Re: opinion on Choice 1
On Sun, 2021-04-04 at 16:37 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 03:09:10PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 12:18 +0200, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > > > > People without voting rights repeatedly tried to lobby or push for a > > > certain agenda on this list. > > > Welcome to Debian. > > People are free to express their opinion, even if they are not owning > > an @debian.org email address. And that is actually a very good thing. > > The interested reader is able to filter messages and maybe maintain a > > list of people to ignore if needed. It might be annoying for you, but > > free speech is not always fun. > > People are free to express their opinion. That does not mean the Debian > Project is obligated to provide a platform for those opinions on the > debian-vote mailing list, which exists to facilitate discussions among > voting members of the Debian Project regarding matters that will be voted > on. There are lots of active people in Debian who do not have voting right, but at least I for my part want to hear their opinion if they want to share it. And it would be a shame if those opinions would not be heard. > Non-voting posters to debian-vote are almost exclusively outside agitators > and there's no reason subscribing to debian-vote should mean receiving their > bullshit in our mailboxes. Do you have any statistics on that? Personally I don't mind to ignore some trolls, but if it bothers people too much, I also wouldn't mind if somebody would implement a filter that only accepts mails from active contributors. Although I guess that even discusing what the requirements for such an active contributor are, will take more time than ignoring some trolls once a year. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: Proposal to take the discussion elsewhere Re: opinion on Choice 1
Le 6 avril 2021 12:50:59 GMT+02:00, Ulrike Uhlig a écrit : >Hi peb, > >I think it's time to stop this thread here and now. > >If people want to discuss factually, and empathically if it's helpful >for the project to make certain lists read-only for non Debian members, >I think that's a valuable discussion to have, but not here (better on >-private or on -project). > >Yes, there are multiple things on this entire mailing list that me too, >I would like to reply to, but I have other things to do and it will just >end up in more and more and more emails with a less and less and less >friendly tone - and no actual outcomes that will make the project >progress and grow. Maybe those would be desirable goals to keep in mind >when posting. > >Thanks, >Ulrike > Hey Ulrike, I don't have the impression that my way of expressing myself became less friendly over the time but I could be wrong. If so please don't hesitate to tell me, maybe privately. But I understand and agree with your point : we indeed have better places to discuss that. And actually it can wait for the RMS GR to be over and the tension having lowered. Sorry for the noise and for reaching out ! :) Cheers, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue From my phone
Proposal to take the discussion elsewhere Re: opinion on Choice 1
Hi peb, I think it's time to stop this thread here and now. If people want to discuss factually, and empathically if it's helpful for the project to make certain lists read-only for non Debian members, I think that's a valuable discussion to have, but not here (better on -private or on -project). Yes, there are multiple things on this entire mailing list that me too, I would like to reply to, but I have other things to do and it will just end up in more and more and more emails with a less and less and less friendly tone - and no actual outcomes that will make the project progress and grow. Maybe those would be desirable goals to keep in mind when posting. Thanks, Ulrike
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Le lundi 05 avril 2021 à 13:19:49-0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > Even though it's hard and can be tiresome to many of us (and maybe > > drives some away), as long as possible, I'd like the majority of our > > lists to stay open to all people willing to express something. > > > Blocking potentially relevant comments from non contributors because > > some trolls are trying to wreck havoc is giving them too much importance > > and therefore giving them an easy victory. > > Can you point to an example of a post you consider actually (not "possibly") > relevant from a non Debian voter to debian-vote in the past 2 years? 92221074-9ef0-bb74-e6d5-989b09f9e...@gmail.com > Why should we allow third parties to lobby Debian electors using our mailing > list infrastructure? Well, some of us are using GitHub as a way to sign letters to support or denounce RMS' appointment at the board of the FSF. So I guess it'd be curious to be shocked that others' emit opinion on what we do or say. And as why we would let them do it there, I'd say it makes things easier for us, except if you want them to post on debian.community, github, or wherever the frack they want? > > And, despite what I personally think, a non-contributor calling the RMS > > vote a "witch hunt" is not necessarily a troll. > > I never used the word "troll", which for me has a very specific meaning > grounded in its historical usage in online communities. I never said you did use that word. > I referred to them as "outside agitators", which I believe they are - > whether or not a particular individual's intention is to derail the > discussion, it is certainly their intention to influence the outcome > of Debian's decision process according to their own interests, whether > or not those align with the interests of the Debian voters as a > democratic body. Man, why would be so edgy about others trying to express their opinion on what we do if we're so keen on having the project express an opinion about what others do? -- 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
People are free to express their opinion. That does not mean the Debian Project is obligated to provide a platform for those opinions on the debian-vote mailing list, which exists to facilitate discussions among voting members of the Debian Project regarding matters that will be voted on. Non-voting posters to debian-vote are almost exclusively outside agitators and there's no reason subscribing to debian-vote should mean receiving their bullshit in our mailboxes. I only posted because a debian mailing list was used to reach me about the issue and it contained incorrect statements that I corrected. If no GR had been made, I wouldn't have received anything via debian mailing lists and I would have not replied via debian mailing lists. If you don't want people to reply, just don't email them. Best
Re: opinion on Choice 1
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 03:03:48PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Le dimanche 04 avril 2021 à 16:37:15-0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 03:09:10PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > > > On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 12:18 +0200, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > > > > People without voting rights repeatedly tried to lobby or push for a > > > > certain agenda on this list. > > > Welcome to Debian. > > > People are free to express their opinion, even if they are not owning > > > an @debian.org email address. And that is actually a very good thing. > > > The interested reader is able to filter messages and maybe maintain a > > > list of people to ignore if needed. It might be annoying for you, but > > > free speech is not always fun. > > People are free to express their opinion. That does not mean the Debian > > Project is obligated to provide a platform for those opinions on the > > debian-vote mailing list, which exists to facilitate discussions among > > voting members of the Debian Project regarding matters that will be voted > > on. > > Non-voting posters to debian-vote are almost exclusively outside agitators > > and there's no reason subscribing to debian-vote should mean receiving their > > bullshit in our mailboxes. > Even though it's hard and can be tiresome to many of us (and maybe > drives some away), as long as possible, I'd like the majority of our > lists to stay open to all people willing to express something. > Blocking potentially relevant comments from non contributors because > some trolls are trying to wreck havoc is giving them too much importance > and therefore giving them an easy victory. Can you point to an example of a post you consider actually (not "possibly") relevant from a non Debian voter to debian-vote in the past 2 years? Why should we allow third parties to lobby Debian electors using our mailing list infrastructure? > And, despite what I personally think, a non-contributor calling the RMS > vote a "witch hunt" is not necessarily a troll. I never used the word "troll", which for me has a very specific meaning grounded in its historical usage in online communities. I referred to them as "outside agitators", which I believe they are - whether or not a particular individual's intention is to derail the discussion, it is certainly their intention to influence the outcome of Debian's decision process according to their own interests, whether or not those align with the interests of the Debian voters as a democratic body. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Le dimanche 04 avril 2021 à 16:37:15-0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 03:09:10PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 12:18 +0200, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > > > > People without voting rights repeatedly tried to lobby or push for a > > > certain agenda on this list. > > > Welcome to Debian. > > People are free to express their opinion, even if they are not owning > > an @debian.org email address. And that is actually a very good thing. > > The interested reader is able to filter messages and maybe maintain a > > list of people to ignore if needed. It might be annoying for you, but > > free speech is not always fun. > > People are free to express their opinion. That does not mean the Debian > Project is obligated to provide a platform for those opinions on the > debian-vote mailing list, which exists to facilitate discussions among > voting members of the Debian Project regarding matters that will be voted > on. > > Non-voting posters to debian-vote are almost exclusively outside agitators > and there's no reason subscribing to debian-vote should mean receiving their > bullshit in our mailboxes. Even though it's hard and can be tiresome to many of us (and maybe drives some away), as long as possible, I'd like the majority of our lists to stay open to all people willing to express something. Blocking potentially relevant comments from non contributors because some trolls are trying to wreck havoc is giving them too much importance and therefore giving them an easy victory. And, despite what I personally think, a non-contributor calling the RMS vote a "witch hunt" is not necessarily a troll. An angry person, surely. But being angry and being a troll are two orthogonal things. That's my two cents, and I'm no one to decide, of course. -- 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 4/4/21 7:37 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > Non-voting posters to debian-vote are almost exclusively outside agitators > and there's no reason subscribing to debian-vote should mean receiving their > bullshit in our mailboxes. i don't disagree with any of the above, but in order to try to lend a bit of balance (because i do think it's a shame), i just wanted to offer my own point of view, as an avid user of debian/GNU linux for something like 2 1/2 decades who is *not* a debian developer. Obviously there's a breadth of opinion among debian developers on this particular issue, and as often seems to be the case *whenever* GRs get proposed and discussed, tempers and emotions can run high. But i'm quite impressed with the overall tenor of the conversation which took place in this discussion period. Especially the way that (contrary to what i've witnessed in so many (almost all that i've ever paid attention to?) other internet forums) many sub-threads which became quite inflammatory (with respect to the rhetoric used) at certain points, so often were brought back to salient issues and *away* from outright hostility by other participants working hard to redirect the conversations back "on track". Not always (as i'm sure most who've been following the list postings well know), but often enough for me to take heart in both the structure (debian constitution) and the character of almost every single developer i've witnessed engage in this incredibly divisive debate/dialogue. It seems a pretty great example of tolerating dissenting opinions (that i strive to emulate), which is doubly interesting as in this case, the specific topic is also about the same thing (tolerating dissenting opinions (or not) and to what degree, it is appropriate to do so). thanks, ~c -- Charlie Derr Director, Instructional Technology 413-528-7344 https://www.simons-rock.edu Bard College at Simon's Rock Encryption key: http://hope.simons-rock.edu/~cderr/ Personal writing: https://medium.com/@cderr Pronouns: he or they
Re: opinion on Choice 1
On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 03:09:10PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 12:18 +0200, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > > People without voting rights repeatedly tried to lobby or push for a > > certain agenda on this list. > Welcome to Debian. > People are free to express their opinion, even if they are not owning > an @debian.org email address. And that is actually a very good thing. > The interested reader is able to filter messages and maybe maintain a > list of people to ignore if needed. It might be annoying for you, but > free speech is not always fun. People are free to express their opinion. That does not mean the Debian Project is obligated to provide a platform for those opinions on the debian-vote mailing list, which exists to facilitate discussions among voting members of the Debian Project regarding matters that will be voted on. Non-voting posters to debian-vote are almost exclusively outside agitators and there's no reason subscribing to debian-vote should mean receiving their bullshit in our mailboxes. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: opinion on Choice 1
On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 12:18 +0200, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > > People without voting rights repeatedly tried to lobby or push for a > certain agenda on this list. Welcome to Debian. People are free to express their opinion, even if they are not owning an @debian.org email address. And that is actually a very good thing. The interested reader is able to filter messages and maybe maintain a list of people to ignore if needed. It might be annoying for you, but free speech is not always fun. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Le mercredi 31 mars 2021 à 06:48:45+, Ivan Shmakov a écrit : > > On 2021-03-28 20:23:38 +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 à 15:35:42+, Ivan Shmakov a écrit : > > In my previous letter, I’ve presented my general concerns about > the ‘open letter’ that Choice 1 seeks to ratify; irrespective > (more or less) of any specific organization or individual. > Below I hope to clarify my position, as well as attempt to > address some (but by no means all) concerns regarding Richard > Stallman personally. > > I understand that for some of us, the mere suggestion that > Richard Stallman may not be that wrong in certain respects > can be offensive. For that, as well as for any factual mistakes > (corrections welcome) on my part below, I apologize in advance. I'm not part of these people rolling on the floor on the mere idea to have my ideas criticized or contradicted, so please don't bother. :) > >> “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. > > I’m somewhat curious as to how you define ‘dangerous ideas’? > > In all honesty, I’m not sure such a notion has much value; > in part because for every few persons agreeing, there probably > will be a few more /millions/ to disagree. And in part because > a lot of things we now take for granted (such as equality) were > once considered ‘dangerous ideas,’ and conversely, some of the > things that were commonplace in the past (such as slavery) are > now considered ‘dangerous ideas.’ > > Is the idea of a violent overthrow of a government a dangerous > one? Yet this is how a number of extant goverments came to be. > (To paraphrase Harry Harrison’s protagonist Jason dinAlt.) > > Add to that that such notions tend to vary across cultures and > countries. > > Don’t get me wrong: I do /not/ consider all ideas to be ‘equal.’ > But I find it a slippery slope when we start talking about which > views can be held and expressed (or ‘defended’), and which cannot. > > Other than that, I believe that if you witness actual criminal > behavior (which is to say, a dangerous person /acting/ on his or > her dangerous views), you should report it to the relevant > authorities. Certainly, on occasion the law violated will be > unjust in itself, but I think it’s generally better for the > society at large to have a public trial, and perhaps conviction > (and a posthumous public apology from the government half a > century later, as in [1]); than to have laws that are applied > inconsistently (which is to say, selectively.) > > [1] http://theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-alan-turing Bad, dangerous, et al, are subjective notions which imply a position in time and a society to refer to. To me an idea is dangerous if it could lead some people to become violent toward others in the name of such an idea, or justify their crimes with these. To me, defending or trying to diminish the impact of child abuse is dangerous. Defending or trying to diminish the impact of domestic violence is dangerous. Defending or trying to diminish the impact of racism is dangerous. Because this is what makes some people think it's legitimate to use violence. > > For the sake of clarity, I’m talking about his comments on the > > Epstein thing, > > Like, for example, condemning coercion and sexual trafficking? > (Very much in line with his general views on coercion and > other violations of personal freedom.) I remember him trying to find excuses to his friend having profitted from a child Epstein put him in relation with. > > like pretending having sex with 14 yo childs is okay > > This indeed was his view which he expressed back in 2006. > He has since changed his mind [2]. > > [2] > http://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) Well, at least that. Thanks for the pointer. > > because they were “entirely willing”, > > An acquaintance of mine, a Russian Orthodox priest, used to say > (in good humor) that Paul the Apostle advocated for a carefree > lifestyle, and in support of his position quoted him thus: > “let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.” > > And indeed, if you open First Epistle to the Corinthians, you > will find these exact words right down there. Though in context, > their meaning is effectively the opposite. >
Re: opinion on Choice 1
> On 2021-03-28 20:23:38 +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 à 15:35:42+, Ivan Shmakov a écrit : In my previous letter, I’ve presented my general concerns about the ‘open letter’ that Choice 1 seeks to ratify; irrespective (more or less) of any specific organization or individual. Below I hope to clarify my position, as well as attempt to address some (but by no means all) concerns regarding Richard Stallman personally. I understand that for some of us, the mere suggestion that Richard Stallman may not be that wrong in certain respects can be offensive. For that, as well as for any factual mistakes (corrections welcome) on my part below, I apologize in advance. >> “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. I’m somewhat curious as to how you define ‘dangerous ideas’? In all honesty, I’m not sure such a notion has much value; in part because for every few persons agreeing, there probably will be a few more /millions/ to disagree. And in part because a lot of things we now take for granted (such as equality) were once considered ‘dangerous ideas,’ and conversely, some of the things that were commonplace in the past (such as slavery) are now considered ‘dangerous ideas.’ Is the idea of a violent overthrow of a government a dangerous one? Yet this is how a number of extant goverments came to be. (To paraphrase Harry Harrison’s protagonist Jason dinAlt.) Add to that that such notions tend to vary across cultures and countries. Don’t get me wrong: I do /not/ consider all ideas to be ‘equal.’ But I find it a slippery slope when we start talking about which views can be held and expressed (or ‘defended’), and which cannot. Other than that, I believe that if you witness actual criminal behavior (which is to say, a dangerous person /acting/ on his or her dangerous views), you should report it to the relevant authorities. Certainly, on occasion the law violated will be unjust in itself, but I think it’s generally better for the society at large to have a public trial, and perhaps conviction (and a posthumous public apology from the government half a century later, as in [1]); than to have laws that are applied inconsistently (which is to say, selectively.) [1] http://theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-alan-turing > For the sake of clarity, I’m talking about his comments on the > Epstein thing, Like, for example, condemning coercion and sexual trafficking? (Very much in line with his general views on coercion and other violations of personal freedom.) > like pretending having sex with 14 yo childs is okay This indeed was his view which he expressed back in 2006. He has since changed his mind [2]. [2] http://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) > because they were “entirely willing”, An acquaintance of mine, a Russian Orthodox priest, used to say (in good humor) that Paul the Apostle advocated for a carefree lifestyle, and in support of his position quoted him thus: “let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.” And indeed, if you open First Epistle to the Corinthians, you will find these exact words right down there. Though in context, their meaning is effectively the opposite. RMS’ letter indeed contained the phrase above which, without context, can be understood as implying that there was no coercion. Within context, the phrase can suggest that Minsky was a fool, that Stallman thought Minsky was a fool, that Stallman himself was a fool, or some combination or variation thereof. As far as I know, there’s not a shred of evidence in the correspondence that Stallman somehow thought that there was no coercion, or that said coercion is somehow ‘right.’ (Consider, e. g., [3].) [3] http://jorgemorais.gitlab.io/justice-for-rms/#mischaracterizations > and the possession of pedopornographic images. I don’t know what /his/ specific concerns about the relevant legislation are (someone will have to ask him), but I can suggest the following two. The first, and it’s applicable to /any/ law that criminalizes possession of /any/ material in digital form, is
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: 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: 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: 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: ***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: 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: 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
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Hi, 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. Best 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: opinion on Choice 1
Hi! On 29.03.21 14:17, Milan Kupcevic wrote: On 3/29/21 4:58 AM, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: [...] Sorry for my ignorance, but who are you? I cannot find your name in the Debian contributor list. Your contributions to Debian [0][1][2][3] are very welcome. Do not get discouraged by ignorant people who might try to shame you for who you are. Milan, I'd like to kindly ask you to stop reframing everything that doesn't fit your expectations and making something different out of it which is waay beyond the intention. Thanks for the links, I did not check on bugs.d.o and lists.d.o separately. Ulrike [0] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=both;submitter=ivan%40siamics.net;submitter=oneingray%40gmail.com [1] https://www.debian.org/security/2010/dsa-2020.en.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/cgi-bin/search?P=Ivan+Shmakov [3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2021/03/msg00330.html
Re: opinion on Choice 1
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. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: opinion on Choice 1
On 3/29/21 4:58 AM, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: [...] > > Sorry for my ignorance, but who are you? I cannot find your name in the > Debian contributor list. > > [...] Ivan, Your contributions to Debian [0][1][2][3] are very welcome. Do not get discouraged by ignorant people who might try to shame you for who you are. Milan [0] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=both;submitter=ivan%40siamics.net;submitter=oneingray%40gmail.com [1] https://www.debian.org/security/2010/dsa-2020.en.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/cgi-bin/search?P=Ivan+Shmakov [3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2021/03/msg00330.html
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Hi, On 28.03.21 17:35, Ivan Shmakov wrote: Sorry for my ignorance, but who are you? I cannot find your name in the Debian contributor list. Best Ulrike
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
