Re: Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
> I do not understand what you mean by "why not?". Literally: "why not?" > The Debian Members are the most technical part of the Debian Community That's not true, given we have teams, that don't do a technical work at all. > I think there is a misunderstanding Yep. I meant, same it true for your opinions. > The Debian Project will maybe take a political position if the GR > outcomes allows it to do so So, next time in GR DD's may approve USA aggression in Venezuela? > And, being a Free Software-made OS doesn't forbid it to be more than that. Unfortunately, it's so. Obviously, you want to turn the Debian into something "more than that". But have you fixed all bugs in the packages you do support?)
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
On 30/03/2021 20:19, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 06:56:49PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: >> Cancel "culture" arrived in Debian and it threatens the project: > https://davidblixtauthor.medium.com/cancel-culture-and-responsibility-b5b8065c3cbd While people should see repercussions for their actions, cancel culture does not permit a recovery. Piling on to a person of different viewpoint, or a person that is outright wrong, does not do much more than eliminate them. People must be allowed to change their opinions.
Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 4, assert the need to learn and grow from recent events
On 3/30/21 5:28 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
We urge Richard Stallman and the remaining members of the board which
reinstated him, to consider their positions.
Can you elaborate on the intended meaning here? Is "position" their
position to reinstate RMS, or their position as a member of the board?
Is this intentionally "consider" as opposed to "reconsider"? If so, is
that intended to be a weaker form of reconsider?
Looking at the text as a whole, while there is talk of accountability,
it's unclear to me what you actually want to happen. In contrast, I am
able to understand the other choices: Choice 1 says RMS and the FSF
board all need to go. Choice A/2 says we are taking no position as a
project. Choice B/3 says RMS needs to go, and FSF needs to fix whatever
allowed him to come back.
Is the general sense here that you would find it acceptable that RMS
stays on the board, as long as he/they acknowledge past
("mistakes"|"impropriety"), "learn from them[,] and change behavior"?
--
Richard
Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 4, assert the need to learn and grow from recent events
Le mardi 30 mars 2021 à 23:28:47+0100, Jonathan Wiltshire a écrit : > This is a late amendment proposal which I hope seconders will feel able to > support in time for it to make the ballot paper. It is late because I feel > strongly that events in the past few days [1] [2] [3] [4] risk overtaking > this GR; Debian already has enough criticism for being slow to respond, and > I want to head off anything which might reinforce that view. > > 1: https://www.fsf.org/news/preliminary-board-statement-on-fsf-governance > 2: https://www.fsf.org/news/update-on-work-to-improve-governance-at-the-fsf > 3: > https://www.fsf.org/news/welcoming-ian-kelling-to-staff-seat-on-fsfs-board-of-directors > 4: > https://www.fsf.org/news/statement-from-the-fsf-board-of-directors-meeting-on-march-29-2021 > > I acknowledge that this text is not worded so strongly as many people would > like it to be. However, I don't believe in fueling fires and I would like > to see Debian calling for overhaul of FSF governance without joining any > lynch mobs. There are competing extreme opinions at the moment, and I'm > hoping this is a text on which we can have broader agreement. > > CHOICE TEXT FOLLOWS: > > This is a position statement of the Debian Developers in accordance with > our constitution, section 4.1.5. > > The Developers firmly believe that leaders in any prominent organisation > are, and should be, held to the highest standards of accountability. > > We are disappointed that issues of transparency and accountability in the > governance of the Free Software Foundation have led to unresolved and > serious complaints of impropriety by its founder Richard Stallman over a > number of years whilst in the position of president and as a member of the > board. In particular, we are deeply concerned that the board saw fit to > reinstate him without properly considering the effect of its actions on > those complainants. > > The Developers acknowledge that people make mistakes but believe that where > those people are in leadership positions, they must be held accountable for > their mistakes. We believe that the most important part of making mistakes > is learning from them and changing behaviour. We are most concerned that > Richard and the board have not sufficiently acknowledged or learned from > issues which have affected a large number of people and that Richard > remains a significant influence on both the FSF board and the GNU project. > > We call upon the Free Software Foundation to further steps it has taken in > March 2021 to overhaul governance of the organisation, and to work > tirelessly to ensure its aim is fulfilled. We believe that only through > properly accountable governance can members of an organisation ensure their > voice is heard. The Free Software Foundation must do everything in its > power to protect its staff and members, and the wider community, including > a robust and transparent process for dealing with complaints. > > We urge Richard Stallman and the remaining members of the board which > reinstated him, to consider their positions. > > The Developers are proud that contributors to free software come from all > walks of life and that our diverse experience and opinions are a strength > of software freedom. But we must never cease in our efforts to ensure that > all contributors are treated with respect, and that they feel safe and > secure in our communities - including when we meet in person. > > END CHOICE TEXT 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: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 4, assert the need to learn and grow from recent events
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:28:47PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > This is a late amendment proposal which I hope seconders will feel able to > support in time for it to make the ballot paper. It is late because I feel > strongly that events in the past few days [1] [2] [3] [4] risk overtaking > this GR; Debian already has enough criticism for being slow to respond, and > I want to head off anything which might reinforce that view. > > 1: https://www.fsf.org/news/preliminary-board-statement-on-fsf-governance > 2: https://www.fsf.org/news/update-on-work-to-improve-governance-at-the-fsf > 3: > https://www.fsf.org/news/welcoming-ian-kelling-to-staff-seat-on-fsfs-board-of-directors > 4: > https://www.fsf.org/news/statement-from-the-fsf-board-of-directors-meeting-on-march-29-2021 > > I acknowledge that this text is not worded so strongly as many people would > like it to be. However, I don't believe in fueling fires and I would like > to see Debian calling for overhaul of FSF governance without joining any > lynch mobs. There are competing extreme opinions at the moment, and I'm > hoping this is a text on which we can have broader agreement. > > CHOICE TEXT FOLLOWS: > > This is a position statement of the Debian Developers in accordance with > our constitution, section 4.1.5. > > The Developers firmly believe that leaders in any prominent organisation > are, and should be, held to the highest standards of accountability. > > We are disappointed that issues of transparency and accountability in the > governance of the Free Software Foundation have led to unresolved and > serious complaints of impropriety by its founder Richard Stallman over a > number of years whilst in the position of president and as a member of the > board. In particular, we are deeply concerned that the board saw fit to > reinstate him without properly considering the effect of its actions on > those complainants. > > The Developers acknowledge that people make mistakes but believe that where > those people are in leadership positions, they must be held accountable for > their mistakes. We believe that the most important part of making mistakes > is learning from them and changing behaviour. We are most concerned that > Richard and the board have not sufficiently acknowledged or learned from > issues which have affected a large number of people and that Richard > remains a significant influence on both the FSF board and the GNU project. > > We call upon the Free Software Foundation to further steps it has taken in > March 2021 to overhaul governance of the organisation, and to work > tirelessly to ensure its aim is fulfilled. We believe that only through > properly accountable governance can members of an organisation ensure their > voice is heard. The Free Software Foundation must do everything in its > power to protect its staff and members, and the wider community, including > a robust and transparent process for dealing with complaints. > > We urge Richard Stallman and the remaining members of the board which > reinstated him, to consider their positions. > > The Developers are proud that contributors to free software come from all > walks of life and that our diverse experience and opinions are a strength > of software freedom. But we must never cease in our efforts to ensure that > all contributors are treated with respect, and that they feel safe and > secure in our communities - including when we meet in person. > > END CHOICE TEXT > Seconded. > > -- > Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org > Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw > > 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 > signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 09:12:24AM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: >On Wednesday, 24 March 2021 11:38:25 PM AEDT Steve McIntyre wrote: >> Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences. > >Here is a good reply to this very statement: > >~~~ >"Freedom of speech is supposed to imply freedom from quite a wide range >of possible consequences; mostly consequences like fines or incarceration, >but the spirit of it applies more broadly than that. If I were to say that >[whoever] is free to speak, but I wouldn’t guarantee there would be no >consequences for that speech, wouldn’t it be fair to interpret my words >as a veiled threat? > >The only valid “consequences” for an act of free speech is a solid rebuttal. > >If you think otherwise, then I suggest that you haven’t quite grasped the >point of the concept, or that you simply have tyrannical tendencies >(as many do). >~~~ > >Taken from the following conversation: > > > https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2021/02/07/friendly-atheist-defends-censorhip/ Rather than pick on one sentence of what I wrote and quote random people on the internet as a "rebuttal", how about reading and responding to the rest of that mail too? I'm not talking about fines or incarceration, I'm not talking about "threats", I'm talking about the *effects of the speech* itself here. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com You lock the door And throw away the key There's someone in my head but it's not me
Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 4, assert the need to learn and grow from recent events
Le Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:28:47PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire a écrit : > CHOICE TEXT FOLLOWS: > > This is a position statement of the Debian Developers in accordance with > our constitution, section 4.1.5. > > The Developers firmly believe that leaders in any prominent organisation > are, and should be, held to the highest standards of accountability. > > We are disappointed that issues of transparency and accountability in the > governance of the Free Software Foundation have led to unresolved and > serious complaints of impropriety by its founder Richard Stallman over a > number of years whilst in the position of president and as a member of the > board. In particular, we are deeply concerned that the board saw fit to > reinstate him without properly considering the effect of its actions on > those complainants. > > The Developers acknowledge that people make mistakes but believe that where > those people are in leadership positions, they must be held accountable for > their mistakes. We believe that the most important part of making mistakes > is learning from them and changing behaviour. We are most concerned that > Richard and the board have not sufficiently acknowledged or learned from > issues which have affected a large number of people and that Richard > remains a significant influence on both the FSF board and the GNU project. > > We call upon the Free Software Foundation to further steps it has taken in > March 2021 to overhaul governance of the organisation, and to work > tirelessly to ensure its aim is fulfilled. We believe that only through > properly accountable governance can members of an organisation ensure their > voice is heard. The Free Software Foundation must do everything in its > power to protect its staff and members, and the wider community, including > a robust and transparent process for dealing with complaints. > > We urge Richard Stallman and the remaining members of the board which > reinstated him, to consider their positions. > > The Developers are proud that contributors to free software come from all > walks of life and that our diverse experience and opinions are a strength > of software freedom. But we must never cease in our efforts to ensure that > all contributors are treated with respect, and that they feel safe and > secure in our communities - including when we meet in person. > > END CHOICE TEXT Seconded. Thank you, -- Nicolas Dandrimont signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
On Saturday, 27 March 2021 9:51:40 PM AEDT 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<--- I support that. Thanks, Timo. -- All the best, Dmitry Smirnov GPG key : 4096R/52B6BBD953968D1B --- The end cannot justify the means for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced. -- Aldous Huxley --- And how long a lockdown is enough? If we open now, will lockdown recur in autumn? Next year? Whenever authoritarianism so wishes? No dictatorship could imagine a better precedent for absolute control. -- https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1924.long :: BMJ 2020;369:m1924 "Should governments continue lockdown to slow the spread of covid-19?" signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 4, assert the need to learn and grow from recent events
This is a late amendment proposal which I hope seconders will feel able to support in time for it to make the ballot paper. It is late because I feel strongly that events in the past few days [1] [2] [3] [4] risk overtaking this GR; Debian already has enough criticism for being slow to respond, and I want to head off anything which might reinforce that view. 1: https://www.fsf.org/news/preliminary-board-statement-on-fsf-governance 2: https://www.fsf.org/news/update-on-work-to-improve-governance-at-the-fsf 3: https://www.fsf.org/news/welcoming-ian-kelling-to-staff-seat-on-fsfs-board-of-directors 4: https://www.fsf.org/news/statement-from-the-fsf-board-of-directors-meeting-on-march-29-2021 I acknowledge that this text is not worded so strongly as many people would like it to be. However, I don't believe in fueling fires and I would like to see Debian calling for overhaul of FSF governance without joining any lynch mobs. There are competing extreme opinions at the moment, and I'm hoping this is a text on which we can have broader agreement. CHOICE TEXT FOLLOWS: This is a position statement of the Debian Developers in accordance with our constitution, section 4.1.5. The Developers firmly believe that leaders in any prominent organisation are, and should be, held to the highest standards of accountability. We are disappointed that issues of transparency and accountability in the governance of the Free Software Foundation have led to unresolved and serious complaints of impropriety by its founder Richard Stallman over a number of years whilst in the position of president and as a member of the board. In particular, we are deeply concerned that the board saw fit to reinstate him without properly considering the effect of its actions on those complainants. The Developers acknowledge that people make mistakes but believe that where those people are in leadership positions, they must be held accountable for their mistakes. We believe that the most important part of making mistakes is learning from them and changing behaviour. We are most concerned that Richard and the board have not sufficiently acknowledged or learned from issues which have affected a large number of people and that Richard remains a significant influence on both the FSF board and the GNU project. We call upon the Free Software Foundation to further steps it has taken in March 2021 to overhaul governance of the organisation, and to work tirelessly to ensure its aim is fulfilled. We believe that only through properly accountable governance can members of an organisation ensure their voice is heard. The Free Software Foundation must do everything in its power to protect its staff and members, and the wider community, including a robust and transparent process for dealing with complaints. We urge Richard Stallman and the remaining members of the board which reinstated him, to consider their positions. The Developers are proud that contributors to free software come from all walks of life and that our diverse experience and opinions are a strength of software freedom. But we must never cease in our efforts to ensure that all contributors are treated with respect, and that they feel safe and secure in our communities - including when we meet in person. END CHOICE TEXT -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Wednesday, 24 March 2021 11:38:25 PM AEDT Steve McIntyre wrote: > Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences. Here is a good reply to this very statement: ~~~ "Freedom of speech is supposed to imply freedom from quite a wide range of possible consequences; mostly consequences like fines or incarceration, but the spirit of it applies more broadly than that. If I were to say that [whoever] is free to speak, but I wouldn’t guarantee there would be no consequences for that speech, wouldn’t it be fair to interpret my words as a veiled threat? The only valid “consequences” for an act of free speech is a solid rebuttal. If you think otherwise, then I suggest that you haven’t quite grasped the point of the concept, or that you simply have tyrannical tendencies (as many do). ~~~ Taken from the following conversation: https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2021/02/07/friendly-atheist-defends-censorhip/ -- All the best, Dmitry Smirnov GPG key : 4096R/52B6BBD953968D1B --- It's a nonsense assumption that you can get rid of terrorism with war. Terrorism is taking the lives of innocent people to gain your objective. War is basically the same thing on a larger scale. -- Gene Sharp --- Your Facebook friends are wrong about the lockdown. A non-hysterics's guide to COVID-19 by Tom Woods. -- https://wrongaboutlockdown.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Amendement to GR Statement regarding Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
This option is now also on the website.
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le mardi 30 mars 2021 à 20:27:56+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 07:10:17PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > Are you aware that many of those "SJW" have been Debian Members for a very > > long time > > Why not? I do not understand what you mean by "why not?". > > the most technical part of that community? > > That's your imagination, given you already ignored a decent part > of the community. The Debian Members are the most technical part of the Debian Community, whether you like it or not, it's not my imagination. And these "SJW" you refer to are Debian Members and henceforth mostly technical contributors of the project. > > Your opinions are yours, and are not shared by everyone here > > Not true as well. I think there is a misunderstanding of English. Either I failed to express myself correctly or you are failing to understand. Your opinion is not shared by all developers. Some may agree with your opinion but obviously some don't. > > this GR will be a good reality check. > > The outcome doesn't matter, as I said. The Debian project > do political decisions on behalf of it's contributors - that's > a reality. This is now for something different than for a free OS... Despite the many years of contributions you made to Debian, it seems to me that your understanding of the way the Project works is at odd with the reality, so I'll try one last time. The Debian Project will maybe take a political position if the GR outcomes allows it to do so, and if it does so it will take this political position on behalf of itself, with the approval of a "majority" of its voting member having expressed their opinion. And, being a Free Software-made OS doesn't forbid it to be more than that. And using Debian won't mean anything more than before this GR, even if the project were to tell the FSF that it won't work with it anymore and considers RMS as someone who should be removed from there. Because it is our right not to work with people we don't like. As I said, I wish you the best in your future endeavours which will not be around Debian, as far as you've stated previously. -- 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: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 07:10:17PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Are you aware that many of those "SJW" have been Debian Members for a very > long time Why not? > the most technical part of that community? That's your imagination, given you already ignored a decent part of the community. > Your opinions are yours, and are not shared by everyone here Not true as well. > this GR will be a good reality check. The outcome doesn't matter, as I said. The Debian project do political decisions on behalf of it's contributors - that's a reality. This is now for something different than for a free OS...
Re: Amendement to GR Statement regarding Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 04:10:38PM +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > On 3/30/21 14:15, Phil Morrell wrote: > > > Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project is unable to > > > collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which Richard > > > Stallman has a leading position. > > Hi Santiago, > > > > I know this is more of a question about the original FSFE statement with > > this phrasing, but since you're amending it anyway I was wondering if > > you could expand upon the scope of this collaboration? preferably in the > > amendment text, but I understand if a list reply is more suitable. > > > > I'm not aware of any project level (i.e. funding, hardware or emails) > > interaction with the FSF, given the minor disagreement over the non-free > > archive. What about the GNU project? Are you asking DDs to only > > communicate and submit patches in a personal capacity? "unable to > > collaborate" implies there was collaboration before, so what exactly > > would the Debian project stop doing? > > Good question, we could probably amend that part with: > > "Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project discourages > collaboration both with the FSF and any other organisation in which Richard > Stallman has a leading position." Excellent, thank you for listening and I hope this weaker version provides a nice option for those who want to say *something* but not require any specific action of either FSF or their fellow contributors. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendement to GR Statement regarding Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
On 16:48 Tue 30 Mar , Santiago R.R. wrote: > El 30/03/21 a las 10:25, Milan Kupcevic escribió: > > On 3/30/21 10:10 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > > > Hi Phil, > > > > > > On 3/30/21 14:15, Phil Morrell wrote: > > >>> Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project is unable to > > >>> collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which > > >>> Richard > > >>> Stallman has a leading position. > > >> Hi Santiago, > > >> > > >> I know this is more of a question about the original FSFE statement with > > >> this phrasing, but since you're amending it anyway I was wondering if > > >> you could expand upon the scope of this collaboration? preferably in the > > >> amendment text, but I understand if a list reply is more suitable. > > >> > > >> I'm not aware of any project level (i.e. funding, hardware or emails) > > >> interaction with the FSF, given the minor disagreement over the non-free > > >> archive. What about the GNU project? Are you asking DDs to only > > >> communicate and submit patches in a personal capacity? "unable to > > >> collaborate" implies there was collaboration before, so what exactly > > >> would the Debian project stop doing? > > > > > > Good question, we could probably amend that part with: > > > > > > "Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project discourages > > > collaboration both with the FSF and any other organisation in which > > > Richard Stallman has a leading position." > > > > > > > > > > > I would support this amendment. > ... > > For the matter of consistency, this is the full amended amendment: > > Choice X: Debian encourages working with groups that foster diversity > and equality > > === 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 actions and consider this feedback > in future actions. Unfortunately, the way Richard Stallman announced his > return to the board lacks any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. > We are deeply disappointed that the FSF board elected him as 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 belatedly conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and > supporters. > > We believe this step and how it was communicated sends a 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 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. > > Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project discourages > collaborating both with the FSF and any other organisation in which > Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue > looking forward 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 > > === End text === > > Zlatan & Santiago Seconded, thanks! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le mardi 30 mars 2021 à 19:35:05+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > > Debian Maintainers and Contributors are indeed not Debian Members and > > it's written to many places. > > For instance... > > https://www.debian.org/intro/people > > --->8- > People: who we are, what we do > Developers and contributors > > Debian is produced by almost a thousand active developers spread around the > world who volunteer in their spare time. Few of the developers have actually > met in person. Communication is done primarily through e-mail (mailing lists > at lists.debian.org) and IRC (#debian channel at irc.debian.org). > > The complete list of official Debian members can be found on nm.debian.org, > where membership is managed. A broader list of Debian contributors can be > found on contributors.debian.org. > ->8--- > > Can you see here a clear distinction: we do political statements for DD > only? Well, as you told me you had the time to learn about Debian ant its ways and presumably you already know the answer to that. > > I wonder if you are feeling angry > > SJW destroyed yet another technical community. Why I should be happy? Are you aware that many of those "SJW" have been Debian Members for a very long time, and are actually the most technical part of that community? Your opinions are yours, and are not shared by everyone here, this GR will be a good reality check. I wish you a rapid recovery: my experience with griefs is that they are not beneficial on the long term. -- 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: Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
> Debian Maintainers and Contributors are indeed not Debian Members and > it's written to many places. For instance... https://www.debian.org/intro/people --->8- People: who we are, what we do Developers and contributors Debian is produced by almost a thousand active developers spread around the world who volunteer in their spare time. Few of the developers have actually met in person. Communication is done primarily through e-mail (mailing lists at lists.debian.org) and IRC (#debian channel at irc.debian.org). The complete list of official Debian members can be found on nm.debian.org, where membership is managed. A broader list of Debian contributors can be found on contributors.debian.org. ->8--- Can you see here a clear distinction: we do political statements for DD only? > I wonder if you are feeling angry SJW destroyed yet another technical community. Why I should be happy?
Re: Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
> whose potential work Can we compare a potential work with a potential work? Real work with real work, meters with meters, seconds with seconds and so on... Not inches with bananas, please. > If I were to follow the argumentation that Stallman's contributions are so > immensely important No. He didn't anything wrong against philosophy of FOSS and so on. Did FSF issue a wrong license? That would be a problem. Personal opinion of rms, unrelated to fsf.org - is not. If some people can't distinguish such cases - such people are threat for FOSS, not rms. > The position of the FSF, as announced, is that contributors outside their > inner circle are unimportant. You did same, isn't? E.g. whose, who support debian packages - are not part of the Debian (https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2021/03/msg00374.html).
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Sergey B Kirpichev writes: >> Is it a problem when someone goes and works and pays taxes in a country >> where they're not a citizen? > > Oh, package maintainers are not Debian's citizens... Great idea, just > put this on the top of debian.org to attract new contributors. This > is not transfobic, right? In addition to what Pierre-Elliott wrote, I want to add: your last sentence seems entirely misplaced, and makes it quite clear that you're not actually interested in the topic at hand, but are instead engaged in some general culture war. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Hi, On 30.03.21 09:56, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: Nobody is perfect. Everybody said a foolish thing at least once in a lifetime. If we cancel those who love what they do, those who are good with what they do, those who are passionate and caring for what they do for something they have said somewhere else then eventually there will be nobody left. The problem isn't that he said and did a few "foolish" things in the past, but that he continues to insist that these things weren't foolish, and should be accepted as the price of his contributions. That is not even valid from an utilitarian standpoint, because his behaviour discourages other contributors, whose potential work he'd have to make up for if we were aiming for a net positive. And, more importantly, we also don't want to look at this in an utilitarian way either, as it reduces people's worth to their measurable contributions. If I were to follow the argumentation that Stallman's contributions are so immensely important that it excuses everything else, that would be disrespectful both to him and to everyone else in the community at the same time, because it'd treat him like an idiot who we have accepted to be incapable of normal social behaviour but tolerate because he's still useful to us, and it'd send a message to everyone else that unless they reach a similar level of "productivity", they are disposable. The word "productivity" is in quotes here, because unlike what I wrote earlier, is not even an objective measure here, but an arbitrary one that is defined by the exact same people who score highly on it. That is why the "meritocracy" is bullshit: it is self-referential. The word "meritocracy" itself is from a satirical text on the inner workings of such a society, and I am still astonished to see people proposing to use a dystopian story as an example of how communities should be organized. The position of the FSF, as announced, is that contributors outside their inner circle are unimportant. If they weren't also the stewards of the GPL, we could simply denounce them and let them fall into obscurity, but they have an important arbiter function: the ability to release new GPL versions. There is precedent with the Wikipedia relicensing, where they released a new GFDL version with an annex allowing relicensing of GFDL content under a Creative Commons license if certain criteria were met (that effectively only applied to Wikipedia), which allowed the entirety of the GFDL'd contributions to WP to be relicensed without input from the copyright holders. This is why we need to make it our business that the FSF remains functional and a part of the free software community at large. To remain a part of the community, they will need to have a minimum of social acceptability, and that cannot be enforced by throwing their weight around. Simon OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Amendement to GR Statement regarding Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 3/30/21 10:48 AM, Santiago R.R. wrote: > > For the matter of consistency, this is the full amended amendment: > > Choice X: Debian encourages working with groups that foster diversity > and equality > > === Begin text === > > Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the following > statement: > > Debianâs 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 actions and consider this feedback > in future actions. Unfortunately, the way Richard Stallman announced his > return to the board lacks any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. > We are deeply disappointed that the FSF board elected him as 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 belatedly conveyed [0] to FSFâs staff and > supporters. > > We believe this step and how it was communicated sends a 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 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. > > Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project discourages > collaborating both with the FSF and any other organisation in which > Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue > looking forward 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 > > === End text === > Seconded. Milan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQGzBAEBCgAdFiEEVkf/m69krCYf+z+G6e1ngbRVCQ4FAmBjPbYACgkQ6e1ngbRV CQ5XHgwAy6FPFHG4koZZnFfTWuJzBfBpGPqxVFA+av0blIHQFotId+zgA+ire1ZH ElB9l47PRTgoTq1ukeAl/q193tzcvnSTruxtR9uc0Xr94RfByDEqJyp5nVnUDUXT gtFkCIdaKZ4soaNdZRcW1I07a4m7j1gxtSQyJBmqdCLPv0cGDlLUp+tKuHEcIEaK MhMFWDCYbINg9uyX3jbIiF8gW9GID7lw71EPP44+pJSGuTZiir8ucBI6KM74Udiv sSWmymr1/+jZACZ+9cOYoPyCuzTj4OmgjlfkRYtm6pS5kFbQUtNUUP5V+2JVwHKr NHWPw3bsPOVhW+jSsFnQSjTu3XY929VnK7+zH+rkOS2j6nntFdAIjALBhjRW0AqU O0H3fxMusJgc5IdJhHKw/PyxdQ7dvMcuHjd/OimGjyeulCQ91UEVT1AnwKbSae5j xdPk4kgUGbpwNy7rGnLrJDkm63+R6l9zxqRwMZGegMBgeF/tEmMow7cw0xrQgvaN EdcvyuAX =c6fA -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Hi, On 3/30/21 16:43, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: Le mardi 30 mars 2021 à 12:38:36+0200, Zlatan Todoric a écrit : Hi, On 3/30/21 12:18, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: Hello, On 29.03.21 20:37, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Ulrike Uhlig (2021-03-29 10:58:13) Sorry for my ignorance, but who are you? I cannot find your name in the Debian contributor list. Sorry for my ignorance, but who are you to ask that? I cannot your name in the Debian mailinglist inquisitor list. Concerning Vote002, we heard from someone in the don't-sign-the-letter-camp about certain "events" (that's a quote, not a euphemism) in Germany, someone else mentioned a "witch hunt", and now, Jonas: the inquisition. w-o-w. The reality is much simpler than that. It is. You're calling out people and some have hard time to assume good faith. Jonas just pulled the same sentiment on you and you feel called out. People without voting rights repeatedly tried to lobby or push for a certain agenda on this list. I'm tired of that and I think we'll all be happier when this GR is over. Jonas has voting rights, I myself have voting right and together with Santiago R.R. (another voting member of Debian) drafted and published another choice on this GR. And I agree with you, I know many of us are unhappy with the GR entirely and will be much happier when it is over because we are tired that this is pushed into Debian in such a way. Well, your proposal is still a strong Statement about how Debian should position itself towards the FSF. So in a way, you push less strongly but you still push "this" into Debian. I wouldn't agree with this statement, though it might be viewed as such if one wishes too. I didn't push this GR (there was no prior discussion on this topic, you just wake up with a GR in your yard) and our proposal is trying to get best out of it (because obviously many of us, including me, are very unhappy with FSF at this moment), because otherwise the choice would be to drop this GR entirely and this could leave a bitter taste or an undesired effect (and Debian had its own fair share of drama, I am not happy that we are embracing the FSF drama into the project). Individuals were free to sign that letter, but for some reason this needed to be pushed into Debian as a project and here we are. I'll probably vote your amendment or Sruthi's one, but still, I relate to what I interpret as frustration from Ulrike. I relate that all sides are frustrated but also should be equally listened to and given the option how to move forward now that we ended up here. Z OpenPGP_0x2E5C20BB37933BFD.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Amendement to GR Statement regarding Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
On 3/30/21 16:48, Santiago R.R. wrote: For the matter of consistency, this is the full amended amendment: Choice X: Debian encourages working with groups that foster diversity and equality === 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 actions and consider this feedback in future actions. Unfortunately, the way Richard Stallman announced his return to the board lacks any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply disappointed that the FSF board elected him as 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 belatedly conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters. We believe this step and how it was communicated sends a 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 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. Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project discourages collaborating both with the FSF and any other organisation in which Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue looking forward 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 === End text === Seconded. OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Amendement to GR Statement regarding Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
El 30/03/21 a las 10:25, Milan Kupcevic escribió: > On 3/30/21 10:10 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > > > On 3/30/21 14:15, Phil Morrell wrote: > >>> Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project is unable to > >>> collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which > >>> Richard > >>> Stallman has a leading position. > >> Hi Santiago, > >> > >> I know this is more of a question about the original FSFE statement with > >> this phrasing, but since you're amending it anyway I was wondering if > >> you could expand upon the scope of this collaboration? preferably in the > >> amendment text, but I understand if a list reply is more suitable. > >> > >> I'm not aware of any project level (i.e. funding, hardware or emails) > >> interaction with the FSF, given the minor disagreement over the non-free > >> archive. What about the GNU project? Are you asking DDs to only > >> communicate and submit patches in a personal capacity? "unable to > >> collaborate" implies there was collaboration before, so what exactly > >> would the Debian project stop doing? > > > > Good question, we could probably amend that part with: > > > > "Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project discourages > > collaboration both with the FSF and any other organisation in which > > Richard Stallman has a leading position." > > > > > > I would support this amendment. ... For the matter of consistency, this is the full amended amendment: Choice X: Debian encourages working with groups that foster diversity and equality === 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 actions and consider this feedback in future actions. Unfortunately, the way Richard Stallman announced his return to the board lacks any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply disappointed that the FSF board elected him as 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 belatedly conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters. We believe this step and how it was communicated sends a 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 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. Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project discourages collaborating both with the FSF and any other organisation in which Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue looking forward 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 === End text === Zlatan & Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Le mardi 30 mars 2021 à 12:38:36+0200, Zlatan Todoric a écrit : > Hi, > > On 3/30/21 12:18, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On 29.03.21 20:37, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > Quoting Ulrike Uhlig (2021-03-29 10:58:13) > > > > Sorry for my ignorance, but who are you? I cannot find your name in the > > > > Debian contributor list. > > > > > > Sorry for my ignorance, but who are you to ask that? I cannot your > > > name > > > in the Debian mailinglist inquisitor list. > > > > Concerning Vote002, we heard from someone in the > > don't-sign-the-letter-camp about certain "events" (that's a quote, not a > > euphemism) in Germany, someone else mentioned a "witch hunt", and now, > > Jonas: the inquisition. w-o-w. > > > > The reality is much simpler than that. > It is. You're calling out people and some have hard time to assume good > faith. Jonas just pulled the same sentiment on you and you feel called out. > > > > People without voting rights repeatedly tried to lobby or push for a > > certain agenda on this list. I'm tired of that and I think we'll all be > > happier when this GR is over. > > Jonas has voting rights, I myself have voting right and together with > Santiago R.R. (another voting member of Debian) drafted and published > another choice on this GR. And I agree with you, I know many of us are > unhappy with the GR entirely and will be much happier when it is over > because we are tired that this is pushed into Debian in such a way. Well, your proposal is still a strong Statement about how Debian should position itself towards the FSF. So in a way, you push less strongly but you still push "this" into Debian. I'll probably vote your amendment or Sruthi's one, but still, I relate to what I interpret as frustration from Ulrike. -- 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: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le mardi 30 mars 2021 à 17:31:43+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > > Is it a problem when someone goes and works and pays taxes in a country > > where they're not a citizen? > > Oh, package maintainers are not Debian's citizens... Great idea, just > put this on the top of debian.org to attract new contributors. This > is not transfobic, right? Dear Sergey, Debian Maintainers and Contributors are indeed not Debian Members and it's written to many places. I wonder if you are feeling angry because you have a need for a space where you can express ideas that seem uncompatible with what Debian considers as fine? If so, there are indeed plenty places more fit to your expectations, as you stated in your departure email some days ago. But I would like to tell that we acknowledge your pain and I would like to express that I am personally sad that our expectations are inflicting you such pain. -- 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
On 3/30/21 6:18 AM, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > > People without voting rights repeatedly tried to lobby or push for a > certain agenda on this list. I'm tired of that and I think we'll all be > happier when this GR is over. > Not all contributors have voting rights but they do have the right to be heard and to make a point. I kindly ask you to stop suppressing their voices. Milan
Re: Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
> Is it a problem when someone goes and works and pays taxes in a country > where they're not a citizen? Oh, package maintainers are not Debian's citizens... Great idea, just put this on the top of debian.org to attract new contributors. This is not transfobic, right?
Re: Amendement to GR Statement regarding Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
On 3/30/21 10:10 AM, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > Hi Phil, > > On 3/30/21 14:15, Phil Morrell wrote: >>> Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project is unable to >>> collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which >>> Richard >>> Stallman has a leading position. >> Hi Santiago, >> >> I know this is more of a question about the original FSFE statement with >> this phrasing, but since you're amending it anyway I was wondering if >> you could expand upon the scope of this collaboration? preferably in the >> amendment text, but I understand if a list reply is more suitable. >> >> I'm not aware of any project level (i.e. funding, hardware or emails) >> interaction with the FSF, given the minor disagreement over the non-free >> archive. What about the GNU project? Are you asking DDs to only >> communicate and submit patches in a personal capacity? "unable to >> collaborate" implies there was collaboration before, so what exactly >> would the Debian project stop doing? > > Good question, we could probably amend that part with: > > "Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project discourages > collaboration both with the FSF and any other organisation in which > Richard Stallman has a leading position." > I would support this amendment. Milan
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Sergey B Kirpichev writes: > The simple (not just one) problem is: I did (now, in past) some work for > the Debian - but I can't vote. Yet, the project do political decisions > on my behalf. Is it a problem when someone goes and works and pays taxes in a country where they're not a citizen? Does their inability to vote there bother you? Is it a problem if that country makes political decisions that they disagree with? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendement to GR Statement regarding Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
Hi Phil, On 3/30/21 14:15, Phil Morrell wrote: Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project is unable to collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which Richard Stallman has a leading position. Hi Santiago, I know this is more of a question about the original FSFE statement with this phrasing, but since you're amending it anyway I was wondering if you could expand upon the scope of this collaboration? preferably in the amendment text, but I understand if a list reply is more suitable. I'm not aware of any project level (i.e. funding, hardware or emails) interaction with the FSF, given the minor disagreement over the non-free archive. What about the GNU project? Are you asking DDs to only communicate and submit patches in a personal capacity? "unable to collaborate" implies there was collaboration before, so what exactly would the Debian project stop doing? Good question, we could probably amend that part with: "Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project discourages collaboration both with the FSF and any other organisation in which Richard Stallman has a leading position." On a personal note, RMS needs to go away. I am not talking about his statements where we would discuss are they technically correct but maybe not socially acceptable, I am talking about numerous accusations through years about his behavior towards women which is beyond shitty. He can't be a leader in any capacity anywhere, anymore. On other hand, Debian Project is a collective of individuals, not a centralized authority on things, and we yield no power over FSF. Calling for his resignation has zero impact on them and we really shouldn't interfere in the internal working of other projects. What we can do is strongly recommend to avoiding any collaboration with such organizations as they are not representing what are we trying to achieve in our community, on contrary, they are making things worse in my opinion. We had people participate in FSF events as Debian Developers, we had FSF on DebConfs and we have individual memberships with FSF. Debian is for me above the FSF by a long shot (and to be honest, FSF is not a leader in the FLOSS community for a long time), and I believe for many here, that is the same position. Withdrawing individual memberships and not having them on DebConfs and so on, will have a real impact on them without our need to interfere with them (and thus divide the Debian community because of FSF breakdown). All best, Z OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
(CC'd to debian-vote due to https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/03/msg00224.html) On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 02:53:16PM +0200, Stephan Lachnit wrote: > Obviously the FSF can do whatever they want. They don't *have* to represent > me. But that doesn't mean that I still felt that they did. Maybe you should pay less attention to your "feelings" and more - to the actual work for OSS? Do you have objections e.g. against licenses, issued by FSF? Such criticizm could be logical. Private opinions of the FSF leader (or a board member) - not related with FOSS at all - are private opinions. > Especially when that person was removed just two years ago, for > whatever reason There was no objective reasons and the person wasn't just "removed". RMS stepped down on his own decision (which was an obvious error). > The reason I like free software is that nothing is behind closed doors. Open debian-private@. Or "this is different"? > > There was no apology from RMS "critics", which e.g. improperly quote RMS > > in the case of Minsky "defence" (the blame was itself is a lie). > > Honestly I don't know enough about RMS to argue about that, and I also don't > want to discuss it here. For me, the circumstances are reason enough to call > the FSF out. Maybe you should learn more about facts, before doing any decision for yourself? > no need for conspiracies about cancel culture. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's that it is. (And looking on the sponsors pages it seems to be clear "qui prodest".) > If you don't think Debian is democratic, I urge you to read the Constitution > again [1]. Not every contributor can vote, yes, but I argue that this is > normal. > I can't vacation in a different country and demand the right to vote. People don't just do a vacation in the Debian. They do work. Actual work: not just flaming in the maillists, but package software, fix bugs and so on. > I'll have to back down on the diversity statement, haven't checked various > pages like the CoC [2], I don't see a direct statement on this. I guess > it's fine if someone is against it as long as there are no personal attacks. There is no option. If the technical project is a part of some political statement on my behalf - I should be part of this or leave. > > > Obviously, everyone is free to disagree and can sign the support letter. > > > There is no problem > > > > See above. That's not a problem for you, yes. > > I don't get it. It's a democratic vote. If the vote is in favor of this, then > so > be it. If you disagree with the majority, then disagree. Nobody cares. The simple (not just one) problem is: I did (now, in past) some work for the Debian - but I can't vote. Yet, the project do political decisions on my behalf. Another problem is that people come in Debian to make a free operating system, not for politics. Next time you may vote to support bomb the North Korea. > If you think it's that big of a problem for you, you can leave the project. Sure, I already did (https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/03/msg00141.html). Lets see how this works...
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Le mardi 30 mars 2021 à 05:10:59-0700, Felix Lechner a écrit : > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:46 AM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > > I agree that ideas should be free. But I disagree if your point is that > > their expression should always be free. > > Wow, who would have thought? Totalitarianism returned. Welcome to 1984! [1] > > Please also see "Thought Police". [2] Please remind me how Totalitarism actually came into effect back in those times? Except in the US (where obviously we see how much good it does), some ideas can't be expressed publicly in many western countries and so far they did not fall into your clode-to-Godwin point. Kind 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: Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 1:04 PM Sergey B Kirpichev wrote: > > It's supposed to represent everyone who fights for a future where software > > is open > > Is it possible? To reopresent everyone. > > Shouldn't he instead represent that he's expected to represent? > > >From the fsf.org: > >8 > ... > Our Core Work > > The FSF maintains historic articles covering free software philosophy and > maintains the Free Software Definition - to show clearly what must be > true about a particular software program for it to be considered free > software. > ... > > The FSF publishes the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) > ... > -->8-- > and so on. > > Here is nothing about rms (or any FSF leader/board stuff/member) must > represent _you_. Or me, in turn. Obviously the FSF can do whatever they want. They don't *have* to represent me. But that doesn't mean that I still felt that they did. At least from my experience within the OSS world, I always felt that people see the FSF as an important voice in their mission towards an open future. With that decision, I lost a lot of faith in them, and apparently I'm not the only one. > > I mean not even the fr*cking FSFE knew about that > > Why it should? Different organization. That's not the point. The FSF should obviously communicate better who is on their board and who isn't, with elections etc. Just appointing someone is bad. Especially when that person was removed just two years ago, for whatever reason (the reason doesn't really matter). It shouldn't have happened behind closed doors without a public discussion. The reason I like free software is that nothing is behind closed doors. > > And there was no apology from RMS > > There was no apology from RMS "critics", which e.g. improperly quote RMS > in the case of Minsky "defence" (the blame was itself is a lie). Honestly I don't know enough about RMS to argue about that, and I also don't want to discuss it here. For me, the circumstances are reason enough to call the FSF out. The way the decision was communicated was not worthy of an organization that stands for free software. If someone was removed from the board for whatever reason, before putting them back in, there should be a proper statement from that person addressing these issues. The apology from 2019 was too short. The point of my mail was that there are enough reasons to criticize this decision, that there is really no need for conspiracies about cancel culture. > > We as a project that believes that diversity and democracy > > You place your political opinion for members of the project, which even > can't vote. Is this a democracy? If you don't think Debian is democratic, I urge you to read the Constitution again [1]. Not every contributor can vote, yes, but I argue that this is normal. I can't vacation in a different country and demand the right to vote. I'll first have to become a citizen. Same with Debian, still democratic. I'll have to back down on the diversity statement, haven't checked various pages like the CoC [2], I don't see a direct statement on this. I guess it's fine if someone is against it as long as there are no personal attacks. > > Obviously, everyone is free to disagree and can sign the support letter. > > There is no problem > > See above. That's not a problem for you, yes. I don't get it. It's a democratic vote. If the vote is in favor of this, then so be it. If you disagree with the majority, then disagree. Nobody cares. If you think it's that big of a problem for you, you can leave the project. But I think you can still be part of a project, even if you don't 100% agree with everything the project votes for. Compare it to a country: say you voted against the government, and they issued a statement you agree with. You don't need to leave the country. Nobody assumes that you have voted for the government, just because the majority in your country did. Regards, Stephan PS: moved to debian-vote [1] https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution [2] https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
Re: ***SPAM*** Re: opinion on Choice 1
On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 08:43 -0400, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote: > On 2021-03-30 8:10 a.m., Felix Lechner wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:46 AM Pierre-Elliott Bécue > > wrote: > > > > > > I agree that ideas should be free. But I disagree if your point > > > is that > > > their expression should always be free. > > > > Wow, who would have thought? Totalitarianism returned. Welcome to > > 1984! [1] > > This is getting extremely boring. Please go exercise your OT free > speech > rights in a private channel with whoever is willing to. > > -- > tiago > Hi, >This is getting extremely boring. Please go exercise your OT free > speech > rights in a private channel with whoever is willing to. I think, it can be boring to you but is relevant to the discussion here. Sorry, I don't have voting rights. I am just a long time Debian user. I registered in this list to know what Debian will - If they stop co-operating with FSF. Then all the FSF backed tool-chains can be abandoned by debian packages or something like that ! So, I need to switch to other distribution early. Thank you.
Re: ***SPAM*** Re: opinion on Choice 1
On 2021-03-30 8:10 a.m., Felix Lechner wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:46 AM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >> >> I agree that ideas should be free. But I disagree if your point is that >> their expression should always be free. > > Wow, who would have thought? Totalitarianism returned. Welcome to 1984! [1] This is getting extremely boring. Please go exercise your OT free speech rights in a private channel with whoever is willing to. -- tiago
Re: Amendement to GR Statement regarding Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 02:51:59PM +0200, Santiago R.R. wrote: Choice X: Debian is unable to collaborate with FSF === 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 actions and consider this feedback in future actions. Unfortunately, the way Richard Stallman announced his return to the board lacks any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply disappointed that the FSF board elected him as 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 belatedly conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters. We believe this step and how it was communicated sends a 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 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. Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project is 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 === End text === Seconded. OpenPGP_0x2E5C20BB37933BFD.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Amendement to GR Statement regarding Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
> Therefore, in the current situation, the Debian Project is unable to > collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which Richard > Stallman has a leading position. Hi Santiago, I know this is more of a question about the original FSFE statement with this phrasing, but since you're amending it anyway I was wondering if you could expand upon the scope of this collaboration? preferably in the amendment text, but I understand if a list reply is more suitable. I'm not aware of any project level (i.e. funding, hardware or emails) interaction with the FSF, given the minor disagreement over the non-free archive. What about the GNU project? Are you asking DDs to only communicate and submit patches in a personal capacity? "unable to collaborate" implies there was collaboration before, so what exactly would the Debian project stop doing? -- Phil Morrell (emorrp1) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Hi, On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:46 AM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > I agree that ideas should be free. But I disagree if your point is that > their expression should always be free. Wow, who would have thought? Totalitarianism returned. Welcome to 1984! [1] Please also see "Thought Police". [2] Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Le lundi 29 mars 2021 à 07:26:24-0700, Felix Lechner a écrit : > Hi, > > On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 11:24 AM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > > Diversity is not tolerating dangerous ideas and the persons defending > > these. > > Ideas should always be free. That's how I understand diversity. Hi Felix, I agree that ideas should be free. But I disagree if your point is that their expression should always be free. Cheers, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
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<--- Seconded. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ What Would Jesus Do, MUD/MMORPG edition: ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ • multiplay with an admin char to benefit your mortal [Mt3:16-17] ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ • abuse item cloning bugs [Mt14:17-20, Mt15:34-37] ⠈⠳⣄ • use glitches to walk on water [Mt14:25-26] signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Hi, On 3/30/21 12:18, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: Hello, On 29.03.21 20:37, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Ulrike Uhlig (2021-03-29 10:58:13) Sorry for my ignorance, but who are you? I cannot find your name in the Debian contributor list. Sorry for my ignorance, but who are you to ask that? I cannot your name in the Debian mailinglist inquisitor list. Concerning Vote002, we heard from someone in the don't-sign-the-letter-camp about certain "events" (that's a quote, not a euphemism) in Germany, someone else mentioned a "witch hunt", and now, Jonas: the inquisition. w-o-w. The reality is much simpler than that. It is. You're calling out people and some have hard time to assume good faith. Jonas just pulled the same sentiment on you and you feel called out. People without voting rights repeatedly tried to lobby or push for a certain agenda on this list. I'm tired of that and I think we'll all be happier when this GR is over. Jonas has voting rights, I myself have voting right and together with Santiago R.R. (another voting member of Debian) drafted and published another choice on this GR. And I agree with you, I know many of us are unhappy with the GR entirely and will be much happier when it is over because we are tired that this is pushed into Debian in such a way. Kind regards, Z
Re: opinion on Choice 1
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:18:46PM +0200, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > I'm tired of that and I think we'll all be happier when this GR is over. I must note that probably every controversial GR started with good intentions gets such response sooner or later. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Hello, On 29.03.21 20:37, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Quoting Ulrike Uhlig (2021-03-29 10:58:13) Sorry for my ignorance, but who are you? I cannot find your name in the Debian contributor list. Sorry for my ignorance, but who are you to ask that? I cannot your name in the Debian mailinglist inquisitor list. Concerning Vote002, we heard from someone in the don't-sign-the-letter-camp about certain "events" (that's a quote, not a euphemism) in Germany, someone else mentioned a "witch hunt", and now, Jonas: the inquisition. w-o-w. The reality is much simpler than that. People without voting rights repeatedly tried to lobby or push for a certain agenda on this list. I'm tired of that and I think we'll all be happier when this GR is over. Best, Ulrike
