Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Hi Jonas, On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 11:46:03PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Hi Wouter, > > Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2021-03-27 18:19:57) > > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > Thanks for your judgements(!), Luke and Enrico. > > > > > > For the record, I do not defend actions of RMS. I defend his right > > > to a fair trial. > > > > Nobody is claiming Richard doesn't have the right for a fair trial. He > > is still a human being, and every human being has such a right. > > > > However, there is no trial here. > > We agree that there is no trial here. > > My point is however tied to that of cancel culture a.k.a. group shaming > - specifically that the initial text on the ballot use judgemental > language that I can only read as intended to condemn the person that we > want to distance outselves from. Maybe I use the words wrongly or > sloppily - what I mean is the difference between saying "that person > allegedly made a crime" and "that person has made a crime", where the > former is an accusation. The word "allegedly" is used by the press when reporting on a case, as a shorthand for "we don't want to take a position either way, but this is what the one party in the case is saying". Since we *do* want to take a position here, using "allegedly" is not appropriate. Having said that, the language of the letter does not say that RMS *is* mysoginistic, transphobic, or ableist; it states that "he has shown himself to be" all these things. The difference here is subtle, but it is a difference of exactly the type you are arguing for. > Seems my concern is what in english is called "libel": > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Libel According to that very page, for a statement to be considered libel, it has to be false. Quote: Defamation (also known as calumny, vilification, libel, slander or traducement) is the oral or written communication of a *false* statement about another that *unjustly* harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime (emphasis mine) Do you have reason to believe these statements are false, and/or that they "unjustly" harm RMS' reputation? There is no question that they will harm his reputation; however, given the harm he has done to others, I do not believe it is "unjust", in that it is a result that could have been expected. > > There is just the statement that RMS > > has been a very annoying person for the past several decades, and that > > having him in a position of leadership, in the opinion of those people > > that signed the letter, causes more harm than good. > > > > *That is not a trial*. That is an opinion on the effects another > > person's behavior has to a community. > > You talk about the part of Debian distancing itself from RMS. > > I talk about the part of Debian making accusations against RMS. > > Imagine someone in Debian blogged about skin colors, super annoyingly > and persistently for many years but always "just talking about stuff" > maybe walking close to but never crossing the line of racism, Do you believe that to be the case here? Do you think RMs has "walked close but never crossed the line" of the things he's being accused of? If not, then I fail to see what the problem is. If you do, then... well, we'll have to discuss that. For the record, I don't believe so. I do believe he is all the things he is being accused of in that letter. [...] > > Debian stating to the FSF that we would prefer not to have to deal > > with RMS is not a punishment for RMS. > > Yes, I agree. But again that is not the group shaming part which I was > talking about. > > Stating that RMS "has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and > transphobic" is not simply expressing "that we would prefer not to have > to deal with RMS" - it is a strong accusation. Not a wild > out-of-the-blue accusation, but still an accusation. We agree that it is an accusation. I don't see what the problem is with that? Unless you believe the accusations to be false, it is fair to accuse someone of doing something if you believe the said something is wrong. If the accusations are strong, then that is only because the said things are *very* wrong. That's not the fault of the accuser; it is the fault of the accused. > Unless or until a fair trial has ruled that he is guilty of those > horrible crimes, in which case in becomes facts. What he is being accused of is not a crime in any jurisdiction that I am aware of. He is not a nice person towards fellow human beings, but most laws don't require you to be. You don't need a trial for everything. I don't think what RMS has done requires jail time, or any other punishment a trial could give him. Failing that, there is no reason for a trial. Without a trial, it is indeed not possible for the accusations to be proven true or false. However, if someone cared enough, all the evindence is out there and they can try to show why the accusations are
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
It bothers me to comment on this at all, but... I would like to propose the following resolution. Choice X: The Debian Project disapproves of recent and past actions taken by FSF. With regards to the latest action (re-acceptance of RMS to the board), it now chooses to cut ties with the foundation. The Debian Project encourages members impacted by recent actions to sign the open letter. I would personally choose this because: - I have many problems with FSF, beyond this particular concern. - The concerns raised are irrelevant to me, but other concerns remain relevant. - Many (including DD's) clearly feel personally attacked by recent actions. tl;dr -- This is just Choice 2 with a separation from FSF. pgplKHyUU6yLJ.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Hi Wouter, Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2021-03-27 18:19:57) > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Thanks for your judgements(!), Luke and Enrico. > > > > For the record, I do not defend actions of RMS. I defend his right > > to a fair trial. > > Nobody is claiming Richard doesn't have the right for a fair trial. He > is still a human being, and every human being has such a right. > > However, there is no trial here. We agree that there is no trial here. My point is however tied to that of cancel culture a.k.a. group shaming - specifically that the initial text on the ballot use judgemental language that I can only read as intended to condemn the person that we want to distance outselves from. Maybe I use the words wrongly or sloppily - what I mean is the difference between saying "that person allegedly made a crime" and "that person has made a crime", where the former is an accusation. Seems my concern is what in english is called "libel": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Libel > There is just the statement that RMS > has been a very annoying person for the past several decades, and that > having him in a position of leadership, in the opinion of those people > that signed the letter, causes more harm than good. > > *That is not a trial*. That is an opinion on the effects another > person's behavior has to a community. You talk about the part of Debian distancing itself from RMS. I talk about the part of Debian making accusations against RMS. Imagine someone in Debian blogged about skin colors, super annoyingly and persistently for many years but always "just talking about stuff" maybe walking close to but never crossing the line of racism, and Debian at some point had enough and decided to issue a public statement saying that this person had shown himself to be a racist. My worry is that Debian had then comitted a crime of libel, whereas you seem to describe that as Debian simply sharing its opinion about this person in a community. Apparently (from skimming above Wikipedia article) the US treats celebrities special regarding libel, unlike e.g. Denmark. Perhaps that explains why I worry more than others in this conversation. > Debian stating to the FSF that we would prefer not to have to deal > with RMS is not a punishment for RMS. Yes, I agree. But again that is not the group shaming part which I was talking about. Stating that RMS "has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic" is not simply expressing "that we would prefer not to have to deal with RMS" - it is a strong accusation. Not a wild out-of-the-blue accusation, but still an accusation. Unless or until a fair trial has ruled that he is guilty of those horrible crimes, in which case in becomes facts. > XKCD 1357 applies here, with s/free speech rights/rights to a fair > trial/. Fun. But besides my point. - 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
* Steve Langasek: " Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms" (Sat, 27 Mar 2021 12:37:52 -0700): > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 12:20:22PM +0100, Mathias Behrle wrote: > > > > 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"... ? > > > > I think the intention was clear, but I'm fine with a version which > > > changes that part as suggested above and my seconds extends to such a > > > version. > > > Exactly my thoughts. I would be glad to hear from a native speaker if the > > wording is really capable of being misunderstood. Otherwise I just would let > > go. But I second also the proposed version, preferable using then "as an > > individual action". > > "in person" has a pretty unambiguous meaning in (American?) English > referring to physical presence, so is the wrong thing to say here for your > intent. Thanks, Steve, so we are on the safe side now. -- Mathias Behrle PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6 AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6 pgpcjEMb8cH9C.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 12:20:22PM +0100, Mathias Behrle wrote: > > > 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"... ? > > I think the intention was clear, but I'm fine with a version which > > changes that part as suggested above and my seconds extends to such a > > version. > Exactly my thoughts. I would be glad to hear from a native speaker if the > wording is really capable of being misunderstood. Otherwise I just would let > go. But I second also the proposed version, preferable using then "as an > individual action". "in person" has a pretty unambiguous meaning in (American?) English referring to physical presence, so is the wrong thing to say here for your intent. -- 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: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Thanks for your judgements(!), Luke and Enrico. > > For the record, I do not defend actions of RMS. I defend his right to a > fair trial. Nobody is claiming Richard doesn't have the right for a fair trial. He is still a human being, and every human being has such a right. However, there is no trial here. There is just the statement that RMS has been a very annoying person for the past several decades, and that having him in a position of leadership, in the opinion of those people that signed the letter, causes more harm than good. *That is not a trial*. That is an opinion on the effects another person's behavior has to a community. It is not a very positive opinion about that person's behavior, and in that respect this may reflect on RMS' reputation, but *a reputation is not something that is decided by trial*. It is instead something that is decided by the common opinion of all the people in the community. A trial is meant to decide on who is to blame for something, and, if that can be determined, what the appropriate punishment for the crime would be. Debian stating to the FSF that we would prefer not to have to deal with RMS is not a punishment for RMS. It is not an assignment of blame. It is instead Debian stating that we don't like something, and can they please do something about the situation. Debian deciding that we don't want to cooperate with the FSF anymore, to the extent possible, if the FSF doesn't do what we ask of them, is not us punishing the FSF. It is us deciding that between having to deal with an organization with major organisational issues, in our opinion, and having to figure out alternative options for some of the FSF software, we would prefer the latter. XKCD 1357 applies here, with s/free speech rights/rights to a fair trial/. -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
On March 27, 2021 7:15:39 PM GMT+05:30, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: >Hi > >On 27.03.21 14:01, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 01:56:08PM +0100, Timo Weingärtner wrote: >>> 27.03.21 13:03 Kurt Roeckx: I've added this option on the website. I'm still processing emails. Note that it's my interpretation that if changes are accepts that there is no need to second it again. If you don't agree with the changes need to say so, and which point and become the proposer of a new option and need to look for seconds again. Please let me know if there is something that's currently on the website that you don't agree with. >>> >>> The content is fine, maybe the headings could be improved to look >like (as a >>> recent example) in the systemd GR. >> >> I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm not really happy with the >> current wording of the option names. It's up to the one calling >> for vote to suggest the names. But I'm sure that any suggestions >> are welcome. > >If I understand correctly, "Choice 3: Ask Richard Stallman to resign" >could be renamed to Choice 3: "Do not sign the open letter, instead >issue a statement expressing Debian's disapproval and ask RMS to resign > >from his functions at the FSF" - making it clear what this is about? > This title would suit the option. Thanks >I think this is the option proposed by Sruthi, that's why I Cc:ed her >explicitly. > >The page is here: https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002 > >Cheers! >Ulrike -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
Hi! On 2021-03-27 at 11:51 (+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 on this subject is invited to do this in a personal capacity. > ---8<---8<---8<--- Seconded. -- Matteo F. Vescovi || Debian Developer GnuPG KeyID: 4096R/0x8062398983B2CF7A signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
On 3/27/21 9:01 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 01:56:08PM +0100, Timo Weingärtner wrote: >> Hallo Kurt Roeckx, >> >> 27.03.21 13:03 Kurt Roeckx: >>> I've added this option on the website. I'm still processing emails. >>> >>> Note that it's my interpretation that if changes are accepts that >>> there is no need to second it again. If you don't agree with the >>> changes need to say so, and which point and become the proposer of >>> a new option and need to look for seconds again. >>> >>> Please let me know if there is something that's currently on the >>> website that you don't agree with. >> >> The content is fine, maybe the headings could be improved to look like (as a >> recent example) in the systemd GR. > > I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm not really happy with the > current wording of the option names. It's up to the one calling > for vote to suggest the names. But I'm sure that any suggestions > are welcome. > Instead of "No statement, sign individual" this option could be titled "No official statement on this subject" Milan
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
On 3/27/21 6:51 AM, 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 on this subject is invited to do this in a personal capacity. > ---8<---8<---8<--- > > An alternative would be removing the last sentence all together, how do you > think about that? > I would not remove the last sentence but instead of saying "do this in a personal capacity" I would say "do so in a personal capacity" to make it sound more natural. Milan
Re: The "RMS Open Letter" is based on lies, misrepresentations, and misinformation
Hello, On 26.03.21 15:08, Ximin Luo wrote: Does anyone have a response to this? I had no intention to reply to this email, but as you insist: in my opinion RedHat's statement captures things well enough( https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hat-statement-about-richard-stallmans-return-free-software-foundation-board) and so do the many others (for example the one issued by the FSFE https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.en.html) You called it "witch hunt", others call it "protest". We could also call it an open conflict. Conflicts are part of human interactions. People are in dialogue, they're negotiating values, cooperation, leadership. Ulrike
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
Hi On 27.03.21 14:01, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 01:56:08PM +0100, Timo Weingärtner wrote: 27.03.21 13:03 Kurt Roeckx: I've added this option on the website. I'm still processing emails. Note that it's my interpretation that if changes are accepts that there is no need to second it again. If you don't agree with the changes need to say so, and which point and become the proposer of a new option and need to look for seconds again. Please let me know if there is something that's currently on the website that you don't agree with. The content is fine, maybe the headings could be improved to look like (as a recent example) in the systemd GR. I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm not really happy with the current wording of the option names. It's up to the one calling for vote to suggest the names. But I'm sure that any suggestions are welcome. If I understand correctly, "Choice 3: Ask Richard Stallman to resign" could be renamed to Choice 3: "Do not sign the open letter, instead issue a statement expressing Debian's disapproval and ask RMS to resign from his functions at the FSF" - making it clear what this is about? I think this is the option proposed by Sruthi, that's why I Cc:ed her explicitly. The page is here: https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002 Cheers! Ulrike
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Hello, On 26.03.21 23:12, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: 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. I'm just showing you the limits of what you call "free speech" :) I think it's important to understand that there is not always a right/wrong dichotomy nor an objective reality when human relations are concerned. In fact, two people/parties/groups may negotiate anything between themselves, according to their own values, which might be different from another two parties faced with the same or with a similar issue. They may end up with a very different agreements, even if they started from the same problem. The important part to remember is to make it possible to negotiate interactions. And this is the part that you forget all the time in your argumentation. You may say what you want and I may say: stop! This does not necessarily mean that *I* have to leave, it can also mean that you need to stop, or that we have to enter a dialogue in which we establish together what is acceptable, and what isn't, and under which circumstances. 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. See above. Cheers Ulrike
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 01:56:08PM +0100, Timo Weingärtner wrote: > Hallo Kurt Roeckx, > > 27.03.21 13:03 Kurt Roeckx: > > I've added this option on the website. I'm still processing emails. > > > > Note that it's my interpretation that if changes are accepts that > > there is no need to second it again. If you don't agree with the > > changes need to say so, and which point and become the proposer of > > a new option and need to look for seconds again. > > > > Please let me know if there is something that's currently on the > > website that you don't agree with. > > The content is fine, maybe the headings could be improved to look like (as a > recent example) in the systemd GR. I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm not really happy with the current wording of the option names. It's up to the one calling for vote to suggest the names. But I'm sure that any suggestions are welcome. Kurt
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
Hallo Kurt Roeckx, 27.03.21 13:03 Kurt Roeckx: > I've added this option on the website. I'm still processing emails. > > Note that it's my interpretation that if changes are accepts that > there is no need to second it again. If you don't agree with the > changes need to say so, and which point and become the proposer of > a new option and need to look for seconds again. > > Please let me know if there is something that's currently on the > website that you don't agree with. The content is fine, maybe the headings could be improved to look like (as a recent example) in the systemd GR. Thanks Timo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 01:27:38PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 12:17:58AM +0530, Sruthi Chandran wrote: > > > belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters. > > I've changed that to "belatedly". The option has been committed, it should be on the website soon. Kurt
Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 12:17:58AM +0530, Sruthi Chandran wrote: > > belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters. I've changed that to "belatedly". Kurt
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 3/27/21 6:51 AM, 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 on this subject is invited to do this in a personal capacity. > ---8<---8<---8<--- > Seconded. Milan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQGzBAEBCgAdFiEEVkf/m69krCYf+z+G6e1ngbRVCQ4FAmBfIhoACgkQ6e1ngbRV CQ6TQwv/dOfXm5yFcVmPfXXytmW6d2lfuqaYVVsmRRrBpgk2s/KTCSFZBkaaMOnP LJmHBsj8c8yoyEKNIvBfAMEomqp0Vq4wA9Uxw55LsJ6XKkAiPikFmmFfmmUWHDCD SMoeeDB6lk9BAQimw6NAvghobku0gec2FpmLYjmtACfFLQgm5nr0bdV9CwQvgxwG f4UTAkIQr8je0H7ZbFhD8Ys5o9ZdErqUVo6s7s1TVn6nW8O6ANJSvfxrF8BqAA16 EBfxcDv3TgGnoK8iuArnFepy82VLoqIHoLABZc840IzC5+eHnYCP7PwCrFui8NNR 6v1e4r9pwy/KXWdy8xi8a0e2pI0cGAPjL44YL5O+A+O8/xI0dwpH1tXRd+nrPchi 1QI0sqRuzhNVOJIANdyz+LDKn51uYVLfPAiBwUuyDrhXpE9rUxjkJjOJWbd3szpJ bjm7j9JwJPB854n0mSKrMG+c0xDQE09UFVTt/hnr6faCCThn9SNQXoD2jGE6/pFL TElpJW9C =LWVq -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
I've added this option on the website. I'm still processing emails. Note that it's my interpretation that if changes are accepts that there is no need to second it again. If you don't agree with the changes need to say so, and which point and become the proposer of a new option and need to look for seconds again. Please let me know if there is something that's currently on the website that you don't agree with. Kurt
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Hi Martin, Quoting Martin Steigerwald (2021-03-27 11:13:52) > On addition: In a sense, Jonas, you said what I wrote below, I think. > You warned about group shaming. And I may have misread your mail. Cause > now I am not sure that you actually called him a monster. You wrote that > users have accused him of being one. So in case I misunderstood that, > please accept my apology. My differentiation to focus on behavior and not > the person regarding a public statement may still be helpful to bring > some clarity. > > > Dear Jonas, dear Debian community, > > Jonas Smedegaard - 27.03.21, 10:41:57 CET: > > I need no further testimonies or evicence that RMS is a monster. For the record: I am guilty of introducing the word "monster", but did *not* mean to imply that anyone in particular would label RMS as such - not me and not Luke and not Enrico. I accused Like and Enrico for _judging_ but not for labelling. > I never experienced Richard Stallman in real life so far. Is it relevant to study RMS to decide texts for the ballot? Some with one opinion has proposed the initial text for the ballot. Other with different opinions have proposed other texts for the ballot. We should make sure that the ballot represents the opinions of those opinions backed by adequate seconders, and we should try to make sure that the ballot has no unintended side effects - e.g. conflicts with other things in Debian, or violate laws of society surrounding Debian. We should not on this mailinglist try to judge RMS, however. What is the purpose *for* *preparing* *a* *ballot* of reflecting on the personality of RMS or examine presented evidence or collecting additional evidence? My point here is that it is *irrelevant* if he is a monster of not - for *this* conversation. It may or may not be super relevant for Debian what kind of person RMS is, and the _outcome_ of this vote seeks to aid in resolving that. We *cannot* resolve that in the design of the ballot, however! - 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
Timo Weingärtner: 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 on this subject is invited to do this in a personal capacity. ---8<---8<---8<--- Seconded An alternative would be removing the last sentence all together, how do you think about that? Fwiw, I'd keep that sentence. Regards, Michael OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
Quoting Timo Weingärtner (2021-03-27 11:51:40) > 26.03.21 20:42 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? [...] > > 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. > > I took "in a personal capacity" from Gunnar. Rule #9: Given a choice between Jonas and Gunnar, pick Gunnar :-) > > 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. > > That's better actually, because it is not restricted to statements > mentioned in the vote. > > 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 on this subject is invited to do this in a personal capacity. > ---8<---8<---8<--- Seconded! > An alternative would be removing the last sentence all together, how > do you think about that? Such change might be (mis)read as bias against (not only organisational, but also) personal engagement in petitions. I find it a feature of this text that it explicitly clarifies that Debian has no opinion on personal engagement in petitions. I.e. praphrased: "Debian says no to partitions, but (just in case of doubt) has no say on what members of Debian do individually". If instead you consider it that a flaw, and instead intended the message to be that Debian is more generally against those petitions, then I think it would be better to express that explicitly, e.g. by explicitly discouraging Debian members to sign those petitions even in a personal capacity. - 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
* Timo Weingärtner: " Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms" (Sat, 27 Mar 2021 11:51:40 +0100): > Hallo Jonas, > > 26.03.21 20:42 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. > > I took "in a personal capacity" from Gunnar. > > > 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. > > That's better actually, because it is not restricted to statements mentioned > in the vote. > > 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 on this subject is invited to do this in a personal capacity. > ---8<---8<---8<--- Seconded. -- Mathias Behrle PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6 AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6 -- Mathias Behrle PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6 AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6 pgpvsb0oN24MB.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
* Michael Biebl: " Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms" (Sat, 27 Mar 2021 10:39:53 +0100): > Am 27.03.2021 um 01:48 schrieb 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"... ? > > I think the intention was clear, but I'm fine with a version which > changes that part as suggested above and my seconds extends to such a > version. Exactly my thoughts. I would be glad to hear from a native speaker if the wording is really capable of being misunderstood. Otherwise I just would let go. But I second also the proposed version, preferable using then "as an individual action". Cheers Mathias -- Mathias Behrle PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6 AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6 pgpBYwniN9yM3.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
Hallo Jonas, 26.03.21 20:42 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. I took "in a personal capacity" from Gunnar. > 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. That's better actually, because it is not restricted to statements mentioned in the vote. 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 on this subject is invited to do this in a personal capacity. ---8<---8<---8<--- An alternative would be removing the last sentence all together, how do you think about that? Grüße Timo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Martin Steigerwald - 27.03.21, 11:13:52 CET: > On addition: In a sense, Jonas, you said what I wrote below, I think. > You warned about group shaming. And I may have misread your mail. > Cause now I am not sure that you actually called him a monster. You > wrote that users have accused him of being one. So in case I that others have accused him > misunderstood that, please accept my apology. My differentiation to > focus on behavior and not the person regarding a public statement may > still be helpful to bring some clarity. Even if I read my mails after writing but before sending them, a typo like that sometimes slipped through. Best, -- Martin
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 00:09:40+0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:38:56PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >... > > We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on > > what people say and do around us. We're not a government. We are *not* > > in the situation where we *have* to support people saying things that we > > believe to be bad, wrong and hurtful. It is *entirely* within our > > rights to evaluate people by their words and actions and to decide > > whether we wish to talk or work with them in future. > >... > > You are saying companies should always have the right to fire employees > if they join an union. It *would* if companies were just some things assembled under the freedom of association. BUT, it's not the case as there are hierarchical relationships in these, and they assemble under specific laws and texts. For that reason, more than a century of experience made clear that the right to union is important and the employees joining unions are to be protected. Debian is not a company, and as a private group assembled under the freedom of association, yep, it can have anyone removed from the group. Of course, if it were done based on law-punishable motives, it could probably be a ground for prosecution. But as far as I am aware of, "you're behaving in a way that is not compatible with our code of conduct" or "you are doing harm to the community" is not discrimination and is not forbidden by the law. 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: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On addition: In a sense, Jonas, you said what I wrote below, I think. You warned about group shaming. And I may have misread your mail. Cause now I am not sure that you actually called him a monster. You wrote that users have accused him of being one. So in case I misunderstood that, please accept my apology. My differentiation to focus on behavior and not the person regarding a public statement may still be helpful to bring some clarity. Dear Jonas, dear Debian community, Jonas Smedegaard - 27.03.21, 10:41:57 CET: > I need no further testimonies or evicence that RMS is a monster. > Regardless of the amount and type of proof, Debian should in my > opinion *not* take part in group shaming. And *that* is relevant to > discuss on this mailinglist: What to put on the ballot for the Debian > vote. > > The originally proposed text says that RMS has demonstrated that he is > what he is being accused of being. That is a way of turning > allegations into facts - i.e. *judging* - and I worry for Debian > officially stating that the allegations are facts is going too far, > and that it is unneded if what we want is to distance ourselves from > a monster. I never experienced Richard Stallman in real life so far. I have followed links of some of what he said – on his very own website – and I do not agree with some of what I found there. I have seen testimonies on him which could or could not be true. It could be this or that way and I accept that. I accept that I do not have much first-hand information about him at the moment. I also accept that I may not easily find out cause if I learned anything during the last year it is: What is written on the internet, what is portrayed by media is not necessarily the truth or even most often isn't. However I suggest to focus on his behavior. His behavior is likely to come from personality traits he developed over time. But I would be very reluctant to judge on his personality. I'd focus on whether his behavior is acceptable within free software communities or not. I make no judgment on that – just cause I lack the first-hand information to do so. Of course it is also about the likely hood on whether he repeats past behavior that caused harm. And to that extent it may be necessary to look at what personality traits, beliefs and thought, but especially behavioral patterns he has shown in the past. But still: Unless the information I have about Richard Stallman is crossly incorrect he is a human being. Or a soul incarnated in a human body. He is not a monster. I see calling him a monster or calling him a toxic person as part (!) of the very same behavior he is accused of. The most important thing in my eyes about how to deal with the situation is to take great care to do it with the highest excellence of human behavior you can honestly (!) come up with. Be clear, state clearly what behavior you do not see as acceptable, state clearly how you choose to handle the situation. But also stay away from calling him a monster or a toxic person. Do not engage in the very same excluding behavior you accuse him of. You can say "You are not allowed onto any of our conferences" for example while still not saying "You are a monster". That is at least my recommendation. I have been reluctant to write anything about the matter out of the fear of being attacked in person for doing so. However I see myself well equipped to deal with anything that might come back at me. And at least I tried hard not to hurt and harm anyone. In case you still hurt by what I wrote there, I ask you to consider that I wrote this with the intention of the highest good of everyone who is involved in mind. Best, -- Martin
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 23:12:45+0100, Gerardo Ballabio a écrit : > 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. Being a douchebag is not something criminal /per se/, and, well, it can be enough to be fired from a job. > 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. Honestly, exercising it in order to hurt others is a bad thing. One can protect a right and still thing some of its usages are bad. -- 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
Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 22:45:57+0530, Sruthi Chandran a écrit : > 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 In case it was not clear: seconded. -- 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: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Dear Jonas, dear Debian community, Jonas Smedegaard - 27.03.21, 10:41:57 CET: > I need no further testimonies or evicence that RMS is a monster. > Regardless of the amount and type of proof, Debian should in my > opinion *not* take part in group shaming. And *that* is relevant to > discuss on this mailinglist: What to put on the ballot for the Debian > vote. > > The originally proposed text says that RMS has demonstrated that he is > what he is being accused of being. That is a way of turning > allegations into facts - i.e. *judging* - and I worry for Debian > officially stating that the allegations are facts is going too far, > and that it is unneded if what we want is to distance ourselves from > a monster. I never experienced Richard Stallman in real life so far. I have followed links of some of what he said – on his very own website – and I do not agree with some of what I found there. I have seen testimonies on him which could or could not be true. It could be this or that way and I accept that. I accept that I do not have much first-hand information about him at the moment. I also accept that I may not easily find out cause if I learned anything during the last year it is: What is written on the internet, what is portrayed by media is not necessarily the truth or even most often isn't. However I suggest to focus on his behavior. His behavior is likely to come from personality traits he developed over time. But I would be very reluctant to judge on his personality. I'd focus on whether his behavior is acceptable within free software communities or not. I make no judgment on that – just cause I lack the first-hand information to do so. Of course it is also about the likely hood on whether he repeats past behavior that caused harm. And to that extent it may be necessary to look at what personality traits, beliefs and thought, but especially behavioral patterns he has shown in the past. But still: Unless the information I have about Richard Stallman is crossly incorrect he is a human being. Or a soul incarnated in a human body. He is not a monster. I see calling him a monster or calling him a toxic person as part (!) of the very same behavior he is accused of. The most important thing in my eyes about how to deal with the situation is to take great care to do it with the highest excellence of human behavior you can honestly (!) come up with. Be clear, state clearly what behavior you do not see as acceptable, state clearly how you choose to handle the situation. But also stay away from calling him a monster or a toxic person. Do not engage in the very same excluding behavior you accuse him of. You can say "You are not allowed onto any of our conferences" for example while still not saying "You are a monster". That is at least my recommendation. I have been reluctant to write anything about the matter out of the fear of being attacked in person for doing so. However I see myself well equipped to deal with anything that might come back at me. And at least I tried hard not to hurt and harm anyone. In case you still hurt by what I wrote there, I ask you to consider that I wrote this with the intention of the highest good of everyone who is involved in mind. Best, -- Martin
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Le samedi 27 mars 2021 à 10:41:57+0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > Quoting Enrico Zini (2021-03-27 10:08:06) > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:31:28PM -0700, Luke W Faraone wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > This! Thank you! > > > > I have regularly been among people sharing horror stories of what > > happened when they hosted RMS at some event or another. > > > > In my experience there is an unwritten, alternative "RMS Rider", that > > you should know before hosting/handling him, with things like "don't > > you *ever* leave RMS alone with a woman!", "avoid mentioning this list > > of words", "a number of basic expectations of human decency don't > > apply, and you should be prepared for that". > > > > As long as he was in a somewhat official position of guru/leadership, > > I was part of a community that tried its best to *handle* him, and to > > *minimize his damage*. I understand that many people close to him > > tried to talk to him, and that Stallman is about as famous for > > speaking as for not listening. I believe that all this has held Free > > Software back significantly. > > > > We had finally moved on from having a significant amount of the > > community energy spent on *handling Stallman*. And now he's supposed > > to be back "and I'm not planning to resign a second time"? > > > > Stallman can certainly *speak* about Free Software. Stallman cannot > > *lead* the Free Software movement, or any influential part of it. We > > had moved on, and we had mostly gotten away with it[1]. I don't want > > to go back. > > Thanks for your judgements(!), Luke and Enrico. > > For the record, I do not defend actions of RMS. I defend his right to a > fair trial. > > This mailinglist is for dicussing what to put on a ballot. > > I need no further testimonies or evicence that RMS is a monster. > Regardless of the amount and type of proof, Debian should in my opinion > *not* take part in group shaming. And *that* is relevant to discuss on > this mailinglist: What to put on the ballot for the Debian vote. > > The originally proposed text says that RMS has demonstrated that he is > what he is being accused of being. That is a way of turning allegations > into facts - i.e. *judging* - and I worry for Debian officially stating > that the allegations are facts is going too far, and that it is unneded > if what we want is to distance ourselves from a monster. > > Only if we want to punish the monster is it relevant to explicitly judge > the monster. > > It is my understanding that it is illegal for organisations to make such > explicit judgements, which is a reason for us to avoid explicit > judgement, even if that is in fact what we want to do. A fair trial is what you expect from the society when your actions are put under the justice system. Here as a group of people, his trial is mostly what he said publicly and never apologised for. I don't really see why you'd like him to get any sort of """trial""" when he had plenty opportunities to prove himself to have become better. 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: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Quoting Enrico Zini (2021-03-27 10:08:06) > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:31:28PM -0700, Luke W Faraone wrote: > > > 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. > > This! Thank you! > > I have regularly been among people sharing horror stories of what > happened when they hosted RMS at some event or another. > > In my experience there is an unwritten, alternative "RMS Rider", that > you should know before hosting/handling him, with things like "don't > you *ever* leave RMS alone with a woman!", "avoid mentioning this list > of words", "a number of basic expectations of human decency don't > apply, and you should be prepared for that". > > As long as he was in a somewhat official position of guru/leadership, > I was part of a community that tried its best to *handle* him, and to > *minimize his damage*. I understand that many people close to him > tried to talk to him, and that Stallman is about as famous for > speaking as for not listening. I believe that all this has held Free > Software back significantly. > > We had finally moved on from having a significant amount of the > community energy spent on *handling Stallman*. And now he's supposed > to be back "and I'm not planning to resign a second time"? > > Stallman can certainly *speak* about Free Software. Stallman cannot > *lead* the Free Software movement, or any influential part of it. We > had moved on, and we had mostly gotten away with it[1]. I don't want > to go back. Thanks for your judgements(!), Luke and Enrico. For the record, I do not defend actions of RMS. I defend his right to a fair trial. This mailinglist is for dicussing what to put on a ballot. I need no further testimonies or evicence that RMS is a monster. Regardless of the amount and type of proof, Debian should in my opinion *not* take part in group shaming. And *that* is relevant to discuss on this mailinglist: What to put on the ballot for the Debian vote. The originally proposed text says that RMS has demonstrated that he is what he is being accused of being. That is a way of turning allegations into facts - i.e. *judging* - and I worry for Debian officially stating that the allegations are facts is going too far, and that it is unneded if what we want is to distance ourselves from a monster. Only if we want to punish the monster is it relevant to explicitly judge the monster. It is my understanding that it is illegal for organisations to make such explicit judgements, which is a reason for us to avoid explicit judgement, even if that is in fact what we want to do. - 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
Hi Gunnar Am 27.03.2021 um 01:48 schrieb 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"... ? I think the intention was clear, but I'm fine with a version which changes that part as suggested above and my seconds extends to such a version. Regards, Michael OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
Hi Gunnar! On 2021-03-26 at 18:48 (-06), Gunnar Wolf wrote: > 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"... ? Yes, that's a probably better wording than the original. Timo, could you please update your proposal with this version? I'll second the final update soon after. Thanks. -- Matteo F. Vescovi || Debian Developer GnuPG KeyID: 4096R/0x8062398983B2CF7A signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:31:28PM -0700, Luke W Faraone wrote: > 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. This! Thank you! I have regularly been among people sharing horror stories of what happened when they hosted RMS at some event or another. In my experience there is an unwritten, alternative "RMS Rider", that you should know before hosting/handling him, with things like "don't you *ever* leave RMS alone with a woman!", "avoid mentioning this list of words", "a number of basic expectations of human decency don't apply, and you should be prepared for that". As long as he was in a somewhat official position of guru/leadership, I was part of a community that tried its best to *handle* him, and to *minimize his damage*. I understand that many people close to him tried to talk to him, and that Stallman is about as famous for speaking as for not listening. I believe that all this has held Free Software back significantly. We had finally moved on from having a significant amount of the community energy spent on *handling Stallman*. And now he's supposed to be back "and I'm not planning to resign a second time"? Stallman can certainly *speak* about Free Software. Stallman cannot *lead* the Free Software movement, or any influential part of it. We had moved on, and we had mostly gotten away with it[1]. I don't want to go back. Enrico [1] Possibly we don't deserve it. As a community we had enabled him to be indecent on others for decades! -- GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Having a "DPL committee"?
On March 27, 2021 12:28:58 AM GMT+05:30, Jonathan Carter wrote: >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. I would be happy with both options. :) > >-Jonathan -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Having a "DPL committee"?
On March 27, 2021 12:25:15 AM GMT+05:30, "Pierre-Elliott Bécue" wrote: >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? Having specific teams to deal with specific issues is definitely good. I would go with a hybrid approach, have more specific delegated teams and team of 2/3 people as DPL advisors. I also like the vice-DPL idea and might also consider that. > >Cheers! -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF
I second the following quoted text. Sruthi Chandran dijo [Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 12:17:58AM +0530]: > > 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: PGP signature
