
> If I become DPL, this would be one of the first things I would be
> working out.

Thanks Sruthi for your reply!

What is your opinion about Jonathan's reply regarding the fact that
working on having adapted teams (CT/Trademark) take part of the load in
a way that is not directly tied to the DPL mandate is probably a better
schema on the long run?

Cheers!

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Having a "DPL committee"?

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Le lundi 22 mars 2021 à 19:30:35+0200, Jonathan Carter a écrit :
> On 2021/03/19 21:01, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> > The idea was discussed two years ago. Sam chose a range of people to
> > help him with delegations.
> 
> It's come up a few times in past platforms and discussions on -vote too!
> 
> > Being a DPL is a high-energy thing even when one doesn't try to "lead"
> > the project /per se/.
> > 
> > Do you think the Project should consider the opportunity of trying to
> > establish more clearly a role of "DPL advisors" who would be identified
> > as helpers for the DPL and additional entry points for the
> > developers/external people should the need arise?
> 
> Perhaps a lesser known fact, but the current DPL has access to a channel
> where they can contact previous DPLs for some quick advice. I've found
> that quite useful in situations where I needed some quick feedback.

Now you made me curious. :>

> For the rest, I think delegations work great. I think in general, when
> DPLs do their job right, then future DPL terms will get gradually
> easier. I certainly stand on the shoulders of giants and I've definitely
> appreciated some of the earlier work done. Teams like the Trademark Team
> and the Community Team catches many mails and issues that the DPL
> would've usually had to respond to. My strategy would probably be to
> bolster the existing delegation framework instead of setting up a
> committee. I'm not completely against a committee per sé either, but I
> also think that a single person who can make quick decisions when
> necessary works quite well.

I would not think to a Committee/Advisory board as something which
should prevent the DPL from taking quick decisions but rather a bunch of
people the DPL trusts to either give them some tasks to accomplish or be
an entry point.

That being said, I acknowledge your point that a DPL coming after people
having already simmplified the procedures will cope in a better way
anyway!

> One area where I've felt that it falls short is that it's not fun when I
> got busy or would take a holiday. It would be nice if we usually had a
> vice-DPL of sorts that could be a backup and could take care of things
> when the DPL can't (for whatever reasons). That's something I'd like to
> consider if running for another term.

I wonder in that case if such a person sould be either:

1. Nominated by the DPL
2. Co-elected (ie voting for a couple of people)
3. Elected separately on the same time frame (but that could lead to
issues if the DPL and vice-DPL fail to get along together)

Thanks for your reply!

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Debian RMS vote, outside perspectives

[Donald Norwood]

Hello Everyone,

On occasion we in Press receive emails from users that we interact with,
mostly just a thank you that we can pass on or a comment about
something. Recently, -off press, I have been corresponding with a few
users and developers who have asked what Debian's stance was regarding
the rumor Debian was about to issue a statement on the RMS situation.

My response to inquires being, "At this particular time Debian has no
commentary on the issue. Some individual Debian Developers have made
clear their position, and there is ongoing discussion on the debian-vote
mailing list which would start the procedure for a non technical
statement as put forth in our constitution".

Since then I've received a bit more correspondence from users and have
had a few conversations with people, outside the wire if you will, on
this topic and I've asked them if I could share their thoughts and
feelings with this list to give some outside or additional perspective.

As this list is public, many do not want to share their attributed input
as they feel that they lack standing or do not wish to be publicly
involved. So with some quotes and summary:


"I love Debian for not being overly political while being self aware
enough to challenge diversity."


"If Debian really thought that in the current debate that there were
technically issues, or some how its freedom to develop were under
threat, then fair enough, get involved as an organisation in this issue.
But if not, perhaps it is an unnecessary diversion ..."


"… yet another diversion tactic employed by outside factors that engage
nothing but fracturization toward a goal, I wonder which closed source
system is really behind this $upport for this outrage."


"This is pretty petty, isn't Debian already living in a glass house?"


"I guess where I'm coming from is that I like the idea that part of what
made free software development great was that coders didn't get diverted
by political issues (unless some tangible narrower political aspect
threatened direct developer interest) [1]."


"This doesn't affect quality or bullseye right?"



[1] Gabrielle Coleman, Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of
Hacking, p. 22, 42


-EOF


Be well,
-Donald

-- 
--
-
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Donald Norwood
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ B7A1 5F45 5B28 7F38 4174
⠈⠳⣄ D5E9 E5EC 4AC9 BD62 7B05



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF

[Sruthi Chandran]

On March 26, 2021 11:11:16 PM GMT+05:30, "Pierre-Elliott Bécue" 
 wrote:
>Hi Sruthi!
>
>Thanks for this work, it quite fits more what I'd be happy to sponsor!
>
>Here are a few remarks if you have some time to review and address.
>
>Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 22:45:57+0530, Sruthi Chandran a écrit :
>> 
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>> 
>> 
>> Dear fellow DDs,
>> 
>> Second the amendment text if acceptable to you :)
>> 
>>  Begin text 
>> 
>> Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
>> following statement:
>> 
>> *Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board*
>> 
>> We at Debian are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election
>of
>
>Is it an election or nomination?
>
It seems it is an election based on FSF by laws Article IV

[0] https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/fsf-amended-bylaws-current.pdf
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: concern - proprietary software promotion in Debian

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Hi,

Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 19:29:33+0100, Pasha a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> I saw some people are sending github links to promote their cause.
> 
> github is not a free software. It a proprietary service owned by a
> company.
> 
> My question is depending on the side a developer choose he has the
> right not to use any proprietary software. right ?

Being a Debian Developer does not by any way mean one should or should
not use any software, be it proprietary or free. It's just a commitment
that our work in Debian will be done with respect to the Debian Social
Contract, the DFSG and the Debian Policy. That is all.

> I saw in some forums discussin they are using discord beside github. (I
> am not 100% sure - because I did not check or read details.)
> 
> If it is true, how is it possible people are using non-free software
> and proprietary communication to decide who should be in fsf board or
> not ?

Achieving perfection before giving any opinion is not something that can
work. People using or contributing to the Free Software world should
happily be able to give their opinion whatever platform they want to use
is up to them.

> I feel the developers are supporting this cause are forced to signed up
> for proprietary software/service.
>
> Please, understand this email is about the software/service not the
> cause.
> I dont want to discuss about your personal opinion here.
> 
> I would be happy to see Debian has some policy for discouraging
> proprietary software/service for other developers.

There have been discussions about where the project should stand
regarding usage of github et al for their Debian related work. So far I
think nothing paned out, and my personal opinion is that it is far
better that way. (of course, let's not discuss my personal opinion)

Regards,

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF

[Sruthi Chandran]

On 26/03/21 10:45 pm, Sruthi Chandran wrote:

>
> Dear fellow DDs,
>
> Second the amendment text if acceptable to you :)
>
Re-sending with fixed signature and replacing twitter link with
gnusocial link.


>  Begin text 
>
> Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
> following statement:
>
> *Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board*
>
> We at Debian are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of
> Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software
> Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to
> his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019.
>
> One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is to
> recognise and reflect when other people are harmed by our
> own actions and consider this feedback in future actions. The way
> Richard Stallman announced his return to the board unfortunately lacks
> any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply
> disappointed that the FSF board elected him a board member again despite
> no discernible steps were taken
> by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past
> actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also
> disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was
> belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters.
>
>
> We believe this step and how it was communicated sends wrong and hurtful
> message and harms the future of the Free Software movement. The goal of
> the software freedom movement is to empower all people to control
> technology and thereby create a better society for everyone. Free
> Software is meant to serve everyone regardless of their age, ability or
> disability, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion or
> sexual orientation. This requires an inclusive and diverse environment
> that welcomes all contributors equally. Debian realises that we
> ourselves and the Free Software movement still have to work hard to be
> in that place where everyone feels safe and respected to participate in
> it in order to fulfil the movement's mission.
>
>
> That is why, we call for his resignation from all FSF bodies. The FSF
> needs to seriously reflect on this decision as well as their
> decision-making process to prevent similar issues from happening again.
> Therefore, in the current situation we see ourselves unable to
> collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which
> Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue to
> work with groups and individuals who foster diversity and equality in
> the Free Software movement in order to achieve our joint goal of
> empowering all users to control technology.
>
[0] https://status.fsf.org/notice/3796703
>
> Heavily based on:
>
> [1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html
>
> [2]
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-richard-stallman-fsf-board
>
>  End of text 





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

concern - proprietary software promotion in Debian

[Pasha]

Hi,

I saw some people are sending github links to promote their cause.

github is not a free software. It a proprietary service owned by a
company.

My question is depending on the side a developer choose he has the
right not to use any proprietary software. right ?

I saw in some forums discussin they are using discord beside github. (I
am not 100% sure - because I did not check or read details.)

If it is true, how is it possible people are using non-free software
and proprietary communication to decide who should be in fsf board or
not ?

I feel the developers are supporting this cause are forced to signed up
for proprietary software/service.

Please, understand this email is about the software/service not the
cause.
I dont want to discuss about your personal opinion here.

I would be happy to see Debian has some policy for discouraging
proprietary software/service for other developers.

I have full respect for all Debian developers regardless of their view.
Thank you.


Regards,
Pasha

Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 10:45:57PM +0530, Sruthi Chandran wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear fellow DDs,
> 
> Second the amendment text if acceptable to you :)

I'm getting a BAD signature on this and some other mails from you,
and a Good one on others.


Kurt

Re: The "RMS Open Letter" is based on lies, misrepresentations, and misinformation

[Steve Langasek]

I certainly don't.

The problems at issue are amply documented on the Internet and I'm not going
to debate them here.

You don't have to vote for the GR, and I'm not going to waste time knocking
down strawmen from a third party in order to persuade you.

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:08:24PM +, Ximin Luo wrote:
> Does anyone have a response to this?
> 
> The current efforts really smells of a witch-hunt and an attempt to 
> manufacture consent.
> 
> Ximin
> 
> James Lu:
> > This is my first time posting in a Debian mailing list, apologies if the 
> > tone or is not what you are looking for in a Debian post. I wrote this 
> > hurriedly in an attempt to help the free software movement avoid 
> > splintering.

> > Stallman asked women out in a way we consider creepy. The letter phrases 
> > this by saying Stallman has sexually harassed women for decades. The letter 
> > seeks to group him in the same category as gropers and actual rapists.
> > In 1993, he defined pedophilia slightly differently. He made a genuine 
> > apology. This is the basis of the "pedo apologist." 
> > https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong)
> >  
> > 
> > After condemning the rape of a 17 year old girl in the Epstein case, Marvin 
> > Minksy had sex with the girl, unaware the girl was being coerced by 
> > Epstein. In accordance with the law of Canada and most U.S. states, it is 
> > legal to have sex with a 16 year old girl. Nonetheless, we believe these 
> > leaked private discussions make him equivalent to a rapist. 
> > https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stallman/ 
> > 
> > The original open letter's Appendix has two true claims of sexual 
> > harassment:
> > - In 1999, he had a mattress in his office which he slept on. This made 
> > some women avoid RMS because they considered it abnormal and creepy.
> > - In 1985, he told a woman he'd kill himself if he didn't date her.
> > The "hot ladies" nametag was fake; it was vandalized from a third party. 
> > https://blog.dachary.org/2020/02/10/how-the-cancel-culture-was-leveraged-against-rms/#post-4297:~:text=As%20for%20the%20label%20on%20Richard,removed%20the%20ending%3A%20(also%3A%20hot%20ladies)
> >  
> > 
> > He has never been accused of groping or sexual assault.
> > Stallman has hundreds of posts on his personal blog condemning rape, and 
> > they cherry-pick the one post where he argued for a different definition of 
> > rape. 
> > https://web.archive.org/web/20210325013942/https://stallman.org/archives/2018-may-aug.html
> >  
> > 
> > The GNU Kind Communication Guidelines ask you to honor gender identity. The 
> > letter says it is "still transphobic" and accuses him of "thinly disguised 
> > transphobia," possibly because it includes calling someone via only 
> > gender-neutral pronouns such as "they."
> > I strongly urge everyone to avoid splintering the free software movement. I 
> > understand you do not want to be associated with racism, sexism, 
> > transphobia, and ableism. The accusers do indeed label anyone who don't 
> > agree with them as sexist and transphobic. This is how they did it in 
> > McCarthy era.[0] Resist the urge to be performative and stick to principles.
> > 
> > [0]: https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
> https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git
> 

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer   https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to rms-open-letter GR

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 01:48:39AM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> > Seeking seconds:
> > 
> > ===BEGIN
> > 
> > Replace the entire text with:
> > 
> > Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
> > following statement:
> > 
> > The Debian Project echoes and supports recent calls to remove Richard
> > M. Stallman from positions of leadership within free software, for which
> > we believe him to be inappropriate.
> > 
> > We are disappointed by the actions of those responsible for restoring
> > him to the Free Software Foundation's Board of Directors, and urge that
> > that decision be reversed.
> > 
> > ===END
> 
> Seconded.

Please sign your message.

(It would turn into the 4th second.)


Kurt

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Gilles Filippini]

Michael Biebl a écrit le 26/03/2021 à 18:08 :

---8<---8<---8<---
The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard
Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.

Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any of 
the open letters in question is invited to do this in person.

---8<---8<---8<---

seconded


Seconded.

_g.



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Hi Sruthi!

Thanks for this work, it quite fits more what I'd be happy to sponsor!

Here are a few remarks if you have some time to review and address.

Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 22:45:57+0530, Sruthi Chandran a écrit :
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> 
> Dear fellow DDs,
> 
> Second the amendment text if acceptable to you :)
> 
>  Begin text 
> 
> Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
> following statement:
> 
> *Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board*
> 
> We at Debian are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of

Is it an election or nomination?

> Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software
> Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to
> his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019.
> 
> One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is to
> recognise and reflect when other people are harmed by our
> own actions and consider this feedback in future actions. The way
> Richard Stallman announced his return to the board unfortunately lacks
> any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply
> disappointed that the FSF board elected him a board member again despite
> no discernible steps were taken
> by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past
> actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also
> disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was
> belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters.
>
> We believe this step and how it was communicated sends wrong and hurtful
> message and harms the future of the Free Software movement. The goal of
> the software freedom movement is to empower all people to control
> technology and thereby create a better society for everyone. Free
> Software is meant to serve everyone regardless of their age, ability or
> disability, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion or
> sexual orientation. This requires an inclusive and diverse environment
> that welcomes all contributors equally. Debian realises that we
> ourselves and the Free Software movement still have to work hard to be
> in that place where everyone feels safe and respected to participate in
> it in order to fulfil the movement's mission.
> 
> 
> That is why, we call for his resignation from all FSF bodies. The FSF
> needs to seriously reflect on this decision as well as their
> decision-making process to prevent similar issues from happening again.
> Therefore, in the current situation we see ourselves unable to
> collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which
> Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue to
> work with groups and individuals who foster diversity and equality in
> the Free Software movement in order to achieve our joint goal of
> empowering all users to control technology.

+1!

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Axel Beckert]

Hi Timo,

Timo Weingärtner wrote:
> I hereby propose to have another option on the ballot:

Thanks a lot for this!

> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's 
> readmission to the FSF board seen at https://rms-support-letter.github.io/. 
> The text of this statement is given below.
> 
> Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a driving force in the 
> free software movement for decades, with contributions including the GNU 
> operating system and Emacs.
> 
> Recently, there have been vile online attacks looking to remove him from the 
> FSF board of directors for expressing his personal opinions. We have watched 
> this happen before in an organized fashion with other prominent free software 
> activists and programmers. We will not stand idly this time, when an icon of 
> this community is attacked.
> 
> FSF is an autonomous body that is capable of treating its members in a fair, 
> unbiased fashion, and should not give in to external social pressures. We 
> urge 
> the FSF to consider the arguments against RMS objectively and to truly 
> understand the meaning of his words and actions.
> 
> Historically, RMS has been expressing his views in ways that upset many 
> people. He is usually more focused on the philosophical underpinnings, and 
> pursuing the objective truth and linguistic purism, while underemphasising 
> people’s feelings on matters he’s commenting on. This makes his arguments 
> vulnerable to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, something which we feel 
> is happening in the open letter calling for his removal. His words need to be 
> interpreted in this context and taking into account that more often than not, 
> he is not looking to put things diplomatically.
> 
> Regardless, Stallman’s opinions on the matters he is being persecuted over 
> are 
> not relevant to his ability to lead a community such as the FSF. Furthermore, 
> he is entitled to his opinions just as much as anyone else. Members and 
> supporters do not have to agree with his opinions, but should respect his 
> right to freedom of thought and speech.
> 
> To the FSF:
> 
> Removing RMS will hurt FSF’s image and will deal a significant blow to the 
> momentum of the free software movement. We urge you to consider your actions 
> carefully, as what you will decide will have a serious impact on the future 
> of 
> the software industry.
> 
> To the ambush mob who is ganging up on Richard Stallman over reasonable 
> arguments in debate and various opinions and beliefs voiced over decades as a 
> public figure:
> 
> You have no part in choosing the leadership of any communities. Especially 
> not 
> via another mob attack which does not remotely resemble a fairly conducted 
> debate as exemplified by better people such as Richard Stallman.
> ---8<---8<---8<---

Seconded.

Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert , https://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-|  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 11:46:10+0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue a écrit :
> Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 11:05:26+0100, Dominik George a écrit :
> > Hi,
> > 
> > > A General Resolution has been started about Richard Stallman's
> > > readmission to the FSF board.
> > > 
> > > It currently has 1 available options, but other proposals have been 
> > > suggested.
> > 
> > I explicitly do NOT support this GR.
> > 
> > My opinion, as laid out at
> > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/issues/2285:
> > 
> > 8><--
> > With the FSFE freezing its collaboration with the FSF, projects
> > signing open letters to effectively disassemble the FSF and the GNU
> > project altogether, it seems we are officially at war.
> > 
> > With all due respect to everyone who has been offended by Richard
> > Stallman, feels oppressed by him, or is negatively affected by his
> > views — every single such person has to be heard, their fears and
> > sorrows been taken into account, and appropriate action been taken.
> > As such, I am in full support of requiring the FSF board to instate
> > an investigation committee, take letters from anyone affected, and
> > hear these cases (including rms' position).
> > 
> > What I do not support is forcing the disintegration of the FOSS
> > community, even less in such crucial times. The COVID pandemic forces
> > evryone to digitise the hell out of them and their organisations, and
> > every action that weakens the FOSS movement in this ciritical process
> > certainly does more harm to the ecosystem than a single person on any
> > FOSS body's board ever could. Thus, I consider those responsible for
> > this, in my opinion, thoughtless action harmful to the FOSS ecosystem.
> > 
> > As already said, I am in full support of an investigation committee,
> > and would immediately sign an open letter requesting the FSF to
> > instate one (including a helpful list of requirements for this committee).
> > 
> > Thanks for listening!
> > 
> > P.S.: On a side note, hosting this thing on GitHub, which explicitly
> > discriminates against parts of the community and is itself harmful to
> > the FOSS ecosystem as a whole, is at least a bit weird.
> > --><8
> > 
> > 
> > As such, I want to make the following amendment:
> > 
> > 8><--
> > Choice 2
> > 
> > 
> > The Debian Project does not co-sign the statement regarding Richard
> > Stallman's readmission to the FSF board seen at
> > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md
> > 
> > In its role as an important body in the free software world, the
> > Project has made its members aware of the situation, and respects the
> > opinion of all of its members. In doing so, every member is free to
> > sign the statement, or to not do so.
> > 
> > The Debian Project make an official statement, along the lines of:
> > 
> > * We have learnt about rms being readmitted to the FSF board
> > * We are aware of critical voices regarding the person known as rms,
> >   and we take every single report very serously
> > * Everyone who is affected by any action, opinion or statement of
> >   rms can ask the Debian Anti Harassment team for support, and
> >   the Anti Harassment team will suppor tthem in communicating with
> >   the FSF and ensure their concerns are addresses
> > * The Debian Project supports the instatement of an investigation
> >   committee regarding all accusations against rms and asks the
> >   FSF board to take such action, in close cooperation with other
> >   organisations and in full transparency
> > --><8
> 
> Seconded.
> 
> Note: IDK yet if I'd vote for that choice, but I'm keen on having a fair
> set of choices for this GR.

After thinking to it more, I rescind my sponsorship for that amendment.

Cheers!

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF

[Sruthi Chandran]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256


Dear fellow DDs,

Second the amendment text if acceptable to you :)

 Begin text 

Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
following statement:

*Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board*

We at Debian are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of
Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software
Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to
his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019.

One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is to
recognise and reflect when other people are harmed by our
own actions and consider this feedback in future actions. The way
Richard Stallman announced his return to the board unfortunately lacks
any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply
disappointed that the FSF board elected him a board member again despite
no discernible steps were taken
by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past
actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also
disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was
belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters.


We believe this step and how it was communicated sends wrong and hurtful
message and harms the future of the Free Software movement. The goal of
the software freedom movement is to empower all people to control
technology and thereby create a better society for everyone. Free
Software is meant to serve everyone regardless of their age, ability or
disability, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion or
sexual orientation. This requires an inclusive and diverse environment
that welcomes all contributors equally. Debian realises that we
ourselves and the Free Software movement still have to work hard to be
in that place where everyone feels safe and respected to participate in
it in order to fulfil the movement's mission.


That is why, we call for his resignation from all FSF bodies. The FSF
needs to seriously reflect on this decision as well as their
decision-making process to prevent similar issues from happening again.
Therefore, in the current situation we see ourselves unable to
collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which
Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue to
work with groups and individuals who foster diversity and equality in
the Free Software movement in order to achieve our joint goal of
empowering all users to control technology.

[0] https://twitter.com/fsf/status/1374399897558917128

Heavily based on:

[1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html

[2]
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-richard-stallman-fsf-board

 End of text 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=I8Kp
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Axel Beckert]

Hi,

Timo Weingärtner wrote:
> Updated text:
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard 
> Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.
> 
> Any individual (including Debian members) is free to issue such statements or 
> (co-)sign any open letter.
> ---8<---8<---8<---

Seconded.

Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert , https://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-|  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Michael Biebl]

---8<---8<---8<---
The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard
Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.

Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any of 
the open letters in question is invited to do this in person.

---8<---8<---8<---

seconded



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[Sam Hartman]

> "Dominik" == Dominik George  writes:

Dominik> With all due respect to everyone who has been offended by
Dominik> Richard Stallman, feels oppressed by him, or is negatively
Dominik> affected by his views — every single such person has to be
Dominik> heard, their fears and sorrows been taken into account, and
Dominik> appropriate action been taken.  As such, I am in full
Dominik> support of requiring the FSF board to instate an
Dominik> investigation committee, take letters from anyone affected,
Dominik> and hear these cases (including rms' position).


The problem is that for good reason, we no longer trust the FSF under
its current governance to do that.  What you are affectively asking
people to do is to pursue justice in regard to things rms did in a forum
where rms has much more power than they do and where rms (and the voting
members of the fsf) have demonstrated they will use that power in non
equitible ways.

Given how rms returned to the board, how can you possibly think those
people will get a fair hearing.

I think I may disagree with this option even more than the support rms
open letter option.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[Benda Xu]

Dominik George  writes:

> I explicitly do NOT support this GR.
>
> My opinion, as laid out at
> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/issues/2285:
>
> 8><--
> With the FSFE freezing its collaboration with the FSF, projects
> signing open letters to effectively disassemble the FSF and the GNU
> project altogether, it seems we are officially at war.
>
> With all due respect to everyone who has been offended by Richard
> Stallman, feels oppressed by him, or is negatively affected by his
> views — every single such person has to be heard, their fears and
> sorrows been taken into account, and appropriate action been taken.
> As such, I am in full support of requiring the FSF board to instate
> an investigation committee, take letters from anyone affected, and
> hear these cases (including rms' position).
>
> What I do not support is forcing the disintegration of the FOSS
> community, even less in such crucial times. The COVID pandemic forces
> evryone to digitise the hell out of them and their organisations, and
> every action that weakens the FOSS movement in this ciritical process
> certainly does more harm to the ecosystem than a single person on any
> FOSS body's board ever could. Thus, I consider those responsible for
> this, in my opinion, thoughtless action harmful to the FOSS ecosystem.
>
> As already said, I am in full support of an investigation committee,
> and would immediately sign an open letter requesting the FSF to
> instate one (including a helpful list of requirements for this committee).
>
> Thanks for listening!
>
> P.S.: On a side note, hosting this thing on GitHub, which explicitly
> discriminates against parts of the community and is itself harmful to
> the FOSS ecosystem as a whole, is at least a bit weird.
> --><8
>
>
> As such, I want to make the following amendment:
>
> 8><--
> Choice 2
> 
>
> The Debian Project does not co-sign the statement regarding Richard
> Stallman's readmission to the FSF board seen at
> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md
>
> In its role as an important body in the free software world, the
> Project has made its members aware of the situation, and respects the
> opinion of all of its members. In doing so, every member is free to
> sign the statement, or to not do so.
>
> The Debian Project make an official statement, along the lines of:
>
> * We have learnt about rms being readmitted to the FSF board
> * We are aware of critical voices regarding the person known as rms,
>   and we take every single report very serously
> * Everyone who is affected by any action, opinion or statement of
>   rms can ask the Debian Anti Harassment team for support, and
>   the Anti Harassment team will suppor tthem in communicating with
>   the FSF and ensure their concerns are addresses
> * The Debian Project supports the instatement of an investigation
>   committee regarding all accusations against rms and asks the
>   FSF board to take such action, in close cooperation with other
>   organisations and in full transparency
> --><8

Seconded.

Cheers,
Benda


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Timo Weingärtner (2021-03-26 14:36:40)
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard
> Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.
> 
> Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any of the 
> open 
> letters in question is invited to do this in person.
> ---8<---8<---8<---

Seconded.

People - offended or not by RMS ans FSF - who find it wrong of Debian as 
an organisation to make a public statement about the affairs of FSF, and 
also do not want any "further discussion", may find this agreeable to 
vote for.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Willingness to share a position statement?

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 10:05:44AM +0100, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on
> > what people say and do around us. We're not a government.
> 
> So only governments should not discriminate people?
> 
> > Try a simple thought experiment: if you think that only the law (which
> > country?) has any bearing here, is spam filtering allowed? Should we
> > be allowed to block people from our mailing lists or BTS for sending
> > lots of messages saying "Free Software is awful"?

> You have the right to choose which mail messages you receive.
> You haven't the right to choose which mail messages I send.
> Can you see the difference?

Debian as a project has a right to block your mails so they are not
dissemminated via our servers.

> Similarly, if you don't want to listen to me, you have the right to
> walk away. You haven't the right to silence me.
> If you don't want to work with me, you have the right to quit. You
> haven't the right to get me fired.

Obviously false.  You do not have a right to be the most obnoxious person in
your place of work who drives other people to quit, and people have a right
to demand a work environment free from harrassment.

And why are we having this conversation?  You're not a Debian developer, you
told Debian you were leaving because you disagreed with our policies, and
you don't get a vote.  Do you think you're persuading someone here?

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer   https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: Willingness to share a position statement?

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 06:47:31AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Christian Kastner wrote:
> > On 26.03.21 01:06, Simon Richter wrote:
> > > >(2) how deeply Debian gets involved
> > > We are in a prominent position. The OSI's Open Source Definition is
> > > derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, after all, not the
> > > other way 'round.
> > > 
> > > There is no way for us to not be involved in something that affects the
> > > whole free software community.
> > Sure, but we have a choice as to how we get involved -- the specific
> > actions, or inaction. See the ongoing GR.
> > 
> > All I'm saying is that when people speak out about the wish to be
> > apolitical, the term 'apolitical' should not be taken in the widest
> > possible sense, which covers any action or inaction, and then dismissed
> > for being impossible.

> > Rather, in should be understood in a stricter sense, namely of favoring
> > inaction ("political inactivism", if you like).
> If one wants to talk political - maybe it's time to survey the Debian
> community as to who feels how about Stallman.  Otherwise this is all a based
> on a few loud voices shouting at each other.

LOL what do you think a vote is

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer   https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org

Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Dominik George (2021-03-26 15:07:36)
> > If you want the project to issue a statement, the exact statement 
> > should be in the GR, so that people that vote know what they are 
> > voting for.
> 
> The statement I described is one that says "we will stand behind 
> anyone who was harmed during their contribution to the project", not a 
> request to harm anyone else like the original GR.
> 
> This is something that the Debian Code of Conduct already guarantees, 
> and really something that, if they contradict that, would make anyone 
> unfit as a Debian Project member because contradicting that would 
> violate the agreements that we made.
> 
> Therefore, I consider the Press team to have enough power to issue 
> such a statement even without anyone else asking for it, so they can 
> be requested to write something up themselves.

Whoops, I missed this detail - thanks, Marga!

I hereby retract my seconding of the text as it is currently presented: 
I cannot second a text which makes promises on behalf of others.


> If a fully fledged out statement is a requirement to get this choice 
> into the GR, I will write one.

Please do - I will reconsider my support based on what that turns out to 
be (and really I hesitate: As already mentioned this text seem 
overlapping with another smaller proposed text).


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Milan Kupcevic]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 3/26/21 9:36 AM, Timo Weingärtner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Updated text:
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard
> Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.
> 
> Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any of the 
> open 
> letters in question is invited to do this in person.
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> 
> This includes the change by Mathias Behrle but changes "the letter" to "any 
> of 
> the letters".
> 
> 
> Grüße
> Timo
> 


Seconded.


Milan

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=lauj
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: The "RMS Open Letter" is based on lies, misrepresentations, and misinformation

[Ximin Luo]

Does anyone have a response to this?

The current efforts really smells of a witch-hunt and an attempt to manufacture 
consent.

Ximin

James Lu:
> This is my first time posting in a Debian mailing list, apologies if the tone 
> or is not what you are looking for in a Debian post. I wrote this hurriedly 
> in an attempt to help the free software movement avoid splintering.
> 
> Stallman asked women out in a way we consider creepy. The letter phrases this 
> by saying Stallman has sexually harassed women for decades. The letter seeks 
> to group him in the same category as gropers and actual rapists.
> In 1993, he defined pedophilia slightly differently. He made a genuine 
> apology. This is the basis of the "pedo apologist." 
> https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong)
>  
> 
> After condemning the rape of a 17 year old girl in the Epstein case, Marvin 
> Minksy had sex with the girl, unaware the girl was being coerced by Epstein. 
> In accordance with the law of Canada and most U.S. states, it is legal to 
> have sex with a 16 year old girl. Nonetheless, we believe these leaked 
> private discussions make him equivalent to a rapist. 
> https://geoff.greer.fm/2019/09/30/in-defense-of-richard-stallman/ 
> 
> The original open letter's Appendix has two true claims of sexual harassment:
> - In 1999, he had a mattress in his office which he slept on. This made some 
> women avoid RMS because they considered it abnormal and creepy.
> - In 1985, he told a woman he'd kill himself if he didn't date her.
> The "hot ladies" nametag was fake; it was vandalized from a third party. 
> https://blog.dachary.org/2020/02/10/how-the-cancel-culture-was-leveraged-against-rms/#post-4297:~:text=As%20for%20the%20label%20on%20Richard,removed%20the%20ending%3A%20(also%3A%20hot%20ladies)
>  
> 
> He has never been accused of groping or sexual assault.
> Stallman has hundreds of posts on his personal blog condemning rape, and they 
> cherry-pick the one post where he argued for a different definition of rape. 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20210325013942/https://stallman.org/archives/2018-may-aug.html
>  
> 
> The GNU Kind Communication Guidelines ask you to honor gender identity. The 
> letter says it is "still transphobic" and accuses him of "thinly disguised 
> transphobia," possibly because it includes calling someone via only 
> gender-neutral pronouns such as "they."
> I strongly urge everyone to avoid splintering the free software movement. I 
> understand you do not want to be associated with racism, sexism, transphobia, 
> and ableism. The accusers do indeed label anyone who don't agree with them as 
> sexist and transphobic. This is how they did it in McCarthy era.[0] Resist 
> the urge to be performative and stick to principles.
> 
> [0]: https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship 
> 


-- 
GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git

Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[Dominik George]

Hi,

> If you want the project to issue a statement, the exact statement should be
> in the GR, so that people that vote know what they are voting for.

The statement I described is one that says "we will stand behind
anyone who was harmed during their contribution to the project", not a
request to harm anyone else like the original GR.

This is something that the Debian Code of Conduct already guarantees,
and really something that, if they contradict that, would make anyone
unfit as a Debian Project member because contradicting that would
violate the agreements that we made.

Therefore, I consider the Press team to have enough power to issue
such a statement even without anyone else asking for it, so they can
be requested to write something up themselves.

If a fully fledged out statement is a requirement to get this choice
into the GR, I will write one.

-nik


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[José Vieira]

Seconded.

José Vieira

- Mensagem de Dominik George  -

 Data: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 11:05:26 +0100

 De: Dominik George 

 Assunto: Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to  
the FSF board


 Para: debian-vote@lists.debian.org


Hi,


A General Resolution has been started about Richard Stallman's

 readmission to the FSF board.



 It currently has 1 available options, but other proposals have  
been suggested.


I explicitly do NOT support this GR.



 My opinion, as laid out at

 https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/issues/2285:



 8><--

 With the FSFE freezing its collaboration with the FSF, projects

 signing open letters to effectively disassemble the FSF and the GNU

 project altogether, it seems we are officially at war.



 With all due respect to everyone who has been offended by Richard

 Stallman, feels oppressed by him, or is negatively affected by his

 views — every single such person has to be heard, their fears and

 sorrows been taken into account, and appropriate action been taken.

 As such, I am in full support of requiring the FSF board to instate

 an investigation committee, take letters from anyone affected, and

 hear these cases (including rms' position).



 What I do not support is forcing the disintegration of the FOSS

 community, even less in such crucial times. The COVID pandemic forces

 evryone to digitise the hell out of them and their organisations, and

 every action that weakens the FOSS movement in this ciritical process

 certainly does more harm to the ecosystem than a single person on any

 FOSS body's board ever could. Thus, I consider those responsible for

 this, in my opinion, thoughtless action harmful to the FOSS ecosystem.



 As already said, I am in full support of an investigation committee,

 and would immediately sign an open letter requesting the FSF to

 instate one (including a helpful list of requirements for this committee).



 Thanks for listening!



 P.S.: On a side note, hosting this thing on GitHub, which explicitly

 discriminates against parts of the community and is itself harmful to

 the FOSS ecosystem as a whole, is at least a bit weird.

 --><8





 As such, I want to make the following amendment:



 8><--

 Choice 2

 



 The Debian Project does not co-sign the statement regarding Richard

 Stallman's readmission to the FSF board seen at

  
https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md




 In its role as an important body in the free software world, the

 Project has made its members aware of the situation, and respects the

 opinion of all of its members. In doing so, every member is free to

 sign the statement, or to not do so.



 The Debian Project make an official statement, along the lines of:



 * We have learnt about rms being readmitted to the FSF board

 * We are aware of critical voices regarding the person known as rms,

 and we take every single report very serously

 * Everyone who is affected by any action, opinion or statement of

 rms can ask the Debian Anti Harassment team for support, and

 the Anti Harassment team will suppor tthem in communicating with

 the FSF and ensure their concerns are addresses

 * The Debian Project supports the instatement of an investigation

 committee regarding all accusations against rms and asks the

 FSF board to take such action, in close cooperation with other

 organisations and in full transparency

 --><8



 Kind regards,Nik


- Fim da mensagem de Dominik George  -

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Timo Weingärtner]

Hi,

Updated text:
---8<---8<---8<---
The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard
Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.

Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any of the open 
letters in question is invited to do this in person.
---8<---8<---8<---

This includes the change by Mathias Behrle but changes "the letter" to "any of 
the letters".


Grüße
Timo

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

Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[Santiago Ruano Rincón]

El 26/03/21 a las 13:26, Dominik George escribió:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:50:31AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > [replying only to -vote - please avoid cross-posting!]
> 
> OK, but you actually replied only to -devel instead of -vote.
> 
> > 
> > Quoting Dominik George (2021-03-26 11:05:26)
...
> > > 
> > > 8><--
> > > Choice 2
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The Debian Project does not co-sign the statement regarding Richard
> > > Stallman's readmission to the FSF board seen at
> > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md
> > > 
> > > In its role as an important body in the free software world, the
> > > Project has made its members aware of the situation, and respects the
> > > opinion of all of its members. In doing so, every member is free to
> > > sign the statement, or to not do so.
> > > 
> > > The Debian Project make an official statement, along the lines of:
> > > 
> > > * We have learnt about rms being readmitted to the FSF board
> > > * We are aware of critical voices regarding the person known as rms,
> > >   and we take every single report very serously
> > > * Everyone who is affected by any action, opinion or statement of
> > >   rms can ask the Debian Anti Harassment team for support, and
> > >   the Anti Harassment team will suppor tthem in communicating with
> > >   the FSF and ensure their concerns are addresses
...

AFAIK, the Community Team has replaced the Anti Harassment Team.

 -- S


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[Margarita Manterola]

Hi,

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 1:26 PM Dominik George 
wrote:

> > > The Debian Project make an official statement, along the lines of:
>

If you want the project to issue a statement, the exact statement should be
in the GR, so that people that vote know what they are voting for.

-- 
Besos,
Marga

Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Dominik George (2021-03-26 13:26:09)
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:50:31AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > [replying only to -vote - please avoid cross-posting!]
> 
> OK, but you actually replied only to -devel instead of -vote.

Arrgh.

> > Quoting Dominik George (2021-03-26 11:05:26)
> 8><--
> Choice 2
> 
> 
> The Debian Project does not co-sign the statement regarding Richard
> Stallman's readmission to the FSF board seen at
> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md
> 
> In its role as an important body in the free software world, the
> Project has made its members aware of the situation, and respects the
> opinion of all of its members. In doing so, every member is free to
> sign the statement, or to not do so.
> 
> The Debian Project make an official statement, along the lines of:
> 
> * We have learnt about rms being readmitted to the FSF board
> * We are aware of critical voices regarding the person known as rms,
>   and we take every single report very serously
> * Everyone who, related to contributions to Debian,  is affected by
>   any action, opinion or statement of rms can ask the Debian Anti
>   Harassment team for support, and the Anti Harassment team will
>   support them in communicating with the FSF and ensure their concerns
>   are addressed
> * The Debian Project will cooperate with an investigation committee
>   regarding all accusations against rms if the FSF board decides to
>   instate such a committee, which the Debian Project endorses
> --><8

Seconded (also if "Choice 2" is omitted or renumbered or rephrased)

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Hi Anarcat,

Quoting Antoine Beaupré (2021-03-25 20:11:45)
> Hey what's up doc,
> 
> On 2021-03-25 00:41:41, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Quoting M dB (2021-03-24 23:55:23)
> >> A few thoughts:
> >> 
> >> - I don't like the term "cancel" because I think it doesn't mean 
> >> much anymore and is too loaded.
> >
> > Means too little and too much at the same time?!?
> >
> > https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/cancel-culture/ describes 
> > it as a form of boycott, calling out, and group shaming.
> >
> > Wikipedia seems to share that view - what am I missing? Am I in some 
> > bubble confirming my views, and other bubbles tell radically 
> > different storis about the meaning of the term?
> >
> >
> >> Are we discussing a handful of people leaving volunteer positions? 
> >> Yes. Are we discussing ruining their lives? No.
> >
> > Are we disccussing public boycott and shaming? Yes.
> >
> > Do public boycott and shaming ruin lives?  Hopefully not, but I 
> > wonder how you can so confidently dismiss both the term as being 
> > meaningless and the action as being harmless.  Shame on you for not 
> > taking responsibility for your action.
> 
> Did you just "shame" someone because they supposedly call on "shaming" 
> someone else? Isn't that a contradiction?

No.  I shame someone for reframing an act of group shaming as harmless.


> > I get a strong impression that this RMS felow is far from a saint, 
> > and encourage that he be properly tried for his alleged wrongdoings.
> 
> So basically, what you are proposing is that, instead of suggesting 
> RMS simply be expelled from a non-profit, all the witnesses and 
> victims of his crimes should collectively organise for him to be 
> criminally prosecuted in a court of law in the United States?
> 
> How would that not be public shaming?

Regardless of the shame involved in prosecution in a US court system, 
that does not legimitize group shaming.

I find it reasonable for Debian to distance itself from questionable 
activities in related organisations, but not to get involved in group 
shaming.

I find it distasteful for Debian to *judge* activities in related 
organisations.

Stating that "[RMS] has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and 
transphobic" is treating allegations (arguably very strong allegations 
but still not proven in a court of law) as it it was facts.


> Anyways, I think the point here is to get seconders, maybe we should 
> keep those arguments to the vote and move on. I hope I won't regret 
> outlining the contradictions here.

I think the point here is to discuss what should be on the ballot.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Daniel Lenharo]

Em 26/03/2021 07:24, Jonas Smedegaard escreveu:


Seconded - on the condition that Timo Weingärtner replaces his previous
proposal with one one including above edit.

  - Jonas



Same here!

--
Daniel Lenharo
Curitiba - BR


OpenPGP_0xFB0E132DDB0AA5B1.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[Dominik George]

Hi,

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:50:31AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> [replying only to -vote - please avoid cross-posting!]

OK, but you actually replied only to -devel instead of -vote.

> 
> Quoting Dominik George (2021-03-26 11:05:26)
> > Hi,
> > 
> > > A General Resolution has been started about Richard Stallman's
> > > readmission to the FSF board.
> > > 
> > > It currently has 1 available options, but other proposals have been 
> > > suggested.
> > 
> > I explicitly do NOT support this GR.
> > 
> > My opinion, as laid out at
> > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/issues/2285:
> > 
> > 8><--
> > With the FSFE freezing its collaboration with the FSF, projects
> > signing open letters to effectively disassemble the FSF and the GNU
> > project altogether, it seems we are officially at war.
> > 
> > With all due respect to everyone who has been offended by Richard
> > Stallman, feels oppressed by him, or is negatively affected by his
> > views — every single such person has to be heard, their fears and
> > sorrows been taken into account, and appropriate action been taken.
> > As such, I am in full support of requiring the FSF board to instate
> > an investigation committee, take letters from anyone affected, and
> > hear these cases (including rms' position).
> > 
> > What I do not support is forcing the disintegration of the FOSS
> > community, even less in such crucial times. The COVID pandemic forces
> > evryone to digitise the hell out of them and their organisations, and
> > every action that weakens the FOSS movement in this ciritical process
> > certainly does more harm to the ecosystem than a single person on any
> > FOSS body's board ever could. Thus, I consider those responsible for
> > this, in my opinion, thoughtless action harmful to the FOSS ecosystem.
> > 
> > As already said, I am in full support of an investigation committee,
> > and would immediately sign an open letter requesting the FSF to
> > instate one (including a helpful list of requirements for this committee).
> > 
> > Thanks for listening!
> > 
> > P.S.: On a side note, hosting this thing on GitHub, which explicitly
> > discriminates against parts of the community and is itself harmful to
> > the FOSS ecosystem as a whole, is at least a bit weird.
> > --><8
> > 
> > 
> > As such, I want to make the following amendment:
> > 
> > 8><--
> > Choice 2
> > 
> > 
> > The Debian Project does not co-sign the statement regarding Richard
> > Stallman's readmission to the FSF board seen at
> > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md
> > 
> > In its role as an important body in the free software world, the
> > Project has made its members aware of the situation, and respects the
> > opinion of all of its members. In doing so, every member is free to
> > sign the statement, or to not do so.
> > 
> > The Debian Project make an official statement, along the lines of:
> > 
> > * We have learnt about rms being readmitted to the FSF board
> > * We are aware of critical voices regarding the person known as rms,
> >   and we take every single report very serously
> > * Everyone who is affected by any action, opinion or statement of
> >   rms can ask the Debian Anti Harassment team for support, and
> >   the Anti Harassment team will suppor tthem in communicating with
> >   the FSF and ensure their concerns are addresses
> > * The Debian Project supports the instatement of an investigation
> >   committee regarding all accusations against rms and asks the
> >   FSF board to take such action, in close cooperation with other
> >   organisations and in full transparency
> > --><8
> 
> I like the general framing of this proposal, but cannot second it due to 
> details in it:
> 
> a) Seems to me that the statement implicitly expands the role of the 
> Debian Harassment team from covering incidents within Debian to also 
> cover Debian-external incidents related to RMS as well.  I think it is 
> wrong to expand the role like that, and I think it is unnecessary for 
> the general aim of this proposal to include that.

This should of course mean "realted to their work in the Debian project".

> b) I worry that the word "support" in last paragraph is either too 
> strong or has no real meaning: Does it imply that we promise to dedicate 
> economic funds, or time, or people - or how do we truly "support"?  If 
> the intended meaning is that we support only in spirit then I think it 
> is better to not write it at all, because of the ambiguity and because 
> arguably we already demonstrate our spiritual support by not sitting 
> idly by but making an explicit statement.

OK.

New wording, please comment:

Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Antoine Beaupré (2021-03-25 20:13:42)
> On 2021-03-25 19:13:09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > I dislike the conclusive judgemental framing of the previously 
> > referenced open letter, and consider it wrong for Debian as an 
> > organisation to make direct demands on how other organisations 
> > should conduct its business.  I certainly would find it 
> > inappropriate for FSF to make direct demands on how Debian operates.
> 
> Yeah, the FSF or RMS would *never* make direct demands onto how 
> another organization operates, right? 

Your point being what exactly?

My point is that (indeed FSF makes demands on Debian, and) FSF making 
direct demands on how Debian should operate is something I find 
inappropriate (and it triggers other emotions in me as well), and I 
don't want Debian to treat FSF in that same way.

Sorry if I was unclear earlier...


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: Willingness to share a position statement?

[Miles Fidelman]

Christian Kastner wrote:

On 26.03.21 01:06, Simon Richter wrote:

   (2) how deeply Debian gets involved

We are in a prominent position. The OSI's Open Source Definition is
derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, after all, not the
other way 'round.

There is no way for us to not be involved in something that affects the
whole free software community.

Sure, but we have a choice as to how we get involved -- the specific
actions, or inaction. See the ongoing GR.

All I'm saying is that when people speak out about the wish to be
apolitical, the term 'apolitical' should not be taken in the widest
possible sense, which covers any action or inaction, and then dismissed
for being impossible.

Rather, in should be understood in a stricter sense, namely of favoring
inaction ("political inactivism", if you like).
If one wants to talk political - maybe it's time to survey the Debian 
community as to who feels how about Stallman.  Otherwise this is all a 
based on a few loud voices shouting at each other.


Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 11:24:10+0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> Quoting Mathias Behrle (2021-03-26 10:40:55)
> > * Timo Weingärtner: " Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project
> >   itself, sign any letter regarding rms" (Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:19:44 +0100):
> > 
> > > Hallo Martin Michlmayr,
> > > 
> > > 26.03.21 09:15 Martin Michlmayr:
> > > > * Timo Weingärtner  [2021-03-26 09:12]:  
> > > > > The Debian Project will issue a public statement on whether Richard
> > > > > Stallman  
> > > > ^^
> > > > I think you forgot the word "not" here.  
> > > 
> > > Of course, thanks.
> > > 
> > > Updated text:
> > > ---8<---8<---8<---
> > > The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard 
> > > Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.
> > > 
> > > Any individual (including Debian members) is free to issue such 
> > > statements or 
> > > (co-)sign any open letter.
> > 
> > As a matter of course each individual is/shall be free to do so, we don't 
> > have
> > to debate this right at all or in a GR. Furthermore I would like to have the
> > wording restricted to the current document in question.
> > 
> > Could this be changed to something along the lines:
> > 
> > """
> > Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign the open 
> > letter
> > in question is invited to do this in person.
> > """
> 
> Seconded - on the condition that Timo Weingärtner replaces his previous 
> proposal with one one including above edit.

Same here.

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 11:05:26+0100, Dominik George a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> > A General Resolution has been started about Richard Stallman's
> > readmission to the FSF board.
> > 
> > It currently has 1 available options, but other proposals have been 
> > suggested.
> 
> I explicitly do NOT support this GR.
> 
> My opinion, as laid out at
> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/issues/2285:
> 
> 8><--
> With the FSFE freezing its collaboration with the FSF, projects
> signing open letters to effectively disassemble the FSF and the GNU
> project altogether, it seems we are officially at war.
> 
> With all due respect to everyone who has been offended by Richard
> Stallman, feels oppressed by him, or is negatively affected by his
> views — every single such person has to be heard, their fears and
> sorrows been taken into account, and appropriate action been taken.
> As such, I am in full support of requiring the FSF board to instate
> an investigation committee, take letters from anyone affected, and
> hear these cases (including rms' position).
> 
> What I do not support is forcing the disintegration of the FOSS
> community, even less in such crucial times. The COVID pandemic forces
> evryone to digitise the hell out of them and their organisations, and
> every action that weakens the FOSS movement in this ciritical process
> certainly does more harm to the ecosystem than a single person on any
> FOSS body's board ever could. Thus, I consider those responsible for
> this, in my opinion, thoughtless action harmful to the FOSS ecosystem.
> 
> As already said, I am in full support of an investigation committee,
> and would immediately sign an open letter requesting the FSF to
> instate one (including a helpful list of requirements for this committee).
> 
> Thanks for listening!
> 
> P.S.: On a side note, hosting this thing on GitHub, which explicitly
> discriminates against parts of the community and is itself harmful to
> the FOSS ecosystem as a whole, is at least a bit weird.
> --><8
> 
> 
> As such, I want to make the following amendment:
> 
> 8><--
> Choice 2
> 
> 
> The Debian Project does not co-sign the statement regarding Richard
> Stallman's readmission to the FSF board seen at
> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md
> 
> In its role as an important body in the free software world, the
> Project has made its members aware of the situation, and respects the
> opinion of all of its members. In doing so, every member is free to
> sign the statement, or to not do so.
> 
> The Debian Project make an official statement, along the lines of:
> 
> * We have learnt about rms being readmitted to the FSF board
> * We are aware of critical voices regarding the person known as rms,
>   and we take every single report very serously
> * Everyone who is affected by any action, opinion or statement of
>   rms can ask the Debian Anti Harassment team for support, and
>   the Anti Harassment team will suppor tthem in communicating with
>   the FSF and ensure their concerns are addresses
> * The Debian Project supports the instatement of an investigation
>   committee regarding all accusations against rms and asks the
>   FSF board to take such action, in close cooperation with other
>   organisations and in full transparency
> --><8

Seconded.

Note: IDK yet if I'd vote for that choice, but I'm keen on having a fair
set of choices for this GR.

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Willingness to share a position statement?

[Ulrike Uhlig]

On 26.03.21 10:05, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:

Steve McIntyre wrote:

We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on
what people say and do around us. We're not a government.


So only governments should not discriminate people?


Try a simple thought experiment: if you think that only the law (which
country?) has any bearing here, is spam filtering allowed? Should we
be allowed to block people from our mailing lists or BTS for sending
lots of messages saying "Free Software is awful"?


You have the right to choose which mail messages you receive.
You haven't the right to choose which mail messages I send.
Can you see the difference?


Your example lacks perspective. That said, let's escalate your example a 
bit: If you send me lots of messages that I do not want to receive and I 
have told you so, but you find ways of sending them to me nevertheless, 
you are responsible for this. Now if you keep sending me messages, 
-imagine a dDoS- I would argue that you are also legally accountable for 
that.


"You haven't the right to choose which mail messages I send." What this 
sentence implies is exactly that: that *you* are solely responsible, and 
therefore accountable for your actions.


Now, let's apply your sentences above to the hypothetical case in which 
we would be working together in an organization or a workplace. In that 
situation, I could very well escalate the matter to a decision making 
body of that organization, or make them public and request that you'll 
be held accountable for your actions.


Can you see the difference?


Similarly, if you don't want to listen to me, you have the right to
walk away. You haven't the right to silence me.
If you don't want to work with me, you have the right to quit. You
haven't the right to get me fired.


If you are harmful for the organization, or this hypothetical workplace 
you seem to be talking about, then a hypothetical me would very well 
have the right to complain about you and ask the decision making body of 
the organization to take a decision concerning our conflict (that's what 
it is) in the interest of the organization. And that might mean to get 
you fired because you are causing harm.


Ulrike

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Mathias Behrle (2021-03-26 10:40:55)
> * Timo Weingärtner: " Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project
>   itself, sign any letter regarding rms" (Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:19:44 +0100):
> 
> > Hallo Martin Michlmayr,
> > 
> > 26.03.21 09:15 Martin Michlmayr:
> > > * Timo Weingärtner  [2021-03-26 09:12]:  
> > > > The Debian Project will issue a public statement on whether Richard
> > > > Stallman  
> > > ^^
> > > I think you forgot the word "not" here.  
> > 
> > Of course, thanks.
> > 
> > Updated text:
> > ---8<---8<---8<---
> > The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard 
> > Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.
> > 
> > Any individual (including Debian members) is free to issue such statements 
> > or 
> > (co-)sign any open letter.
> 
> As a matter of course each individual is/shall be free to do so, we don't have
> to debate this right at all or in a GR. Furthermore I would like to have the
> wording restricted to the current document in question.
> 
> Could this be changed to something along the lines:
> 
> """
> Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign the open letter
> in question is invited to do this in person.
> """

Seconded - on the condition that Timo Weingärtner replaces his previous 
proposal with one one including above edit.

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[Dominik George]

Hi,

> A General Resolution has been started about Richard Stallman's
> readmission to the FSF board.
> 
> It currently has 1 available options, but other proposals have been suggested.

I explicitly do NOT support this GR.

My opinion, as laid out at
https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/issues/2285:

8><--
With the FSFE freezing its collaboration with the FSF, projects
signing open letters to effectively disassemble the FSF and the GNU
project altogether, it seems we are officially at war.

With all due respect to everyone who has been offended by Richard
Stallman, feels oppressed by him, or is negatively affected by his
views — every single such person has to be heard, their fears and
sorrows been taken into account, and appropriate action been taken.
As such, I am in full support of requiring the FSF board to instate
an investigation committee, take letters from anyone affected, and
hear these cases (including rms' position).

What I do not support is forcing the disintegration of the FOSS
community, even less in such crucial times. The COVID pandemic forces
evryone to digitise the hell out of them and their organisations, and
every action that weakens the FOSS movement in this ciritical process
certainly does more harm to the ecosystem than a single person on any
FOSS body's board ever could. Thus, I consider those responsible for
this, in my opinion, thoughtless action harmful to the FOSS ecosystem.

As already said, I am in full support of an investigation committee,
and would immediately sign an open letter requesting the FSF to
instate one (including a helpful list of requirements for this committee).

Thanks for listening!

P.S.: On a side note, hosting this thing on GitHub, which explicitly
discriminates against parts of the community and is itself harmful to
the FOSS ecosystem as a whole, is at least a bit weird.
--><8


As such, I want to make the following amendment:

8><--
Choice 2


The Debian Project does not co-sign the statement regarding Richard
Stallman's readmission to the FSF board seen at
https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md

In its role as an important body in the free software world, the
Project has made its members aware of the situation, and respects the
opinion of all of its members. In doing so, every member is free to
sign the statement, or to not do so.

The Debian Project make an official statement, along the lines of:

* We have learnt about rms being readmitted to the FSF board
* We are aware of critical voices regarding the person known as rms,
  and we take every single report very serously
* Everyone who is affected by any action, opinion or statement of
  rms can ask the Debian Anti Harassment team for support, and
  the Anti Harassment team will suppor tthem in communicating with
  the FSF and ensure their concerns are addresses
* The Debian Project supports the instatement of an investigation
  committee regarding all accusations against rms and asks the
  FSF board to take such action, in close cooperation with other
  organisations and in full transparency
--><8

Kind regards,
Nik


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Mathias Behrle]

* Timo Weingärtner: " Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project
  itself, sign any letter regarding rms" (Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:19:44 +0100):

> Hallo Martin Michlmayr,
> 
> 26.03.21 09:15 Martin Michlmayr:
> > * Timo Weingärtner  [2021-03-26 09:12]:  
> > > The Debian Project will issue a public statement on whether Richard
> > > Stallman  
> > ^^
> > I think you forgot the word "not" here.  
> 
> Of course, thanks.
> 
> Updated text:
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard 
> Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.
> 
> Any individual (including Debian members) is free to issue such statements or 
> (co-)sign any open letter.

As a matter of course each individual is/shall be free to do so, we don't have
to debate this right at all or in a GR. Furthermore I would like to have the
wording restricted to the current document in question.

Could this be changed to something along the lines:

"""
Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign the open letter
in question is invited to do this in person.
"""

?




-- 

Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6


pgpOgTnLIYygw.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP

Re: Amendment to rms-open-letter GR

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Sean Whitton (2021-03-25 21:17:34)
> ===BEGIN
> 
> Replace the entire text with:
> 
> Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
> following statement:
> 
> The Debian Project echoes and supports recent calls to remove Richard
> M. Stallman from positions of leadership within free software, for which
> we believe him to be inappropriate.
> 
> We are disappointed by the actions of those responsible for restoring
> him to the Free Software Foundation's Board of Directors, and urge that
> that decision be reversed.
> 
> ===END

Seconded.

People who...
 a) agree that Richard M. Stallman is unsuitable as leader
of free software organisations, and
 b) find it appropriate for Debian to take an official stand
on that issue, but
 c) disagree with the explicitly enumerated labels
attributed to his actions in the initially proposed text,
may find this agreeable to vote for.

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Willingness to share a position statement?

[Gerardo Ballabio]

Steve McIntyre wrote:
> We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on
> what people say and do around us. We're not a government.

So only governments should not discriminate people?

> Try a simple thought experiment: if you think that only the law (which
> country?) has any bearing here, is spam filtering allowed? Should we
> be allowed to block people from our mailing lists or BTS for sending
> lots of messages saying "Free Software is awful"?

You have the right to choose which mail messages you receive.
You haven't the right to choose which mail messages I send.
Can you see the difference?

Similarly, if you don't want to listen to me, you have the right to
walk away. You haven't the right to silence me.
If you don't want to work with me, you have the right to quit. You
haven't the right to get me fired.

Gerardo

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Timo Weingärtner (2021-03-26 09:19:44)
> Hallo Martin Michlmayr,
> 
> 26.03.21 09:15 Martin Michlmayr:
> > * Timo Weingärtner  [2021-03-26 09:12]:
> > > The Debian Project will issue a public statement on whether Richard
> > > Stallman
> > ^^
> > I think you forgot the word "not" here.
> 
> Of course, thanks.
> 
> Updated text:
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard 
> Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.
> 
> Any individual (including Debian members) is free to issue such statements or 
> (co-)sign any open letter.
> ---8<---8<---8<---

Seconded

(for the record, I would also second a proposed text in the style of FSF 
Europe, so please don't take this as discouragement for draftiing such 
other text)

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Amendment to rms-open-letter GR

[Richard Laager]

[Hopefully signed this time for the record. Sorry for the noise.]


Seeking seconds:

===BEGIN

Replace the entire text with:

Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
following statement:

The Debian Project echoes and supports recent calls to remove Richard
M. Stallman from positions of leadership within free software, for which
we believe him to be inappropriate.

We are disappointed by the actions of those responsible for restoring
him to the Free Software Foundation's Board of Directors, and urge that
that decision be reversed.

===END


Seconded.

This alternative was presented with good faith arguments that appear 
sufficient to merit its consideration.


--
Richard



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 03:34:22AM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> > ---8<---8<---8<---
> > The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard
> > Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.
> > 
> > Any individual (including Debian members) is free to issue such statements 
> > or
> > (co-)sign any open letter.
> > ---8<---8<---8<---
> 
> At the moment, there is only one option with enough seconds. How is voting
> FOR your proposal different from voting AGAINST the current proposal? Or, if
> more proposals gain enough seconds, how is voting FOR this option different
> from voting AGAINST all options that issue a statement one way or the other?
FD vs no FD.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Richard Laager]

On 3/26/21 3:19 AM, Timo Weingärtner wrote:

---8<---8<---8<---
The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard
Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.

Any individual (including Debian members) is free to issue such statements or
(co-)sign any open letter.
---8<---8<---8<---


At the moment, there is only one option with enough seconds. How is 
voting FOR your proposal different from voting AGAINST the current 
proposal? Or, if more proposals gain enough seconds, how is voting FOR 
this option different from voting AGAINST all options that issue a 
statement one way or the other?


I understand that mechanically they are different: this one issues a 
statement that we won't issue a statement either way. But, in your view, 
why is that desirable? Why should I vote FOR your proposal (or why 
should I second it)?


--
Richard

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: Re: Willingness to share a position statement?

[Simon Richter]

Hi,

On 26.03.21 08:32, Christian Kastner wrote:

> All I'm saying is that when people speak out about the wish to be
> apolitical, the term 'apolitical' should not be taken in the widest
> possible sense, which covers any action or inaction, and then dismissed
> for being impossible.

> Rather, in should be understood in a stricter sense, namely of favoring
> inaction ("political inactivism", if you like).

Exactly, the position "we should be 'apolitical'" is still a political
position, and inaction, (especially) after discussion, is still a
political statement (that we're fine with the situation as is).

That's why it's impossible to be "apolitical" here.

We can't distinguish between a "political" debate and a meta-debate that
defines the terms of the debate. It's all part of the same big ball, in
the same way that we're holding GR votes on changing the procedure of GR
votes.

   Simon

Re: Why does Debian Care about the FSF

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 07:18:35PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Debian works with (or at least has worked with) the FSF in the past.
> We've invited people speaking in official FSF roles to our conferences.
> We've had people interact with them in their events and when working on
> maintaining their software and other things.
> 
> Many of us believe the FSF is not creating a safe, welcoming space.
> We believe that they are making a strong statement by allowing rms to be
> on their board , and we hear that statement as inconsistent with
> creating a safe, welcoming, respectful space.
> 
> How does this impact Debian.
> 
> Imagine I'm mentoring someone and they find a bug in an FSF project.
> If it was a bug in a project with an upstream  that created a safe
> environment, I'd probably as a mentor encourage someone to submit the
> bug upstream.
> 
> With the FSF or another project that I don't think will respect my
> mentee, I'm going to focus more on that than getting the bug fixed.
> 
> There are thousands of other cases where this sort of trade off happens.
> One of the big ones is the overall perception of the free software
> community.
> Because the FSF enjoyed such a prominent position in the community, when
> they stumble, at least now, it brigs us all down.
> People experience the FSF and paint all of us with that brush to a
> greater or lesser degree.
> And they should.
> If the larger community doesn't police the organizations that make it
> up, people should take that into account when they decide whether to
> associate with us.
> 
> We are debating whether the FSF has done something strong enough that
> Debian as a whole should ask the FSF to fix it and distance itself from
> the FSF until they do.
> It's appropriate for Debian to consider that as a project because at
> least one side argues that being closely associated with the FSF is
> inconsistent at this time with goals Debian has adopted as a project.
> 
> I think Debian should distance itself.  You may disagree.
> But I hope you can see from my viewpoint why it's a reasonable question
> for Debian as a project to answer.
> Obviously if you view things differently, you can vote your conscience.
This sounds like (and this is really a popular opinion inside and outside
Debian) the FSF is the problem, not just RMS, and it's not clear to me
whether anything will be actually fixed if RMS holds fewers positions
inside FSF.
Opinions of Debian on FSF (or at least on some of its products) and,
especially, FSF on Debian are well-known, maybe it's time to make this
more official.


-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Bart Martens]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On Fri, 2021-03-26 at 09:19 +0100, Timo Weingärtner wrote:
> Updated text:
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether
> Richard 
> Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.
> 
> Any individual (including Debian members) is free to issue such
> statements or 
> (co-)sign any open letter.
> ---8<---8<---8<---

Seconded.


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=sQ5Y
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Timo Weingärtner]

Hallo Martin Michlmayr,

26.03.21 09:15 Martin Michlmayr:
> * Timo Weingärtner  [2021-03-26 09:12]:
> > The Debian Project will issue a public statement on whether Richard
> > Stallman
> ^^
> I think you forgot the word "not" here.

Of course, thanks.

Updated text:
---8<---8<---8<---
The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard 
Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.

Any individual (including Debian members) is free to issue such statements or 
(co-)sign any open letter.
---8<---8<---8<---


Grüße
Timo

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

Re: Amendment to rms-open-letter GR

[Gard Spreemann]

Sean Whitton  writes:

> Hello,
>
> Seeking seconds:
>
> ===BEGIN
>
> Replace the entire text with:
>
> Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
> following statement:
>
> The Debian Project echoes and supports recent calls to remove Richard
> M. Stallman from positions of leadership within free software, for which
> we believe him to be inappropriate.
>
> We are disappointed by the actions of those responsible for restoring
> him to the Free Software Foundation's Board of Directors, and urge that
> that decision be reversed.
>
> ===END

Seconded.

 -- Gard
 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 09:12:17AM +0100, Timo Weingärtner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I hereby propose to have another option on the ballot:
> 
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project will issue a public statement on whether Richard Stallman 
"will not"?



-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Martin Michlmayr]

* Timo Weingärtner  [2021-03-26 09:12]:
> The Debian Project will issue a public statement on whether Richard Stallman 
^^
I think you forgot the word "not" here.

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
https://www.cyrius.com/

"rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms

[Timo Weingärtner]

Hi,

I hereby propose to have another option on the ballot:

---8<---8<---8<---
The Debian Project will issue a public statement on whether Richard Stallman 
should be removed from leadership positions or not.

Any individual (including Debian members) is free to issue such statements or 
(co-)sign any open letter.
---8<---8<---8<---

Improvements welcome.

I'm not sure whether I like this one or the one from my other email more but 
the discussion period is shortened.


Regards
Timo

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

"rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Timo Weingärtner]

Hi,

I hereby propose to have another option on the ballot:

---8<---8<---8<---
The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's 
readmission to the FSF board seen at https://rms-support-letter.github.io/. 
The text of this statement is given below.

Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a driving force in the 
free software movement for decades, with contributions including the GNU 
operating system and Emacs.

Recently, there have been vile online attacks looking to remove him from the 
FSF board of directors for expressing his personal opinions. We have watched 
this happen before in an organized fashion with other prominent free software 
activists and programmers. We will not stand idly this time, when an icon of 
this community is attacked.

FSF is an autonomous body that is capable of treating its members in a fair, 
unbiased fashion, and should not give in to external social pressures. We urge 
the FSF to consider the arguments against RMS objectively and to truly 
understand the meaning of his words and actions.

Historically, RMS has been expressing his views in ways that upset many 
people. He is usually more focused on the philosophical underpinnings, and 
pursuing the objective truth and linguistic purism, while underemphasising 
people’s feelings on matters he’s commenting on. This makes his arguments 
vulnerable to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, something which we feel 
is happening in the open letter calling for his removal. His words need to be 
interpreted in this context and taking into account that more often than not, 
he is not looking to put things diplomatically.

Regardless, Stallman’s opinions on the matters he is being persecuted over are 
not relevant to his ability to lead a community such as the FSF. Furthermore, 
he is entitled to his opinions just as much as anyone else. Members and 
supporters do not have to agree with his opinions, but should respect his 
right to freedom of thought and speech.

To the FSF:

Removing RMS will hurt FSF’s image and will deal a significant blow to the 
momentum of the free software movement. We urge you to consider your actions 
carefully, as what you will decide will have a serious impact on the future of 
the software industry.

To the ambush mob who is ganging up on Richard Stallman over reasonable 
arguments in debate and various opinions and beliefs voiced over decades as a 
public figure:

You have no part in choosing the leadership of any communities. Especially not 
via another mob attack which does not remotely resemble a fairly conducted 
debate as exemplified by better people such as Richard Stallman.
---8<---8<---8<---

Improvements welcome.

I'm not sure whether I like this one or the one from my other email more but 
the discussion period is shortened. I think it should at least be on the 
ballot for symmetry reasons.

Thanks go to LWN for linking to this.


Regards
Timo

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

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: Willingness to share a position statement?

[Christian Kastner]

On 26.03.21 01:06, Simon Richter wrote:
>>   (2) how deeply Debian gets involved
> 
> We are in a prominent position. The OSI's Open Source Definition is
> derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, after all, not the
> other way 'round.
> 
> There is no way for us to not be involved in something that affects the
> whole free software community.

Sure, but we have a choice as to how we get involved -- the specific
actions, or inaction. See the ongoing GR.

All I'm saying is that when people speak out about the wish to be
apolitical, the term 'apolitical' should not be taken in the widest
possible sense, which covers any action or inaction, and then dismissed
for being impossible.

Rather, in should be understood in a stricter sense, namely of favoring
inaction ("political inactivism", if you like).

Re: Amendment to rms-open-letter GR

[Richard Laager]

Seeking seconds:

===BEGIN

Replace the entire text with:

Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the
following statement:

The Debian Project echoes and supports recent calls to remove Richard
M. Stallman from positions of leadership within free software, for which
we believe him to be inappropriate.

We are disappointed by the actions of those responsible for restoring
him to the Free Software Foundation's Board of Directors, and urge that
that decision be reversed.

===END


Seconded.

This alternative was presented with good faith arguments that appear 
sufficient to merit its consideration.


--
Richard