Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
> "Milan" == Milan Kupcevic writes: Milan> An official Debian statement is not about any particular Milan> individual but about Debian's interests and goals. Yeah, but in general, I find persuading people to change their minds on stuff like this to be a waste of list time. If someone is interested in a particular question in order to decide how to vote, I find that to be a compelling argument in many cases to continue discussion. If there is no one who is likely to change their vote, and if the positions are well understood, I'm going to do what I can to encourage less email traffic on the issue. By saying that I cared about one question and not another, I was doing several things: 1) Letting Jonas know where his energy in discussing further might be valuable at least as directed to me. 2) Letting everyone know that I was thinking about whether adding more messages was helpful. 3) Trying to discourage people from arguing the legal question with me because I'm not open to persuasion on that point. If there is someone else who considers that question live, engage with them. Don't waste your or the list's time engaging with me on a question where I've already made up my mind. I won't stand in the way of you discussing that issue with someone who is either trying to decide how they feel or who is trying to understand the issue. Milan> There is no space for emotional revenge punches in Milan> the name of Debian. I agree with the above but don't believe the authors of the letter see it as an emotional revenge punch. I don't see it that way either. I'm still considering whether 1) Making an unnecessary accusation is inherently shaming 2) Whether this letter is something I'd consider an attempt at shaming (something I reject) or an attempt at public accountability (something I often embrace) 3) Whether the accusation is unnecessary. I appreciate that other people may view the situation differently, and am in no way trying to imply that my view is the one that should drive the conversation. I do think it's reasonable to consider my view when you're trying to decide whether interacting with me is worth your and the list's energy though. At this point in the process, I also do think it's valuable to have a specific audience in mind when you write a message and to think about whether your audience will find the message useful. --Sam
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On 3/28/21 5:55 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: >> "Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard writes: > > Jonas> Quoting Pierre-Elliott Bécue (2021-03-28 20:31:01) > >> Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 � 14:04:48+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a > >> �crit�: > My involvement in this subthread was when Molly arguing > >> that the > accusation was not harmful (using other words, yes, > >> and we can > nitpick that if really necessary). You (and others, > >> privately) > agree that the accusations are deliberately harmful > >> but that the > harm cannot backfire on Debian. I have raised my > >> concerns - I rest > my case. > >> > >> Accusations are generally harmful, and as accusations are always > >> delibeately made, they indeed tend to be deliberately harmful. > >> > >> That does not mean they are not warranted. And I think it is that > >> point that could/should be discussed. > > Jonas> Text #1 oncludes an accusation. Other proposed texts does > Jonas> not. > > Jonas> I think the relevant thing to discuss is not if the > Jonas> accusation embedded in text #1 is warranted, but instead if > Jonas> that accusation is necessary. Is the accusation needed for > Jonas> that proposal? It seems to me that the message would be the > Jonas> same with that accusation omitted, but maybe I am missing > Jonas> something. > > There were a lot of messages here, and I may have missed some. > > When I last paid attention to this, you were concerned about whether the > letter was an attempt at public shaming. > As a personal choice, I reject shaming fairly strongly. > But now somehow the discussion has moved on to whether the accusation > in the letter is necessary and whether Debian risks legal issues by > signing on. > > The legal question is not interesting to me; I think the risk to Debian > is one I'm quite willing to accept. > An official Debian statement is not about any particular individual but about Debian's interests and goals. We should strive on principles of equality, inclusion and enhance the sense of belonging of our every member while preserving Debian's reputation. This actually means that we have to carefully choose our words and hold ourselves to a higher standard at least when composing an official Debian statement. There is no space for emotional revenge punches in the name of Debian. Milan
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Hi Sam, Quoting Sam Hartman (2021-03-28 23:55:42) > > "Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard writes: > There were a lot of messages here, and I may have missed some. Sorry for my part of that: I wish I were able to express my opinions more compactly. > When I last paid attention to this, you were concerned about whether > the letter was an attempt at public shaming. > As a personal choice, I reject shaming fairly strongly. > But now somehow the discussion has moved on to whether the accusation > in the letter is necessary and whether Debian risks legal issues by > signing on. To me it is one and the same issue: I do not want to take part in bullying/shaming/libel/throwing mud/making accusations and therefore I don't want Debian to do so either. That it poses a legal risk is for me an indication of the underlying issue for me: That it is wrong to do so. > The legal question is not interesting to me; I think the risk to > Debian is one I'm quite willing to accept. > > But the shaming question is interesting to me (at least under my > fairly narrow definition of shaming). > I'd like to see if I'm understanding your argument. > > Are you saying that by making an unnecessary accusation we would be > shaming? > And so you'd like to understand whether the accusation is necessary to > understand whether we are shaming? Yes to both questions. - 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" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
seconded On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 09:12:09AM +0100, Timo Weingärtner wrote: > ---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<--- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
> "Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard writes: Jonas> Quoting Pierre-Elliott Bécue (2021-03-28 20:31:01) >> Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 � 14:04:48+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a >> �crit�: > My involvement in this subthread was when Molly arguing >> that the > accusation was not harmful (using other words, yes, >> and we can > nitpick that if really necessary). You (and others, >> privately) > agree that the accusations are deliberately harmful >> but that the > harm cannot backfire on Debian. I have raised my >> concerns - I rest > my case. >> >> Accusations are generally harmful, and as accusations are always >> delibeately made, they indeed tend to be deliberately harmful. >> >> That does not mean they are not warranted. And I think it is that >> point that could/should be discussed. Jonas> Text #1 oncludes an accusation. Other proposed texts does Jonas> not. Jonas> I think the relevant thing to discuss is not if the Jonas> accusation embedded in text #1 is warranted, but instead if Jonas> that accusation is necessary. Is the accusation needed for Jonas> that proposal? It seems to me that the message would be the Jonas> same with that accusation omitted, but maybe I am missing Jonas> something. There were a lot of messages here, and I may have missed some. When I last paid attention to this, you were concerned about whether the letter was an attempt at public shaming. As a personal choice, I reject shaming fairly strongly. But now somehow the discussion has moved on to whether the accusation in the letter is necessary and whether Debian risks legal issues by signing on. The legal question is not interesting to me; I think the risk to Debian is one I'm quite willing to accept. But the shaming question is interesting to me (at least under my fairly narrow definition of shaming). I'd like to see if I'm understanding your argument. Are you saying that by making an unnecessary accusation we would be shaming? And so you'd like to understand whether the accusation is necessary to understand whether we are shaming? --Sam
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 à 20:56:26+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > Quoting Pierre-Elliott Bécue (2021-03-28 20:31:01) > > Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 � 14:04:48+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a �crit�: > > > My involvement in this subthread was when Molly arguing that the > > > accusation was not harmful (using other words, yes, and we can > > > nitpick that if really necessary). You (and others, privately) > > > agree that the accusations are deliberately harmful but that the > > > harm cannot backfire on Debian. I have raised my concerns - I rest > > > my case. > > > > Accusations are generally harmful, and as accusations are always > > delibeately made, they indeed tend to be deliberately harmful. > > > > That does not mean they are not warranted. And I think it is that > > point that could/should be discussed. > > Text #1 oncludes an accusation. Other proposed texts does not. > > I think the relevant thing to discuss is not if the accusation embedded > in text #1 is warranted, but instead if that accusation is necessary. > Is the accusation needed for that proposal? It seems to me that the > message would be the same with that accusation omitted, but maybe I am > missing something. What reason would you give to ask RMS' removal from the board of the FSF if it were not for his ways of being/behaving and his attitudes? -- 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
Hallo, * Felix Lechner [Sun, Mar 28 2021, 08:12:58AM]: > On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 5:05 AM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > You (and others, privately) agree that the > > accusations are deliberately harmful > > That's intent to harm—and maybe malice. > > Anyone wishing to harm someone should do so on their own. I want no part in > it. You are not alone. I consider some of the wording of the second paragraph of "Choice 1" very disturbing, primarily that "He has shown himself to be" followed by strongly connotated wording. Seriously, what kind of statement is that? This is deliberately declaring the perception of "somebody" to be already some kind of truth. Do the proposers of Choice 1 actually realize that this might present Debian as a driving force of a smear campaign? Do we really want that? *facepalm* And regarding the subject, "shorten Discussion Period". Sorry, I cannot agree with that. We are known for taking our time with quality analysis, the Release Team even extended the package freeze time to 20 days. But for this topic, without any emergency, we have to rush like hell? Sorry, guys, smells like double standards. Best regards and good night, Eduard.
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Quoting Pierre-Elliott Bécue (2021-03-28 20:31:01) > Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 � 14:04:48+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a �crit�: > > My involvement in this subthread was when Molly arguing that the > > accusation was not harmful (using other words, yes, and we can > > nitpick that if really necessary). You (and others, privately) > > agree that the accusations are deliberately harmful but that the > > harm cannot backfire on Debian. I have raised my concerns - I rest > > my case. > > Accusations are generally harmful, and as accusations are always > delibeately made, they indeed tend to be deliberately harmful. > > That does not mean they are not warranted. And I think it is that > point that could/should be discussed. Text #1 oncludes an accusation. Other proposed texts does not. I think the relevant thing to discuss is not if the accusation embedded in text #1 is warranted, but instead if that accusation is necessary. Is the accusation needed for that proposal? It seems to me that the message would be the same with that accusation omitted, but maybe I am missing something. - 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 GR on RMS rejoining FSF
> "Sruthi" == Sruthi Chandran writes: >> >> 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. >> I took a break from debian-vote to deal with personal stuff and to work on RC bugs. I told Sruthi I'd come back the next day and second. Looks like that is no longer necessary and I don't want to make extra work for the secretary. Thanks for putting this option together. I'll definitely vote it above FD. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 à 14:04:48+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > My involvement in this subthread was when Molly arguing that the > accusation was not harmful (using other words, yes, and we can nitpick > that if really necessary). You (and others, privately) agree that the > accusations are deliberately harmful but that the harm cannot backfire > on Debian. I have raised my concerns - I rest my case. Accusations are generally harmful, and as accusations are always delibeately made, they indeed tend to be deliberately harmful. That does not mean they are not warranted. And I think it is that point that could/should be discussed. -- 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: opinion on Choice 1
Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 à 15:35:42+, Ivan Shmakov a écrit : > > On 2021-03-26 15:50:02 +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 16:50:06+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:08:34PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > [Moving to -vote from -devel; apologies if inappropriate.] > > As an aside, I don’t suppose there can be a more affirmative > option on the ballot, along the lines of reaffirming commitment > to civil liberties and the principles underlying them, and > expressing hope that the changes Free Software Foundation > currently undergoes will resolve standing concerns?… > > […] > > > Well that is the principle of having a community of people with diverse > > opinions. I’m sad to hear that this diversity is the cause of such > > griefs. > > So am I. > > >>> As for RMS, whether one likes him or not, it’s not hard to see his > >>> public communications and see what things he defended. > > >> If someone won’t/can’t distinguish his personal opinions and ones on > >> behalf of FSF stuff — not mine problem. > > > Any organization who keeps at a direction position someone expressing > > controversial or unsane opinions is, in a sense, either ignorant of the > > situation or encouraging it. > > I’m afraid I cannot agree. That is your right. > I believe that everyone, regardless of station or lack thereof, > is entitled to the right to hold any views, and to express the > same without misrepresentation. I believe everyone is entitled > to the protection of said rights by law and relevant authorities; > and the respect of said rights by the society at large. I believe > that in democratic societies, no legal principle, be it right, > freedom, procedure, or other, that is deemed not worthy of respect > by the society at large, has any right to stand, and should be > struck off the books. > > On such a belief, I feel it necessary to point out that Choice 1 > currently on the ballot goes on to not only call into question > someone’s ability to lead, and to criticise the behavior of > the same individual, but also to deny him the right to have his > own opinions and views (emphasis mine): > > “We do not condone his actions *and opinions.*” > > “There has been enough tolerance of RMS’s *repugnant ideas* and > behavior.” > > “[…] we will not continue suffering his behavior […] or > otherwise holding him *and his hurtful and dangerous ideology* > as acceptable.” > > Where’s diversity in that? Diversity is not tolerating dangerous ideas and the persons defending these. For the sake of clarity, I'm talking about his comments on the Epstein thing, like pretending having sex with 14 yo childs is okay because they were "entirely willing", and the possession of pedopornographic images. His attitude towards women, too. Although I'm ill-at-ease with other things he said, like "one should abort if their to-be-born child is likely to have Down's syndrome", I still consider that such personal views are his right and I would not sign a letter asking him out if his words and opinions were limited to these. Because I indeed think that diversity also means accepting that some people think things that I am ill-at-ease with. > By comparison, the mistake of calling (?) FSF to remove him from > the position of the leader of the GNU Project, a position (to the > extent that such a position exists in the first place) that is, > as far as I know, not conferred by FSF, and hence could hardly > be revoked by them (other than by some outright coercive action), > appears rather minor. > > There’re of course other issues with the text. > > Let it be known that it’s not my personal loyalty speaking. > Unless, of course, you consider my dear friends Freedom of > Speech and Freedom of Conscience to be actual persons, in which > case it certainly is. > > As for those who’ve signed the original open letter, and there > are prominent Debian Developers among those, I hope they know > that their action /did/ hurt some of us. I’ve seen people > questioning whether they should continue to associate with > Debian, even as users, going as far as to consider moving off > the entire Debian ecosystem (which is to say, to operating > systems not based on dpkg and APT.) And while I can /and do/ > sympathize, I hereby ask them to reconsider: it is this ‘guilt > by association’ that brought us here, and the only way to break > this cycle is to strive to be better, aim higher, and refuse to > repeat the mistakes of the mistaken, whichever side of the > controversy they represent. > > Don’t you see, it takes either definite meanness or
opinion on Choice 1
> On 2021-03-26 15:50:02 +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 16:50:06+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:08:34PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: [Moving to -vote from -devel; apologies if inappropriate.] As an aside, I don’t suppose there can be a more affirmative option on the ballot, along the lines of reaffirming commitment to civil liberties and the principles underlying them, and expressing hope that the changes Free Software Foundation currently undergoes will resolve standing concerns?… […] > Well that is the principle of having a community of people with diverse > opinions. I’m sad to hear that this diversity is the cause of such > griefs. So am I. >>> As for RMS, whether one likes him or not, it’s not hard to see his >>> public communications and see what things he defended. >> If someone won’t/can’t distinguish his personal opinions and ones on >> behalf of FSF stuff — not mine problem. > Any organization who keeps at a direction position someone expressing > controversial or unsane opinions is, in a sense, either ignorant of the > situation or encouraging it. I’m afraid I cannot agree. I believe that everyone, regardless of station or lack thereof, is entitled to the right to hold any views, and to express the same without misrepresentation. I believe everyone is entitled to the protection of said rights by law and relevant authorities; and the respect of said rights by the society at large. I believe that in democratic societies, no legal principle, be it right, freedom, procedure, or other, that is deemed not worthy of respect by the society at large, has any right to stand, and should be struck off the books. On such a belief, I feel it necessary to point out that Choice 1 currently on the ballot goes on to not only call into question someone’s ability to lead, and to criticise the behavior of the same individual, but also to deny him the right to have his own opinions and views (emphasis mine): “We do not condone his actions *and opinions.*” “There has been enough tolerance of RMS’s *repugnant ideas* and behavior.” “[…] we will not continue suffering his behavior […] or otherwise holding him *and his hurtful and dangerous ideology* as acceptable.” Where’s diversity in that? By comparison, the mistake of calling (?) FSF to remove him from the position of the leader of the GNU Project, a position (to the extent that such a position exists in the first place) that is, as far as I know, not conferred by FSF, and hence could hardly be revoked by them (other than by some outright coercive action), appears rather minor. There’re of course other issues with the text. Let it be known that it’s not my personal loyalty speaking. Unless, of course, you consider my dear friends Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Conscience to be actual persons, in which case it certainly is. As for those who’ve signed the original open letter, and there are prominent Debian Developers among those, I hope they know that their action /did/ hurt some of us. I’ve seen people questioning whether they should continue to associate with Debian, even as users, going as far as to consider moving off the entire Debian ecosystem (which is to say, to operating systems not based on dpkg and APT.) And while I can /and do/ sympathize, I hereby ask them to reconsider: it is this ‘guilt by association’ that brought us here, and the only way to break this cycle is to strive to be better, aim higher, and refuse to repeat the mistakes of the mistaken, whichever side of the controversy they represent. Don’t you see, it takes either definite meanness or considerable ignorance to call a person on his or her /past views/; the views /can/ change, and they often do. But the /action/ of (co)signing the letter is very much permanent. I don’t know if it will be ten years or hundred, but there /will/ be consequences to this. And given its spirit and letter, I bet the negative ones will by far outweigh the positives. I hope you’ll witness that yourselves. Regardless of this GR’s outcome, I believe I’ll find it in myself to continue to spend whatever little productive time I can spare to participate in both Debian and GNU — if only to show how inclusivity, in my opinion, is supposed to work with regards to free software: by allowing different groups to hold, as a whole, different, perhaps mutually incompatible, opinions,
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Hi, On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 5:05 AM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > You (and others, privately) agree that the > accusations are deliberately harmful That's intent to harm—and maybe malice. Anyone wishing to harm someone should do so on their own. I want no part in it. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 10:09:48 + Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:12:47PM -0500, Michael Lustfield wrote: > > 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. > > Seconded. (Though I'm not fully sure the forms is correct, but maybe it's > sufficient?!) I'm definitely open to improvements. > And then, what does 'cut ties with the foundation' mean exactly? We certainly > won't stop shipping stuff where the copyright belongs to the FSF 8-) So > probably > this should be specified a bit more? My understanding is that there is a financial relationship between Debian and FSF. I don't know if there are further ties beyond individuals choosing to continue packaging their software. -- Michael Lustfield pgpoQqvhlkFji.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
Bart Martens a écrit le 28/03/2021 à 10:40 : On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 11:51:40AM +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) 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. Seconded. _g. OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2021-03-28 08:17:32) > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 11:46:03PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > 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. That (your very last sentence above) helps address my concern. > > 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? Yes - that is the reason I have invested time on this subthread. I do not, however, have reason to believe that the statements are expressed "with reckless disregard for the truth", which seems an important distinction. > > > 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? Yes - that is the reason I have invested time on this subthread. > If you do, then... well, we'll have to discuss that. If you mean we have to discuss what RMS has or has not done, then I disagree that we have to discuss that. I believe that we have to discuss if we want on our ballot a text which potentially is libel. My concrete proposal is to remove that one sentence which I can only read as a direct accusation. > For the record, I don't believe so. I do believe he is all the things > he is being accused of in that letter. Right: Your opinion - and I assume the opinion of the proposers of the text as well - is that it has (deliberate harmful intent, but) no risk of libel in keeping it as-is. I am open to discuss further but don't know how it at all we can continue such discussion. > > 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
Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 12:40:56PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Le 27 mars 2021 13:55:23 GMT+01:00, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > >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 > > > > I think you forgot my sponsorship on this one. Not that it makes any real > difference but maybe it is worth adding. I've committed the change, will appear on the website on the next rebuild. Kurt
Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF
Le 27 mars 2021 13:55:23 GMT+01:00, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : >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 > I think you forgot my sponsorship on this one. Not that it makes any real difference but maybe it is worth adding. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue From my phone
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:12:47PM -0500, Michael Lustfield wrote: > 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. Seconded. (Though I'm not fully sure the forms is correct, but maybe it's sufficient?!) And then, what does 'cut ties with the foundation' mean exactly? We certainly won't stop shipping stuff where the copyright belongs to the FSF 8-) So probably this should be specified a bit more? > 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. I'm not sure how I'd rank this, but I do think this is an important and new choice for the GR. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C ⠈⠳⣄ Der Mensch is' gut, aber die Leut' san a G'sindel! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 11:51:40AM +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) 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. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
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
