Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Le samedi 03 avril 2021 à 15:41:43+0200, Milan Zamazal a écrit : > > "SM" == Steve McIntyre writes: > > SM> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:26:56PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > >> On Friday, 2 April 2021 11:09:42 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > >>> Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful > >>> theoretical > > >>> idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a > >>> miserable fuckup in the end. > >>> > >>> I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see > >>> a working implementation as soon as there are humans who would > >>> want to be leaders in such regimes. > >>> > >>> I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway. > >> > >> What a nasty disgraceful style of debating you have, Pierre. > > SM> You might disagree with him, but please stop attacking the > SM> person. It's not necessary and only lowers the tone of debate. > > Yes, please. > > >> You understood very well what I'm saying and I'm is not > >> confirming your point. Communism is a bad ideology that does not > >> work (and could not work even in theory) - that's why it should > >> be "cancelled". Free speech is a beautiful working practice but > >> it is in the way of terrible ideas and that's why they want to > >> "cancel" free speech. > > SM> And other people disagree with you on those points. Please > SM> accept that and leave it there? > > Please note that some of us who suffered from communism and got both > theoretical and practical training in marxism-leninism may be quite Theoretical, with small "reviews" from the party. Which means not theoretically accurate at all. > sensitive to claims that communism was a beautiful theoretical idea or > putting some kind of equations between communism and freedom of speech. > I had to hold off myself to not respond to those claims, which were not > helpful and the intended points could be illustrated in better ways. > > Regards, I explained in what way I compare both. You may consider it was not the best way to illustrate my point and I'm eager to take that remark, but this connection is not, /per se/, absurd. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
> "SM" == Steve McIntyre writes: SM> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:26:56PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: >> On Friday, 2 April 2021 11:09:42 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >>> Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful >>> theoretical >>> idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a >>> miserable fuckup in the end. >>> >>> I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see >>> a working implementation as soon as there are humans who would >>> want to be leaders in such regimes. >>> >>> I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway. >> >> What a nasty disgraceful style of debating you have, Pierre. SM> You might disagree with him, but please stop attacking the SM> person. It's not necessary and only lowers the tone of debate. Yes, please. >> You understood very well what I'm saying and I'm is not >> confirming your point. Communism is a bad ideology that does not >> work (and could not work even in theory) - that's why it should >> be "cancelled". Free speech is a beautiful working practice but >> it is in the way of terrible ideas and that's why they want to >> "cancel" free speech. SM> And other people disagree with you on those points. Please SM> accept that and leave it there? Please note that some of us who suffered from communism and got both theoretical and practical training in marxism-leninism may be quite sensitive to claims that communism was a beautiful theoretical idea or putting some kind of equations between communism and freedom of speech. I had to hold off myself to not respond to those claims, which were not helpful and the intended points could be illustrated in better ways. Regards, Milan
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:26:56PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: >On Friday, 2 April 2021 11:09:42 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >> Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful theoretical >> idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a miserable >> fuckup in the end. >> >> I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see a >> working implementation as soon as there are humans who would want to be >> leaders in such regimes. >> >> I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway. > >What a nasty disgraceful style of debating you have, Pierre. You might disagree with him, but please stop attacking the person. It's not necessary and only lowers the tone of debate. >You understood very well what I'm saying and I'm is not confirming your >point. Communism is a bad ideology that does not work (and could not work >even in theory) - that's why it should be "cancelled". >Free speech is a beautiful working practice but it is in the way of terrible >ideas and that's why they want to "cancel" free speech. And other people disagree with you on those points. Please accept that and leave it there? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Into the distance, a ribbon of black Stretched to the point of no turning back
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On 4/3/21 03:26, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: On Friday, 2 April 2021 11:09:42 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful theoretical idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a miserable fuckup in the end. I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see a working implementation as soon as there are humans who would want to be leaders in such regimes. I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway. What a nasty disgraceful style of debating you have, Pierre. You understood very well what I'm saying and I'm is not confirming your point. Communism is a bad ideology that does not work (and could not work even in theory) - that's why it should be "cancelled". Free speech is a beautiful working practice but it is in the way of terrible ideas and that's why they want to "cancel" free speech. I have hard time to take people seriously if they don't read. You seem to be conflating communism (ideology) and communist party. The two don't tend to be really connected. Communism is a stateless society, living on self-governance to secure and protect basic human needs such as universal healthcare, education and equal pay. In same vein as anarchism but I assume anarchy for you is "chaos, trashing the stores etc". So, Pierre-Elliot was correct when he said that communism is a beautiful theoretical idea. Z OpenPGP_0x2E5C20BB37933BFD.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Friday, 2 April 2021 11:09:42 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful theoretical > idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a miserable > fuckup in the end. > > I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see a > working implementation as soon as there are humans who would want to be > leaders in such regimes. > > I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway. What a nasty disgraceful style of debating you have, Pierre. You understood very well what I'm saying and I'm is not confirming your point. Communism is a bad ideology that does not work (and could not work even in theory) - that's why it should be "cancelled". Free speech is a beautiful working practice but it is in the way of terrible ideas and that's why they want to "cancel" free speech. -- All the best, Dmitry Smirnov GPG key : 4096R/52B6BBD953968D1B --- Hay smells different to lovers and horses. -- Stanisław Jerzy Lec --- How Many Excess Deaths Are Due to COVID-19? -- https://lockdownsceptics.org/how-many-excess-deaths-are-due-to-covid-19/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 21:48:53-0400, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz a écrit : > On 2021-04-01 9:01 p.m., Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > > defeat communism and prevent it from raising > > its ugly head again. > > Option 6: > > "Debian will fight hard to defeat communism and prevent it from raising > its ugly head again, whatever this GR is about". > > Come on folks, we can do better than that! Seconded. -- Could you sign your mail please? I'd like this option in the ballot to vote for it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 12:01:39+1100, Dmitry Smirnov a écrit : > On Thursday, 1 April 2021 7:56:12 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > Freedom of speech is one of the theoretically most beautiful ideas > > Humans ever created. So is Communism. > > Communism (i.e. fascism + marxism) is an ultimate "cancel culture" that > terminated at least 100 million lives in 20th century. > Communism can not tolerate criticism and that's why communism is > incompatible with free speech. > > We need free speech to defeat communism and prevent it from raising > its ugly head again. Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful theoretical idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a miserable fuckup in the end. I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see a working implementation as soon as there are humans who would want to be leaders in such regimes. I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway. With best 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: Willingness to share a position statement?
On 2021-04-01 9:01 p.m., Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > defeat communism and prevent it from raising > its ugly head again. Option 6: "Debian will fight hard to defeat communism and prevent it from raising its ugly head again, whatever this GR is about". Come on folks, we can do better than that! -- Tiago
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Thursday, 1 April 2021 7:56:12 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Freedom of speech is one of the theoretically most beautiful ideas > Humans ever created. So is Communism. Communism (i.e. fascism + marxism) is an ultimate "cancel culture" that terminated at least 100 million lives in 20th century. Communism can not tolerate criticism and that's why communism is incompatible with free speech. We need free speech to defeat communism and prevent it from raising its ugly head again. The following book is a good read to understand the matters better: Friedrich A. Hayek "The Road to Serfdom" https://mises.org/library/road-serfdom-0 -- Regards, Dmitry Smirnov GPG key : 4096R/52B6BBD953968D1B --- Journalists don't sit down and think, "I'm now going to speak for the establishment." Of course not. But they internalize a whole set of assumptions, and one of the most potent assumptions is that the world should be seen in terms of its usefulness to the West, not humanity. This leads journalists to make a distinction between people who matter and people who don't matter. -- John Pilger --- Israel: Why Is All-Cause Mortality Increasing? -- https://swprs.org/israel-why-is-all-cause-mortality-increasing/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Le mercredi 31 mars 2021 à 09:12:24+1100, Dmitry Smirnov a écrit : > 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: Freedom of speech is one of the theoretically most beautiful ideas Humans ever created. So is Communism. The thing is, as soon as there are humans in the equation, both these ideas become a huge truckload of mess, violence, hatred and sorrow. Trying to grab it as a cane in all discussions is to me a proof of lack of sensible arguments. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
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). > ~~~ That's why facebook and twitter are full of well-informed people engaged in reasoned discussions, right? Oh no wait, it's the exact opposite, because it's far cheaper to disseminate stupid and toxic ideas than it is to convince people of complicated and accurate ones. Turns out the marketplace of ideas is actually the Home Shopping Network. -- 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: 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: 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: Willingness to share a position statement?
Hello, On 26.03.21 23:12, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: Ulrike Uhlig wrote: That said, let's escalate your example a bit "Escalate a bit" is quite an understatement, as you turned it into an example of criminal behavior. I'm just showing you the limits of what you call "free speech" :) I think it's important to understand that there is not always a right/wrong dichotomy nor an objective reality when human relations are concerned. In fact, two people/parties/groups may negotiate anything between themselves, according to their own values, which might be different from another two parties faced with the same or with a similar issue. They may end up with a very different agreements, even if they started from the same problem. The important part to remember is to make it possible to negotiate interactions. And this is the part that you forget all the time in your argumentation. You may say what you want and I may say: stop! This does not necessarily mean that *I* have to leave, it can also mean that you need to stop, or that we have to enter a dialogue in which we establish together what is acceptable, and what isn't, and under which circumstances. Which makes it irrelevant to the subject of this discussion, i.e., whether people can be discriminated for expressing their opinions without violating any laws. The rest of your message is basically a repetition of the concept that if people do bad things, they should face consequences, which I agree 100% with. Where we seem to disagree, instead, is whether exercising the right to free speech is a bad thing. See above. Cheers Ulrike
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 00:09:40+0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:38:56PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >... > > We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on > > what people say and do around us. We're not a government. We are *not* > > in the situation where we *have* to support people saying things that we > > believe to be bad, wrong and hurtful. It is *entirely* within our > > rights to evaluate people by their words and actions and to decide > > whether we wish to talk or work with them in future. > >... > > You are saying companies should always have the right to fire employees > if they join an union. It *would* if companies were just some things assembled under the freedom of association. BUT, it's not the case as there are hierarchical relationships in these, and they assemble under specific laws and texts. For that reason, more than a century of experience made clear that the right to union is important and the employees joining unions are to be protected. Debian is not a company, and as a private group assembled under the freedom of association, yep, it can have anyone removed from the group. Of course, if it were done based on law-punishable motives, it could probably be a ground for prosecution. But as far as I am aware of, "you're behaving in a way that is not compatible with our code of conduct" or "you are doing harm to the community" is not discrimination and is not forbidden by the law. Regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 23:12:45+0100, Gerardo Ballabio a écrit : > Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > > That said, let's escalate your example a bit > > "Escalate a bit" is quite an understatement, as you turned it into an > example of criminal behavior. Which makes it irrelevant to the subject > of this discussion, i.e., whether people can be discriminated for > expressing their opinions without violating any laws. Being a douchebag is not something criminal /per se/, and, well, it can be enough to be fired from a job. > The rest of your message is basically a repetition of the concept that > if people do bad things, they should face consequences, which I agree > 100% with. Where we seem to disagree, instead, is whether exercising > the right to free speech is a bad thing. Honestly, exercising it in order to hurt others is a bad thing. One can protect a right and still thing some of its usages are bad. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > That said, let's escalate your example a bit "Escalate a bit" is quite an understatement, as you turned it into an example of criminal behavior. Which makes it irrelevant to the subject of this discussion, i.e., whether people can be discriminated for expressing their opinions without violating any laws. The rest of your message is basically a repetition of the concept that if people do bad things, they should face consequences, which I agree 100% with. Where we seem to disagree, instead, is whether exercising the right to free speech is a bad thing. Gerardo
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 10:05:44AM +0100, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: > Steve McIntyre wrote: > > We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on > > what people say and do around us. We're not a government. > > So only governments should not discriminate people? > > > Try a simple thought experiment: if you think that only the law (which > > country?) has any bearing here, is spam filtering allowed? Should we > > be allowed to block people from our mailing lists or BTS for sending > > lots of messages saying "Free Software is awful"? > You have the right to choose which mail messages you receive. > You haven't the right to choose which mail messages I send. > Can you see the difference? Debian as a project has a right to block your mails so they are not dissemminated via our servers. > Similarly, if you don't want to listen to me, you have the right to > walk away. You haven't the right to silence me. > If you don't want to work with me, you have the right to quit. You > haven't the right to get me fired. Obviously false. You do not have a right to be the most obnoxious person in your place of work who drives other people to quit, and people have a right to demand a work environment free from harrassment. And why are we having this conversation? You're not a Debian developer, you told Debian you were leaving because you disagreed with our policies, and you don't get a vote. Do you think you're persuading someone here? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 06:47:31AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Christian Kastner wrote:
> > On 26.03.21 01:06, Simon Richter wrote:
> > > >(2) how deeply Debian gets involved
> > > We are in a prominent position. The OSI's Open Source Definition is
> > > derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, after all, not the
> > > other way 'round.
> > >
> > > There is no way for us to not be involved in something that affects the
> > > whole free software community.
> > Sure, but we have a choice as to how we get involved -- the specific
> > actions, or inaction. See the ongoing GR.
> >
> > All I'm saying is that when people speak out about the wish to be
> > apolitical, the term 'apolitical' should not be taken in the widest
> > possible sense, which covers any action or inaction, and then dismissed
> > for being impossible.
> > Rather, in should be understood in a stricter sense, namely of favoring
> > inaction ("political inactivism", if you like).
> If one wants to talk political - maybe it's time to survey the Debian
> community as to who feels how about Stallman. Otherwise this is all a based
> on a few loud voices shouting at each other.
LOL what do you think a vote is
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Christian Kastner wrote:
On 26.03.21 01:06, Simon Richter wrote:
(2) how deeply Debian gets involved
We are in a prominent position. The OSI's Open Source Definition is
derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, after all, not the
other way 'round.
There is no way for us to not be involved in something that affects the
whole free software community.
Sure, but we have a choice as to how we get involved -- the specific
actions, or inaction. See the ongoing GR.
All I'm saying is that when people speak out about the wish to be
apolitical, the term 'apolitical' should not be taken in the widest
possible sense, which covers any action or inaction, and then dismissed
for being impossible.
Rather, in should be understood in a stricter sense, namely of favoring
inaction ("political inactivism", if you like).
If one wants to talk political - maybe it's time to survey the Debian
community as to who feels how about Stallman. Otherwise this is all a
based on a few loud voices shouting at each other.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On 26.03.21 10:05, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: Steve McIntyre wrote: We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on what people say and do around us. We're not a government. So only governments should not discriminate people? Try a simple thought experiment: if you think that only the law (which country?) has any bearing here, is spam filtering allowed? Should we be allowed to block people from our mailing lists or BTS for sending lots of messages saying "Free Software is awful"? You have the right to choose which mail messages you receive. You haven't the right to choose which mail messages I send. Can you see the difference? Your example lacks perspective. That said, let's escalate your example a bit: If you send me lots of messages that I do not want to receive and I have told you so, but you find ways of sending them to me nevertheless, you are responsible for this. Now if you keep sending me messages, -imagine a dDoS- I would argue that you are also legally accountable for that. "You haven't the right to choose which mail messages I send." What this sentence implies is exactly that: that *you* are solely responsible, and therefore accountable for your actions. Now, let's apply your sentences above to the hypothetical case in which we would be working together in an organization or a workplace. In that situation, I could very well escalate the matter to a decision making body of that organization, or make them public and request that you'll be held accountable for your actions. Can you see the difference? Similarly, if you don't want to listen to me, you have the right to walk away. You haven't the right to silence me. If you don't want to work with me, you have the right to quit. You haven't the right to get me fired. If you are harmful for the organization, or this hypothetical workplace you seem to be talking about, then a hypothetical me would very well have the right to complain about you and ask the decision making body of the organization to take a decision concerning our conflict (that's what it is) in the interest of the organization. And that might mean to get you fired because you are causing harm. Ulrike
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Steve McIntyre wrote: > We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on > what people say and do around us. We're not a government. So only governments should not discriminate people? > Try a simple thought experiment: if you think that only the law (which > country?) has any bearing here, is spam filtering allowed? Should we > be allowed to block people from our mailing lists or BTS for sending > lots of messages saying "Free Software is awful"? You have the right to choose which mail messages you receive. You haven't the right to choose which mail messages I send. Can you see the difference? Similarly, if you don't want to listen to me, you have the right to walk away. You haven't the right to silence me. If you don't want to work with me, you have the right to quit. You haven't the right to get me fired. Gerardo
Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Hi,
On 26.03.21 08:32, Christian Kastner wrote:
> All I'm saying is that when people speak out about the wish to be
> apolitical, the term 'apolitical' should not be taken in the widest
> possible sense, which covers any action or inaction, and then dismissed
> for being impossible.
> Rather, in should be understood in a stricter sense, namely of favoring
> inaction ("political inactivism", if you like).
Exactly, the position "we should be 'apolitical'" is still a political
position, and inaction, (especially) after discussion, is still a
political statement (that we're fine with the situation as is).
That's why it's impossible to be "apolitical" here.
We can't distinguish between a "political" debate and a meta-debate that
defines the terms of the debate. It's all part of the same big ball, in
the same way that we're holding GR votes on changing the procedure of GR
votes.
Simon
Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On 26.03.21 01:06, Simon Richter wrote:
>> (2) how deeply Debian gets involved
>
> We are in a prominent position. The OSI's Open Source Definition is
> derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, after all, not the
> other way 'round.
>
> There is no way for us to not be involved in something that affects the
> whole free software community.
Sure, but we have a choice as to how we get involved -- the specific
actions, or inaction. See the ongoing GR.
All I'm saying is that when people speak out about the wish to be
apolitical, the term 'apolitical' should not be taken in the widest
possible sense, which covers any action or inaction, and then dismissed
for being impossible.
Rather, in should be understood in a stricter sense, namely of favoring
inaction ("political inactivism", if you like).
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Hi, On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 4:33 PM Adrian Bunk wrote: > > being expelled from an association can be > contested in regular courts. So can incitement to mayhem. What if a crazy person harms a targeted individual after reading Debian's statement? Alternatively, please consider libel: Debian probably has a nexus to England, where the burden of proof for defamation is reversed. Publishing such a strong statement is not wise. Or, most significantly, what happens if a targeted person dies as a result of the public shaming? The injured parties could end up owning Debian. I don't think those risks are worth taking—even we had liability insurance. Should we just focus on getting the bullseye release out? Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Hi, On 25.03.21 23:32, Christian Kastner wrote: >> the "technical" decisions we make based on that also have political >> consequences. > That's taking meaning of the word 'political' in the widest possible > sense, and in that sense, literally any action (or inaction) carried out > by an individual within a society is political, because they all have > consequences. Too some extent, yes: > I interpret the calls for Debian being apolitical (to some degree) as > calls differentiating at least between > (1) whether specific political consequences are intended or not That's one of the key points I was trying to make: Debian very explicitly believes that users should have certain rights, and that creating free software is the most effective way to achieve this. We're absolutely not limited to creating free software because we recognize that this isn't sufficient, as the environment in which the software is to be used is also important for whether users can realize their rights. Therefore, we have done a lot of work besides writing software. Debian was instrumental in getting US "munitions export" law changed to allow the export of cryptographic software, and we have repeatedly taken a stand against software patents. Community building is just another area where we work in the interest of our users, both directly (as the community gives them local support resources) and indirectly (as the community is a source of new contributors). If there are issues within the community that are a hurdle to participation, that is a conflict with our explicit political goal. > (2) how deeply Debian gets involved We are in a prominent position. The OSI's Open Source Definition is derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, after all, not the other way 'round. There is no way for us to not be involved in something that affects the whole free software community. > (3) effects are directly or indirectly caused > (4) degree of effect. Indirect effects are often stronger and reach further than direct ones. We're acting inside a complex and interconnected political sphere, and limiting our vision to a small bubble will cause us to miss the bigger picture. Simon
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Hi! On 25.03.21 21:18, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: Steve McIntyre wrote: Do we really have to go through this argument *again*? Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences. The point is who decides what the consequences are. That should be up to the legal system, not to some random group of people who gather together and decide to enact summary punishment. Protest is part of the democratic tool box as much as the legal system you mention. The open letter is a public protest happening online. If that protest is reasonable is something that you and me may have different opinions on, the only fact that we can currently agree on is that the actions of the FSF are causing dissent. Protestors are requesting accountability not only from RMS but also from the part of the board that reinstated him. Accountability means to take responsibility for one's actions or words, to accept that they have consequences, and to acknowledge these consequences. Accountability does not mean that someone is being punished, it's a device demanding people to clean up their own mess instead of expecting people to wade through, ignore, or clean up the mess for them. Being accountable is a starting point, not an end. Therefore, what the consequences are is entirely up to the FSF itself. There is a not-so-small protest in front of them, now it's up to them to decide how _they_ want to deal with it - and it's also _up to them_ to deal with the consequences resulting from the actions they will or will not undertake. That some of us agree with this protest and some don't, and that the FSF may _decide for themselves_ how they want to react to that is exactly the f-r-e-e-d-o-m you conjure. Cheers, Ulrike
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 03:38:40PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >... > It is an > infringement of the freedom of association of all other Debian developers if > we are not able to exclude someone based on the views they express and the > actions they take. > > Labor rights are entirely different from "freedom of association". In many jurisdictions associations cannot expel a member without proper reason and due process, and being expelled from an association can be contested in regular courts. cu Adrian
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:21:56PM -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote: ok i can no longer be silent (and it's in no way referred to Philip, whose email i'm reply to) so that it is very clear that there is room for dissenting opinion, and with a link to the vote page so that anyone that is interested can easily discover how individuals voted on the issue? That scares me. what will happen to the list of people who disagree with the ratification of the statement by Debian as a project? The people that are so strongly pushing for this (and many other) actions will have a list of (in their eyes) good and bad Debian members. And of course "nothing will happen, this is democracy at work", but how can *I* be sure of that? how can anybody be sure that there wont be anyone going thru decades of emails, twits, etc to find something "incriminating" for those people, because they disagree with them? how can i feel safe to vote no or FD in this GR? you are scaring me, you are threatening me, you are making me afraid of voting, of writing to mailing lists, to publish my ideas due to fear or repercussions. Is this what you want? Did you notice how few people have the courage and strength to disagree publicly with you? with your perennial fight for purity, you're taking my voice away: i do believe you think what you're doing is the Right Thing, but that has consequences you're not seeing, because the people who disagree with you are not "free" anymore to express themselves. you are establishing a de-facto Thought Police, that has been years in the making. I'm even afraid i'll get punished with the CoC for this email. is this what you want for Debian and its fellow members? During the heights of the Black Lives Matter protests (it's one example), did you force all your colleagues to sign a petition for *OR* against demanding your employer to publicly state that Black Lives Matter? did you do the same with your condo board, tenants association, borough board, city council etc? how did that go? Why are you dragging Debian's name into this? We are not a political entity, we are (in our own words: https://www.debian.org/intro/philosophy) "an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system". So go ahead, make your individuality be heard, sign (or not sign, it's up to YOU!) the open letter as who you are, but please leave Deiban, our technical project, outside of this fight. +1 One more word: since people can freely sign that statement, imagine how impressively long that list of people signing it would be! If you all, Debian Developers wishing that GR to pass, will sign it, it will take forever to peruse the whole list of signatories! That would have a very good impact for you: provide a strong feeling that the text is abundantly supported. But, *but*, I do not think it is the role of the Debian project to globally have anything signed "Debian" about this FSF/Stallman/GNU story. Filippo -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Filippo Rusconi, PhD ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Research scientist at CNRS ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Debian Developer ⠈⠳⣄ http://msxpertsuite.org http://www.debian.org
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Mar 24, 2021 at 12:38:25, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences. > > If you say unpopular, controversial things then it's entirely > reasonable that people around you may evaluate you based on what > you've said. They may decide that they don't want to listen to you any > more. They may decide that they don't want to work with you any more, > or have you in a position of power in a project. Words have power. > > Decrying this as a "political correctness storm" is a favourite > argument of the morally bankrupt who want the freedom to spout hate > without being called on it. thanks Steve for stating that so clear. The only thing I can add is a graphical summary: https://xkcd.com/1357/ Best, Philip
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 03:38:40PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 06:28:36PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:20:33PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 12:09:40AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > >On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:38:56PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > >>... > > > >> We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on > > > >> what people say and do around us. We're not a government. We are *not* > > > >> in the situation where we *have* to support people saying things that > > > >> we > > > >> believe to be bad, wrong and hurtful. It is *entirely* within our > > > >> rights to evaluate people by their words and actions and to decide > > > >> whether we wish to talk or work with them in future. > > > >>... > > > > >You are saying companies should always have the right to fire employees > > > >if they join an union. > > > > Not at all, please don't twist my words. > > > > Unfortunately, there *are* many places around the world where > > > companies can do exactly that. There are many others where rights like > > > this are enshrined in other laws. Debian is not an employer here, so I > > > don't think your point is relevant? > > > I would hardly call it twisting your words. > > > Either private individuals and entities have freedom of association, or > > they do not. You can't have it both ways. > > Freedom of association means the freedom to associate with who you chose to > and the freedom to *not associate with people you don't*. It is an > infringement of the freedom of association of all other Debian developers if > we are not able to exclude someone based on the views they express and the > actions they take. > Did Richard Stallman make an application to become a Debian Maintainer or Debian Developer? It is not clear how Richard Stallman is "included" in Debian in such a way that it would even make sense to move to exclude him. > Labor rights are entirely different from "freedom of association". > Got it. We can discriminate, but they can't. Seems a touch irrational. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On 25.03.21 22:32, Simon Richter wrote: > Pretty much everything Debian does is political > the "technical" decisions we make based on that also have political > consequences. That's taking meaning of the word 'political' in the widest possible sense, and in that sense, literally any action (or inaction) carried out by an individual within a society is political, because they all have consequences. I interpret the calls for Debian being apolitical (to some degree) as calls differentiating at least between (1) whether specific political consequences are intended or not (2) how deeply Debian gets involved (3) effects are directly or indirectly caused (4) degree of effect.
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 06:28:36PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: >On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:20:33PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 12:09:40AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: >> >On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:38:56PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >>... >> >> We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on >> >> what people say and do around us. We're not a government. We are *not* >> >> in the situation where we *have* to support people saying things that we >> >> believe to be bad, wrong and hurtful. It is *entirely* within our >> >> rights to evaluate people by their words and actions and to decide >> >> whether we wish to talk or work with them in future. >> >>... >> > >> >You are saying companies should always have the right to fire employees >> >if they join an union. >> >> Not at all, please don't twist my words. >> >> Unfortunately, there *are* many places around the world where >> companies can do exactly that. There are many others where rights like >> this are enshrined in other laws. Debian is not an employer here, so I >> don't think your point is relevant? >> >I would hardly call it twisting your words. > >Either private individuals and entities have freedom of association, or >they do not. You can't have it both ways. ACK, true. I'll hold my hand up to that one. My bad. I still don't think this is relevant. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code is in use on a military site..." -- Simon Booth
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 06:28:36PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:20:33PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 12:09:40AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > >On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:38:56PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > >>... > > >> We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on > > >> what people say and do around us. We're not a government. We are *not* > > >> in the situation where we *have* to support people saying things that we > > >> believe to be bad, wrong and hurtful. It is *entirely* within our > > >> rights to evaluate people by their words and actions and to decide > > >> whether we wish to talk or work with them in future. > > >>... > > >You are saying companies should always have the right to fire employees > > >if they join an union. > > Not at all, please don't twist my words. > > Unfortunately, there *are* many places around the world where > > companies can do exactly that. There are many others where rights like > > this are enshrined in other laws. Debian is not an employer here, so I > > don't think your point is relevant? > I would hardly call it twisting your words. > Either private individuals and entities have freedom of association, or > they do not. You can't have it both ways. Freedom of association means the freedom to associate with who you chose to and the freedom to *not associate with people you don't*. It is an infringement of the freedom of association of all other Debian developers if we are not able to exclude someone based on the views they express and the actions they take. Labor rights are entirely different from "freedom of association". -- 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: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:38:56PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >... > We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on > what people say and do around us. We're not a government. We are *not* > in the situation where we *have* to support people saying things that we > believe to be bad, wrong and hurtful. It is *entirely* within our > rights to evaluate people by their words and actions and to decide > whether we wish to talk or work with them in future. >... You are saying companies should always have the right to fire employees if they join an union. cu Adrian
Re: Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
It's not like it's a call to silence him forever. It is however a call to remove him from a position he appears to be unfit for. I agree with everything you are saying, but I note that the wording of the open letter is much harsher, with statements like "our communities have *no space* for people like Richard M. Stallman" (emphasis mine). FWIW, I would prefer something similar to the EFF statement [1], which conveys the same sentiment in a more neutral tone, so it's probably a better representation of the Debian project as a whole. This should not preclude anyone from signing the open letter if they wish, of course. - Timo [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-richard-stallman-fsf-board signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:20:33PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 12:09:40AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:38:56PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >>... > >> We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on > >> what people say and do around us. We're not a government. We are *not* > >> in the situation where we *have* to support people saying things that we > >> believe to be bad, wrong and hurtful. It is *entirely* within our > >> rights to evaluate people by their words and actions and to decide > >> whether we wish to talk or work with them in future. > >>... > > > >You are saying companies should always have the right to fire employees > >if they join an union. > > Not at all, please don't twist my words. > > Unfortunately, there *are* many places around the world where > companies can do exactly that. There are many others where rights like > this are enshrined in other laws. Debian is not an employer here, so I > don't think your point is relevant? > I would hardly call it twisting your words. Either private individuals and entities have freedom of association, or they do not. You can't have it both ways. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 12:09:40AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: >On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:38:56PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >>... >> We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on >> what people say and do around us. We're not a government. We are *not* >> in the situation where we *have* to support people saying things that we >> believe to be bad, wrong and hurtful. It is *entirely* within our >> rights to evaluate people by their words and actions and to decide >> whether we wish to talk or work with them in future. >>... > >You are saying companies should always have the right to fire employees >if they join an union. Not at all, please don't twist my words. Unfortunately, there *are* many places around the world where companies can do exactly that. There are many others where rights like this are enshrined in other laws. Debian is not an employer here, so I don't think your point is relevant? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -- Bertrand Russell
Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Hi Roberto, On 25.03.21 18:59, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > I understand that it is not always possible to be completely apolitical, > even for Debian as an organization. Pretty much everything Debian does is political. Free software enables users' technical autonomy, and this completely shifts power dynamics, to the extent that it allows communities that aren't served by software and service providers to organize themselves. This shift is a political process, and it is one explicitly desired. The same communities give us feedback and also contribute back, and the "technical" decisions we make based on that also have political consequences. Communities with opposing political goals also make technical recommendations that have political effects, and we'd do our users a great disservice if we ignored that. If the NSA suggests a random number generator, that is a political action. Scrutinizing it is a political action. Shipping cryptographic software is a political action. We wouldn't take a "neutral" stance there, even though it is only tangentially related to free software, because our priorities are "free software and our users." Likewise, the free software community is a large part of what our users come into contact with, and the conditions they find there will determine the outcome for them. That, too, is part of our core mission, closer to it in fact than the question of availability and security of cryptographic software, and neither can we ignore it nor is there a neutral option nor would a neutral option if it existed be in the interest of our users. Simon OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:18:10PM +0100, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: >Steve McIntyre wrote: >> Do we really have to go through this argument *again*? > >I didn't start this discussion. But you've spoken up in a previous discussion and we spoke then. >> Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences. > >The point is who decides what the consequences are. >That should be up to the legal system, not to some random group of >people who gather together and decide to enact summary punishment. > >Some types of speech are forbidden by law: hate speech, defamatory >speech, incitement to violate the law (note that debating whether a >law is unjust does NOT equate to inciting people to violate that law). >Everything that isn't forbidden is free speech and nobody must be >discriminated for voicing their opinions. You were wrong the last time you said this kind of thing, and you're still wrong. We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on what people say and do around us. We're not a government. We are *not* in the situation where we *have* to support people saying things that we believe to be bad, wrong and hurtful. It is *entirely* within our rights to evaluate people by their words and actions and to decide whether we wish to talk or work with them in future. Try a simple thought experiment: if you think that only the law (which country?) has any bearing here, is spam filtering allowed? Should we be allowed to block people from our mailing lists or BTS for sending lots of messages saying "Free Software is awful"? ... >> Decrying this as a "political correctness storm" is a favourite >> argument of the morally bankrupt who want the freedom to spout hate >> without being called on it. > >Spouting hate can come from both camps, and the language of this >sentence of yours does seem an example of that, as well as a possible >CoC violation, particularly if you meant to imply that I belong to the >"morally bankrupt". I have no idea about your personal morals. However, claiming that there is a right to free speech without consequences *is* a common tactic of people who wish to say hateful things. Do you dispute that? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Google-bait: https://www.debian.org/CD/free-linux-cd Debian does NOT ship free CDs. Please do NOT contact the mailing lists asking us to send them to you.
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Steve McIntyre wrote: > Do we really have to go through this argument *again*? I didn't start this discussion. > Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences. The point is who decides what the consequences are. That should be up to the legal system, not to some random group of people who gather together and decide to enact summary punishment. Some types of speech are forbidden by law: hate speech, defamatory speech, incitement to violate the law (note that debating whether a law is unjust does NOT equate to inciting people to violate that law). Everything that isn't forbidden is free speech and nobody must be discriminated for voicing their opinions. > If you say unpopular, controversial things then it's entirely > reasonable that people around you may evaluate you based on what > you've said. They may decide that they don't want to listen to you any > more. They may decide that they don't want to work with you any more, > or have you in a position of power in a project. Words have power. If they don't want to listen to me, that doesn't mean I should be forced to be silent. If they don't want to work with me, that doesn't mean I should lose my job, or any position that I may be holding. > Decrying this as a "political correctness storm" is a favourite > argument of the morally bankrupt who want the freedom to spout hate > without being called on it. Spouting hate can come from both camps, and the language of this sentence of yours does seem an example of that, as well as a possible CoC violation, particularly if you meant to imply that I belong to the "morally bankrupt". Gerardo
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On 26/03/21 1:46 am, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello Martin, > > On Thu 25 Mar 2021 at 06:15PM +01, Martin Pitt wrote: > >> As this is is a highly political, divisive, and personal topic, not a >> technical one, I'd really hope that this would be a secret vote, much >> like the Debian leader voting? > It's not technical indeed, but I think it would be a mistake to think > that what is going on here is only general political activism. Rather, > this is about the leadership of a /particular/ political movement, the > free software movement, and there can't really be any doubt that Debian > is a part of /that/ movement. > +1 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Hello Martin, On Thu 25 Mar 2021 at 06:15PM +01, Martin Pitt wrote: > As this is is a highly political, divisive, and personal topic, not a > technical one, I'd really hope that this would be a secret vote, much > like the Debian leader voting? It's not technical indeed, but I think it would be a mistake to think that what is going on here is only general political activism. Rather, this is about the leadership of a /particular/ political movement, the free software movement, and there can't really be any doubt that Debian is a part of /that/ movement. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
> "Steve" == Steve Langasek writes: Steve> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 01:59:25PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: >> Why not dispense with the vote and simply have the DPL sign for >> the project? Then at least those who are not in agreement will >> not feel directly targeted, though they may disagree with the >> outcome. Steve> Constitutionally, this is not permitted. The DPL does not Steve> have the authority to issue non-technical statements on Steve> behalf of the project. I think Steve and I are in agreement at least as regards this case. But I think it's valuable to be a bit more expansive. While the DPL cannot generally issue statements on behalf of the project, the DPL can issue statements as the project leader under constitution 5.1 (2). I think that constitutionally, a DPL could decide that the letter is sufficiently in alignment with Debian's goals, and relevant statements we've made (the diversity statement and the CoC) and sign in his official role as DPL. I think that would be a stronger statement than signing as an individual and weaker than signing on behalf of the project. In this instance, especially given the GR is on the table, I don't think the DPL should do that at this time. Based on what Jonathan has said, I understand he has no plans to do so. Secondly, there is a case where the DPL could potentially speak on behalf of the project: constitution section 5.1(3) allows the DPL to act when a timely decision is needed. The consensus of those involved (I believe including the DPL) appears to be that does not apply in this situation.
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 01:59:25PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > Why not dispense with the vote and simply have the DPL sign for the > project? Then at least those who are not in agreement will not feel > directly targeted, though they may disagree with the outcome. Constitutionally, this is not permitted. The DPL does not have the authority to issue non-technical statements on behalf of the project. -- 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: Willingness to share a position statement?
Hi, I signed the letter because, among other things, I have my own experience of hosting Stallman at my home few years ago. But I believe that the choice to sign the letter must be individual. Many of us have Stallman as a hero (despite all his problems) and do not agree with the letter. And seeing Debian sign the letter will be very painful for these people. Best regards, -- Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana (phls) Curitiba - Brasil Debian Developer Diretor do Instituto para Conservação de Tecnologias Livres Site: http://phls.com.br GNU/Linux user: 228719 GPG ID: 0443C450
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
> "Roberto" == Roberto C Sánchez writes: Roberto> Given the rush to shorten the discussion period and make it Roberto> a simple yes/no vote, it does not seem likely that a Roberto> well-worded statement could be put together, seconded, and Roberto> then discussed. If someone is working on specific text and either asks for more time or asks for more time to collect seconds, I think going back to the normal two week discussion period would be the right approach. In my original message I talked about circumstances might come up where more discussion was required. That's the exact circumstance I was thinking of. I didn't want to encourage ballot option proliferation, so I didn't spell things out. I'd prefer a simple up/down vote myself. But I don't think we should use the process to stop people from proposing options. I think it's reasonable to expect them to work diligently and efficiently, but I do not think we should shorten discussion in this instance if people working on a specific alternative need time. --Sam signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 07:28:14PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Gard Spreemann (2021-03-25 19:21:36) > > > > Margarita Manterola writes: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 6:59 PM Roberto C. Sánchez > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Essentially, voting in this GR is implicitly > > >> compulsory and there is only one correct way to vote. > > > > > > > > > Also not true. The GR is to vote whether Debian issues a statement about > > > this or not. If you think Debian shouldn't issue a statement about this, > > > that's a totally valid opinion. The point of the GR is to gauge whether > > > the > > > majority of DDs think that the project should or should not issue a > > > statement. We won't know until the voting is over whether that's the > > > case. > > > > I'm very sorry if I misunderstood something (this is the first GR to > > come up since I joined the project, please excuse the > > handholding/noise), but isn't this a GR over whether or not Debian > > issues a *specific* statement about the matter? > > > > It puts those of us who may wish for Debian to make *a* statement, but > > dislike the broadness of the open letter that is under consideration for > > ratification, in a difficult spot. > > If you think that an alternative statement should be made instead, then > propose that alternative and if enough others support that (the process > of "seconding") then it will appear as another option on the voting > ballot. > Given the rush to shorten the discussion period and make it a simple yes/no vote, it does not seem likely that a well-worded statement could be put together, seconded, and then discussed. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Quoting Gard Spreemann (2021-03-25 19:21:36) > > Margarita Manterola writes: > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 6:59 PM Roberto C. Sánchez > > wrote: > > > >> Essentially, voting in this GR is implicitly > >> compulsory and there is only one correct way to vote. > > > > > > Also not true. The GR is to vote whether Debian issues a statement about > > this or not. If you think Debian shouldn't issue a statement about this, > > that's a totally valid opinion. The point of the GR is to gauge whether the > > majority of DDs think that the project should or should not issue a > > statement. We won't know until the voting is over whether that's the > > case. > > I'm very sorry if I misunderstood something (this is the first GR to > come up since I joined the project, please excuse the > handholding/noise), but isn't this a GR over whether or not Debian > issues a *specific* statement about the matter? > > It puts those of us who may wish for Debian to make *a* statement, but > dislike the broadness of the open letter that is under consideration for > ratification, in a difficult spot. If you think that an alternative statement should be made instead, then propose that alternative and if enough others support that (the process of "seconding") then it will appear as another option on the voting ballot. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 07:21:36PM +0100, Gard Spreemann wrote: > >> Essentially, voting in this GR is implicitly > >> compulsory and there is only one correct way to vote. > > > > > > Also not true. The GR is to vote whether Debian issues a statement about > > this or not. If you think Debian shouldn't issue a statement about this, > > that's a totally valid opinion. The point of the GR is to gauge whether the > > majority of DDs think that the project should or should not issue a > > statement. We won't know until the voting is over whether that's the > > case. > > I'm very sorry if I misunderstood something (this is the first GR to > come up since I joined the project, please excuse the > handholding/noise), but isn't this a GR over whether or not Debian > issues a *specific* statement about the matter? Yes. Though you can always propose an amendment. > It puts those of us who may wish for Debian to make *a* statement, but > dislike the broadness of the open letter that is under consideration for > ratification, in a difficult spot. If no amendments are proposed, just vote A=FD or FD>A? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Margarita Manterola writes: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 6:59 PM Roberto C. Sánchez > wrote: > >> Essentially, voting in this GR is implicitly >> compulsory and there is only one correct way to vote. > > > Also not true. The GR is to vote whether Debian issues a statement about > this or not. If you think Debian shouldn't issue a statement about this, > that's a totally valid opinion. The point of the GR is to gauge whether the > majority of DDs think that the project should or should not issue a > statement. We won't know until the voting is over whether that's the > case. I'm very sorry if I misunderstood something (this is the first GR to come up since I joined the project, please excuse the handholding/noise), but isn't this a GR over whether or not Debian issues a *specific* statement about the matter? It puts those of us who may wish for Debian to make *a* statement, but dislike the broadness of the open letter that is under consideration for ratification, in a difficult spot. Best, Gard signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Hi, On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 6:59 PM Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 06:15:27PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > > Exactly -- if this is an open vote, I'm afraid that would merely force a > > (possibly) large number of Debian members to not vote at all. Honestly, > in that > > light I haven't made up my mind yet either what to do.. > > > It also means that those who do not vote are by implication considered > to be in opposition. Not at all. In every Debian GR there's a lot of people that don't vote. Maybe they didn't care, maybe they were busy with other stuff in their lives, maybe they just forgot to vote. Not voting doesn't mean you are in opposition. > Essentially, voting in this GR is implicitly > compulsory and there is only one correct way to vote. Also not true. The GR is to vote whether Debian issues a statement about this or not. If you think Debian shouldn't issue a statement about this, that's a totally valid opinion. The point of the GR is to gauge whether the majority of DDs think that the project should or should not issue a statement. We won't know until the voting is over whether that's the case. > Why not dispense with the vote and simply have the DPL sign for the > project? Then at least those who are not in agreement will not feel > directly targeted, though they may disagree with the outcome. > There's many reasons why someone might decide to be against such a statement, and I don't expect people to be "targeted" because of that, anymore that they could be targeted because they voted one way or the other in any of the past GRs. -- Besos, Marga
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 06:15:27PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello Sandro, > > Sandro Tosi [2021-03-25 12:21 -0400]: > > That scares me. what will happen to the list of people who disagree > > with the ratification of the statement by Debian as a project? The > > people that are so strongly pushing for this (and many other) actions > > will have a list of (in their eyes) good and bad Debian members. > > As this is is a highly political, divisive, and personal topic, not a > technical > one, I'd really hope that this would be a secret vote, much like the Debian > leader voting? > > You bring up a good point here. If this is going to be an open vote, then this > is senseless political power play, and will only kindle the fire. > > > And of course "nothing will happen, this is democracy at work", but > > how can *I* be sure of that? how can anybody be sure that there wont > > be anyone going thru decades of emails, twits, etc to find something > > "incriminating" for those people, because they disagree with them? how > > can i feel safe to vote no or FD in this GR? > > Exactly -- if this is an open vote, I'm afraid that would merely force a > (possibly) large number of Debian members to not vote at all. Honestly, in > that > light I haven't made up my mind yet either what to do.. > It also means that those who do not vote are by implication considered to be in opposition. Essentially, voting in this GR is implicitly compulsory and there is only one correct way to vote. It sort of looks like the "free and fair" elections one might see in a communist country. Why not dispense with the vote and simply have the DPL sign for the project? Then at least those who are not in agreement will not feel directly targeted, though they may disagree with the outcome. > > Why are you dragging Debian's name into this? We are not a political > > entity, we are (in our own words: > > https://www.debian.org/intro/philosophy) "an association of > > individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating > > system". > > So go ahead, make your individuality be heard, sign (or not sign, it's > > up to YOU!) the open letter as who you are, but please leave Deiban, > > our technical project, outside of this fight. > > Exactly -- big +1 > I understand that it is not always possible to be completely apolitical, even for Debian as an organization. However, Sandro brings a good point regarding our own statement of Debian's purpose as a project. If Debian is to be a political activist organization, then we should amend our constitution so that the characterization of Debian is consistent with our actions as a project. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Martin Pitt writes: > As this is is a highly political, divisive, and personal topic, not a > technical > one, I'd really hope that this would be a secret vote, much like the Debian > leader voting? > > You bring up a good point here. If this is going to be an open vote, then this > is senseless political power play, and will only kindle the fire. As far as I understand, Debian has secret votes *only* for leadership elections: +--- | Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes, tallies, and results | are not revealed during the voting period; after the vote the Project | Secretary lists all the votes cast. +---[ https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution, 4.2 Procedure ] and +--- | The next two weeks are the polling period during which Developers may | cast their votes. Votes in leadership elections are kept secret, even | after the election is finished. +---[ https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution, 5.2 Appointment ] Ansgar
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Hello Sandro, Sandro Tosi [2021-03-25 12:21 -0400]: > That scares me. what will happen to the list of people who disagree > with the ratification of the statement by Debian as a project? The > people that are so strongly pushing for this (and many other) actions > will have a list of (in their eyes) good and bad Debian members. As this is is a highly political, divisive, and personal topic, not a technical one, I'd really hope that this would be a secret vote, much like the Debian leader voting? You bring up a good point here. If this is going to be an open vote, then this is senseless political power play, and will only kindle the fire. > And of course "nothing will happen, this is democracy at work", but > how can *I* be sure of that? how can anybody be sure that there wont > be anyone going thru decades of emails, twits, etc to find something > "incriminating" for those people, because they disagree with them? how > can i feel safe to vote no or FD in this GR? Exactly -- if this is an open vote, I'm afraid that would merely force a (possibly) large number of Debian members to not vote at all. Honestly, in that light I haven't made up my mind yet either what to do.. > Why are you dragging Debian's name into this? We are not a political > entity, we are (in our own words: > https://www.debian.org/intro/philosophy) "an association of > individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating > system". > So go ahead, make your individuality be heard, sign (or not sign, it's > up to YOU!) the open letter as who you are, but please leave Deiban, > our technical project, outside of this fight. Exactly -- big +1 Thanks, Martin
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Daniel Lenharo dijo [Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 08:14:47AM -0300]: > > so that it is very clear that there is room for dissenting opinion, and > > with a link to the vote page so that anyone that is interested can > > easily discover how individuals voted on the issue? > > If we have a GR, that most of the people vote to have a posicion. OK. Even > don't need to explicit how individuals voted. however, just a statement, > even done by DPL, i don't feel comfortable with this. I started this threaed in d-vote (although I'm quite sure it would have appeared without me as well). And given what I have read in our constitution, and the amount of people who have answered they would not feel right with such a DPL official public statement, I want to voice it as well -- I would also not like our current DPL to issue such a statement. Lets have a vote, and act based on its results. And, as Phil said, make very clear to the reader that "a majority" does not imply "the totality". signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
ok i can no longer be silent (and it's in no way referred to Philip, whose email i'm reply to) > so that it is very clear that there is room for dissenting opinion, and > with a link to the vote page so that anyone that is interested can > easily discover how individuals voted on the issue? That scares me. what will happen to the list of people who disagree with the ratification of the statement by Debian as a project? The people that are so strongly pushing for this (and many other) actions will have a list of (in their eyes) good and bad Debian members. And of course "nothing will happen, this is democracy at work", but how can *I* be sure of that? how can anybody be sure that there wont be anyone going thru decades of emails, twits, etc to find something "incriminating" for those people, because they disagree with them? how can i feel safe to vote no or FD in this GR? you are scaring me, you are threatening me, you are making me afraid of voting, of writing to mailing lists, to publish my ideas due to fear or repercussions. Is this what you want? Did you notice how few people have the courage and strength to disagree publicly with you? with your perennial fight for purity, you're taking my voice away: i do believe you think what you're doing is the Right Thing, but that has consequences you're not seeing, because the people who disagree with you are not "free" anymore to express themselves. you are establishing a de-facto Thought Police, that has been years in the making. I'm even afraid i'll get punished with the CoC for this email. is this what you want for Debian and its fellow members? During the heights of the Black Lives Matter protests (it's one example), did you force all your colleagues to sign a petition for *OR* against demanding your employer to publicly state that Black Lives Matter? did you do the same with your condo board, tenants association, borough board, city council etc? how did that go? Why are you dragging Debian's name into this? We are not a political entity, we are (in our own words: https://www.debian.org/intro/philosophy) "an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system". So go ahead, make your individuality be heard, sign (or not sign, it's up to YOU!) the open letter as who you are, but please leave Deiban, our technical project, outside of this fight. -- Sandro "morph" Tosi My website: http://sandrotosi.me/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Em 25/03/2021 05:45, Philip Hands escreveu: so that it is very clear that there is room for dissenting opinion, and with a link to the vote page so that anyone that is interested can easily discover how individuals voted on the issue? If we have a GR, that most of the people vote to have a posicion. OK. Even don't need to explicit how individuals voted. however, just a statement, even done by DPL, i don't feel comfortable with this. cheers -- Daniel Lenharo Curitiba - BR OpenPGP_0xFB0E132DDB0AA5B1.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement? (rms-open-letter)
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:53:23PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > On this particular issue, I feel it's better that individual > developers go and make their voices heard. Thank you Jonathan! I really hope most DDs feel the same way.
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
I vote no. I do not think Debian should be involved in personal attacks or witchhunting for any reason. I support the individual's choice to make their voice heard, but it is not Debian's place to join in. I object to Debian's name being used in this way. Query: Has this wording been approved by a libel lawyer? I am a mere lay person but the phrasing seems extremely... subjective and inflammatory. I would be very disappointed if Debian got involved in a libel action for such a tenuous reason. Simon
Re: Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Hi mak, >Think about the signal we send if we as a community are okay with a person openly debating whether sex with children is okay in a leading role at the top of the organization that's promoting software freedom. Since this is being repeated everywhere and also on this vote, I just wanted to point out this - https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-sep-dec.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong There is no more open debate existing on that from him. Best Regards, Akhil Varkey
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Daniel Lenharo writes: > Em 24/03/2021 18:53, Jonathan Carter escreveu: > >> I'm comfortable making a statement on behalf of the project if >> necessary. On this particular issue, I feel it's better that individual >> developers go and make their voices heard. That said, I will also >> respect the outcome of the GR and follow it if it completes within my term. >> >> -Jonathan >> > > i didn't understand why people can't sign the letter individually. > I wouldn't like to see my name associate with an action like this. I can certainly understand that it is very uncomfortable if some organisation one is associated with adopts a stance you are unable to support for whatever reason, in a way that implies that you do support it. That being the case, would it suffice (in the case where the GR gets approved) for it to be announced with something like: Having passed a General Resolution by majority vote[1], the Debian project ... so that it is very clear that there is room for dissenting opinion, and with a link to the vote page so that anyone that is interested can easily discover how individuals voted on the issue? Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:44:45PM +, Martina Ferrari wrote: > Isn't it funny how in threads discussing social justice there are always the > same opinions coming from the same names, time and time again? Probably most other people don't care, don't see a reason to repeat the majority opinion or don't want to publicly voice a dissenting one. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Em 24/03/2021 18:53, Jonathan Carter escreveu: I'm comfortable making a statement on behalf of the project if necessary. On this particular issue, I feel it's better that individual developers go and make their voices heard. That said, I will also respect the outcome of the GR and follow it if it completes within my term. -Jonathan i didn't understand why people can't sign the letter individually. I wouldn't like to see my name associate with an action like this. cheers -- Daniel Lenharo Curitiba - BR OpenPGP_0xFB0E132DDB0AA5B1.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Isn't it funny how in threads discussing social justice there are always the same opinions coming from the same names, time and time again? One or two more of the usual names and arguments and I fill my bingo card! From: Adam Borowski I'm also disgusted with such hatred towards the person who started the whole "Free Software" thing, and personally did most of the work in the early days. Even if you feel this way as a private person, it would be improper to push for the Debian Project to turn against our pioneer this way. And, if you want to exclude the greatest hero we had, your calls for "inclusivity" are a bold-faced lie. From: Gerardo Ballabio I am really worried about the increasing trend (not specific to Debian) towards demanding that people who hold "dissenting" opinions be removed from their positions, excluded from the public debate, and even fired from their jobs, which if universally applied would make them unable to earn a living. That is what dictatorial regimes do -- often while maintaining a facade of freedom: "Nobody is being prevented from speaking, we're just making their life miserable because we don't like what they're saying". That's exactly what's happening with the current political correctness storm. Say one bad word and your life might be ruined. Just yesterday I happened to read this quotation (on a Debian mailing list!). I believe it is very much to the point: "Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. -- Justice Roberts in 319 U.S. 624 (1943)" What happened to "I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll give my life to defend your right to say it"? -- Martina Ferrari (Tina)
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Sorry, for some reason I didn't get Gunnar's original mail so going to reply here... On 2021/03/24 02:24, M dB wrote: >> https://opensource.org/OSI_Response >> https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ >> >> Now, as for my question: I thought repeatedly over the last couple of >> days whether to start something like this in Debian... But, what would >> it take for the project to issue a statement in this line? Would we >> have to pass a GR? Well, a GR has been presented and seconded, so let's see how that unfolds! >> I am sure there is a precedent of a position statement being announced >> without having a formal vote about it, but I cannot find it at the >> moment. Sruthi, Jonathan: What is your take on this? If you were a DPL >> today, would you feel OK issuing a position statement on behalf of the >> project? I'm comfortable making a statement on behalf of the project if necessary. On this particular issue, I feel it's better that individual developers go and make their voices heard. That said, I will also respect the outcome of the GR and follow it if it completes within my term. -Jonathan
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:38:25PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences. > > If you say unpopular, controversial things then it's entirely > reasonable that people around you may evaluate you based on what > you've said. They may decide that they don't want to listen to you any > more. They may decide that they don't want to work with you any more, > or have you in a position of power in a project. Words have power. > > Decrying this as a "political correctness storm" is a favourite > argument of the morally bankrupt who want the freedom to spout hate > without being called on it. well said, I agree with every word. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C ⠈⠳⣄ Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed. That word is "Nazi". Nobody cares about their motives anymore. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:38:25PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >... > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:32:31PM +0100, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: > >Matthias Klumpp wrote: > >> Inclusivity and tolerance does not mean we have to accept every opinion as > >> equally valid. > > > >Equally valid -- no. > >Legitimate to express -- yes. > > > >I am really worried about the increasing trend (not specific to > >Debian) towards demanding that people who hold "dissenting" opinions > >be removed from their positions, excluded from the public debate, and > >even fired from their jobs, which if universally applied would make > >them unable to earn a living. That is what dictatorial regimes do -- > >often while maintaining a facade of freedom: "Nobody is being > >prevented from speaking, we're just making their life miserable > >because we don't like what they're saying". That's exactly what's > >happening with the current political correctness storm. Say one bad > >word and your life might be ruined. > > Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences. Discrimination based on opinion is a human rights violation equal to discrimination based on skin colour or gender. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Universal Declaration of Human Rights I do consider it deeply disturbing that many Open Source Code of Conducts are basically a rewording of this part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - but without protection against discrimination based on opinion. > If you say unpopular, controversial things then it's entirely > reasonable that people around you may evaluate you based on what > you've said. They may decide that they don't want to listen to you any > more. They may decide that they don't want to work with you any more, >... Your position reminds me of times in my home country when train drivers and postmen were fired by the democratic government just for being a member of a communist party. And of some other events a few decades earlier. cu Adrian Yesterday it was Donald Trump who was banned, and tomorrow, it could be somebody else who has a very different point of view. Bernie Sanders
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Gunnar Wolf wrote: Hello, I hope not to be too inflamatory with this. As you are surely aware, last week Richard Stallman was reinstated as part of the Board of Directors of the FSF. That is something deeply disturbing and confidence-shattering for many of us. If anything, it's about time to reinstate RMS. His demonization was unconscionable in the first place. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. In our lab, theory and practice are combined: nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Do we really have to go through this argument *again*? On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:32:31PM +0100, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: >Matthias Klumpp wrote: >> Inclusivity and tolerance does not mean we have to accept every opinion as >> equally valid. > >Equally valid -- no. >Legitimate to express -- yes. > >I am really worried about the increasing trend (not specific to >Debian) towards demanding that people who hold "dissenting" opinions >be removed from their positions, excluded from the public debate, and >even fired from their jobs, which if universally applied would make >them unable to earn a living. That is what dictatorial regimes do -- >often while maintaining a facade of freedom: "Nobody is being >prevented from speaking, we're just making their life miserable >because we don't like what they're saying". That's exactly what's >happening with the current political correctness storm. Say one bad >word and your life might be ruined. Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences. If you say unpopular, controversial things then it's entirely reasonable that people around you may evaluate you based on what you've said. They may decide that they don't want to listen to you any more. They may decide that they don't want to work with you any more, or have you in a position of power in a project. Words have power. Decrying this as a "political correctness storm" is a favourite argument of the morally bankrupt who want the freedom to spout hate without being called on it. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Who needs computer imagery when you've got Brian Blessed?
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Quoting Gerardo Ballabio (2021-03-24 12:32:31) > Matthias Klumpp wrote: > > Inclusivity and tolerance does not mean we have to accept every opinion as > > equally valid. > > Equally valid -- no. > Legitimate to express -- yes. > > I am really worried about the increasing trend (not specific to > Debian) towards demanding that people who hold "dissenting" opinions > be removed from their positions, excluded from the public debate, and > even fired from their jobs, which if universally applied would make > them unable to earn a living. That is what dictatorial regimes do -- > often while maintaining a facade of freedom: "Nobody is being > prevented from speaking, we're just making their life miserable > because we don't like what they're saying". That's exactly what's > happening with the current political correctness storm. Say one bad > word and your life might be ruined. > > Just yesterday I happened to read this quotation (on a Debian mailing > list!). I believe it is very much to the point: > "Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves > exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves > only the unanimity of the graveyard. -- Justice Roberts in 319 U.S. > 624 (1943)" > > What happened to "I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll give > my life to defend your right to say it"? Very well said, Gerardo - but there is a piece missing: Question is not if legitimate for RMS to have and share opinions. Question instead is if RMS mixes personal opinions with official roles. I sometimes sneeze. If I worked at a restaurant, then I served a role as a servant where it is absolutely unacceptable to sneeze. If I failed at understanding that sneezing while acting in my role as servant was unacceptable, then it would be reasonable that management fired me. And it would be sensible to sign a petition to have the board of the restaurant step down if they failed to fire me. Now imagine that I blogged about my sneezing, shared videos of sneezes in slow-motion, and argued in talk shows that my sneezing was special and could cure COVID-19, not spread it. The restaurant managers fired me, but later changed their mind and hired me back again. Should I be fired again, or the management be shamed? Depends on whether I sneezed at work, not if it was public knowledge that I was a sneezer and clueless about how viruses spread - those features have *nothing* to do with my ability to serve food at a restaurant (regardless of my very presence in the restaurant might make sone guests vomit because they remembered some slow-motion video they once saw, produced by me). - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Matthias Klumpp wrote: > Inclusivity and tolerance does not mean we have to accept every opinion as > equally valid. Equally valid -- no. Legitimate to express -- yes. I am really worried about the increasing trend (not specific to Debian) towards demanding that people who hold "dissenting" opinions be removed from their positions, excluded from the public debate, and even fired from their jobs, which if universally applied would make them unable to earn a living. That is what dictatorial regimes do -- often while maintaining a facade of freedom: "Nobody is being prevented from speaking, we're just making their life miserable because we don't like what they're saying". That's exactly what's happening with the current political correctness storm. Say one bad word and your life might be ruined. Just yesterday I happened to read this quotation (on a Debian mailing list!). I believe it is very much to the point: "Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. -- Justice Roberts in 319 U.S. 624 (1943)" What happened to "I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll give my life to defend your right to say it"? Gerardo
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Adam Borowski writes: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 04:56:39PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I hope not to be too inflamatory with this. As you are surely aware, >> last week Richard Stallman was reinstated as part of the Board of >> Directors of the FSF. That is something deeply disturbing and >> confidence-shattering for many of us. >> >> Some people have moved to action -- if nothing more, at least to >> express they are disgusted with the turn of events > > I'm also disgusted with such hatred towards the person who started the > whole "Free Software" thing, and personally did most of the work in the > early days. You seem very easily able to ascribe hatred to others, on the basis of no evidence, which makes me wonder whether hatred might be an emotion that you regularly feel yourself, and thus imagine it drives others. If that is the case, you have my sympathy, because I have only very occasionally managed to hate someone during my life, and I found it a thoroughly unpleasant experience. As it happens, I'm happy to give RMS the credit for the direction of quite a lot of my life, given that I read the GNU manifesto at around the time I left university, and the thinking therein was definitely a major driver in me setting up my business supporting Free Software. Despite the respect that inevitably goes with that, I just signed the letter[1], not out of hate, but rather in the hope that RMS will not again be placed in a position where he can further tarnish his reputation with his obnoxious opinions about things other than Free Software. Cheers, Phil. [1] https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On 24/03/21 4:26 am, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Hello, > > I hope not to be too inflamatory with this. As you are surely aware, > last week Richard Stallman was reinstated as part of the Board of > Directors of the FSF. That is something deeply disturbing and > confidence-shattering for many of us. > > Some people have moved to action -- if nothing more, at least to > express they are disgusted with the turn of events, and to say the > organizations they represent believe it to be detrimental to the FSF's > own image and projection into the future. Particularly, I mean the > following two pages, of very different nature: > > https://opensource.org/OSI_Response > https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ > > Now, as for my question: I thought repeatedly over the last couple of > days whether to start something like this in Debian... But, what would > it take for the project to issue a statement in this line? Would we > have to pass a GR? > > I am sure there is a precedent of a position statement being announced > without having a formal vote about it, but I cannot find it at the > moment. Sruthi, Jonathan: What is your take on this? If you were a DPL > today, would you feel OK issuing a position statement on behalf of the > project? In this particular instance, I personally agree with your views and I believe Debian should have a position statement. I think for position statements, we should have a GR and if I was a DPL, I would have proposed one by now. If there is a possibility to issue a statement without a formal vote, I would have initiated an initial discussion on -private and went ahead with a short statement first and a detailed version after the GR. > ... > (And yes, with this I am probably forcing you to disclose a position > on the subject... I'm sorry for that. But I think that, as a candidate > for the DPL position, knowing your position on the issue also makes > sense) I am more than happy to share my position on this. :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On 24/03/21 5:52 am, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > No human can do anything that makes them immune to criticism. This is > not a matter of hate, I actually doubt anyone who signed the petition > really "hates" RMS. > RMS without a doubt did a lot of good with starting the FSF and his > early work on Free Software and we owe him thanks for this, but he > *also* inflicted a lot of damage on his own organization, hurt a lot > of people, has shown to be unable to learn from mistakes and empathise > with people. There are a lot of examples of behavior that pretty much > everyone should deem inacceptable. > > So, even though RMS has done good things, he also is in a way the > worst person to have a leading role in the FSF. Think about the signal > we send if we as a community are okay with a person openly debating > whether sex with children is okay in a leading role at the top of the > organization that's promoting software freedom. I also very much > question whether his strong technical influence on GNU projects is a > good thing (he did in fact revert community-made decisions in the > past). > > It is also not like this issue is a new thing. He knows about his > behavior, has been told about it time and time again, and doesn't seem > to have any sensitivity at all as to how his actions and words impact > other people and reflect on his organization. Furthermore, the FSF > board itself, by putting him in a leading role again, also does seem > insensitive about that. > If you are just a guy with an opinion on the internet, the situation > *may* be different (but one could argue against that too), but if you > are in any position of leadership you have to be held accountable for > your actions and words and have to reflect on them. In other words, be > a good leader. RMS failed at that (and arguably as a human) and he > should be held accountable for his decisions. That hasn't happened, > really, and if it doesn't happen we are in a way saying that we don't > care if someone at the top of an organization misbehaves. > ... > It's not like it's a call to silence him forever. It is however a call > to remove him from a position he appears to be unfit for. Inclusivity > and tolerance does not mean we have to accept every opinion as equally > valid. +1 I think I could not have worded my thoughts better. > Cheers, >Matthias > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Regardless of what Debian decides to do, https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ is an open letter and you are welcome to sign it. Cheers, M. On 3/23/21 6:56 PM, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Hello, > > I hope not to be too inflamatory with this. As you are surely aware, > last week Richard Stallman was reinstated as part of the Board of > Directors of the FSF. That is something deeply disturbing and > confidence-shattering for many of us. > > Some people have moved to action -- if nothing more, at least to > express they are disgusted with the turn of events, and to say the > organizations they represent believe it to be detrimental to the FSF's > own image and projection into the future. Particularly, I mean the > following two pages, of very different nature: > > https://opensource.org/OSI_Response > https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ > > Now, as for my question: I thought repeatedly over the last couple of > days whether to start something like this in Debian... But, what would > it take for the project to issue a statement in this line? Would we > have to pass a GR? > > I am sure there is a precedent of a position statement being announced > without having a formal vote about it, but I cannot find it at the > moment. Sruthi, Jonathan: What is your take on this? If you were a DPL > today, would you feel OK issuing a position statement on behalf of the > project? > > (Of course, it is completely possible you don't share my views on > this... If so, lets make the answer hypothetical, about a "current > event" that could be happening, and for which expressing a message > with timeliness was important) > > (And yes, with this I am probably forcing you to disclose a position > on the subject... I'm sorry for that. But I think that, as a candidate > for the DPL position, knowing your position on the issue also makes > sense) >
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Am Mi., 24. März 2021 um 00:22 Uhr schrieb Adam Borowski : > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 04:56:39PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I hope not to be too inflamatory with this. As you are surely aware, > > last week Richard Stallman was reinstated as part of the Board of > > Directors of the FSF. That is something deeply disturbing and > > confidence-shattering for many of us. > > > > Some people have moved to action -- if nothing more, at least to > > express they are disgusted with the turn of events > > I'm also disgusted with such hatred towards the person who started the > whole "Free Software" thing, and personally did most of the work in the > early days. No human can do anything that makes them immune to criticism. This is not a matter of hate, I actually doubt anyone who signed the petition really "hates" RMS. RMS without a doubt did a lot of good with starting the FSF and his early work on Free Software and we owe him thanks for this, but he *also* inflicted a lot of damage on his own organization, hurt a lot of people, has shown to be unable to learn from mistakes and empathise with people. There are a lot of examples of behavior that pretty much everyone should deem inacceptable. So, even though RMS has done good things, he also is in a way the worst person to have a leading role in the FSF. Think about the signal we send if we as a community are okay with a person openly debating whether sex with children is okay in a leading role at the top of the organization that's promoting software freedom. I also very much question whether his strong technical influence on GNU projects is a good thing (he did in fact revert community-made decisions in the past). It is also not like this issue is a new thing. He knows about his behavior, has been told about it time and time again, and doesn't seem to have any sensitivity at all as to how his actions and words impact other people and reflect on his organization. Furthermore, the FSF board itself, by putting him in a leading role again, also does seem insensitive about that. If you are just a guy with an opinion on the internet, the situation *may* be different (but one could argue against that too), but if you are in any position of leadership you have to be held accountable for your actions and words and have to reflect on them. In other words, be a good leader. RMS failed at that (and arguably as a human) and he should be held accountable for his decisions. That hasn't happened, really, and if it doesn't happen we are in a way saying that we don't care if someone at the top of an organization misbehaves. > Even if you feel this way as a private person, it would be improper to push > for the Debian Project to turn against our pioneer this way. > > And, if you want to exclude the greatest hero we had, your calls for > "inclusivity" are a bold-faced lie. It's not like it's a call to silence him forever. It is however a call to remove him from a position he appears to be unfit for. Inclusivity and tolerance does not mean we have to accept every opinion as equally valid. It is also not like Debian has some kind of debt to pay to RMS - Debian is a community of people who definitely can have a nuanced opinion. Whether the project as a whole can easily put out a joint statement is indeed a tricky question in this particular case, I am very curious about that. Cheers, Matthias -- I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 6:57 PM Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Now, as for my question: I thought repeatedly over the last couple of > days whether to start something like this in Debian... But, what would > it take for the project to issue a statement in this line? Would we > have to pass a GR? Without commenting on the specific statement itself (and noting that I am not the Secretary and thus am not the arbiter of the constitution's interpretation): I think that this kind of statement would require a GR. The constitution specifically says that the power to "issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical... statements... [including] position statements about issues of the day" is a power reserved to the Developers as a whole by way of General Resolution (§4.1.5). I don't think this matter requires "urgent action" (§5.1.3), nor would an external statement be "leading discussions amongst Developers" (§5.1.9), powers the DPL possesses, and as it is a power explicitly granted to the Developers with our powers combined, "make any decision for whom noone else has responsibility" (§5.1.4) also seems inappropriate. Sincerely, -- Harlan Lieberman-Berg ~hlieberman
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:19:44AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 04:56:39PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > Hello, > > I hope not to be too inflamatory with this. As you are surely aware, > > last week Richard Stallman was reinstated as part of the Board of > > Directors of the FSF. That is something deeply disturbing and > > confidence-shattering for many of us. > > Some people have moved to action -- if nothing more, at least to > > express they are disgusted with the turn of events > I'm also disgusted with such hatred towards the person who started the > whole "Free Software" thing, and personally did most of the work in the > early days. Holding people accountable is not hatred, you floating point error. -- 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: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 04:56:39PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Hello, > > I hope not to be too inflamatory with this. As you are surely aware, > last week Richard Stallman was reinstated as part of the Board of > Directors of the FSF. That is something deeply disturbing and > confidence-shattering for many of us. > > Some people have moved to action -- if nothing more, at least to > express they are disgusted with the turn of events I'm also disgusted with such hatred towards the person who started the whole "Free Software" thing, and personally did most of the work in the early days. Even if you feel this way as a private person, it would be improper to push for the Debian Project to turn against our pioneer this way. And, if you want to exclude the greatest hero we had, your calls for "inclusivity" are a bold-faced lie. Meow. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Collisions shmolisions, let's see them find a collision or second ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ preimage for double rot13! ⠈⠳⣄
Willingness to share a position statement?
Hello, I hope not to be too inflamatory with this. As you are surely aware, last week Richard Stallman was reinstated as part of the Board of Directors of the FSF. That is something deeply disturbing and confidence-shattering for many of us. Some people have moved to action -- if nothing more, at least to express they are disgusted with the turn of events, and to say the organizations they represent believe it to be detrimental to the FSF's own image and projection into the future. Particularly, I mean the following two pages, of very different nature: https://opensource.org/OSI_Response https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ Now, as for my question: I thought repeatedly over the last couple of days whether to start something like this in Debian... But, what would it take for the project to issue a statement in this line? Would we have to pass a GR? I am sure there is a precedent of a position statement being announced without having a formal vote about it, but I cannot find it at the moment. Sruthi, Jonathan: What is your take on this? If you were a DPL today, would you feel OK issuing a position statement on behalf of the project? (Of course, it is completely possible you don't share my views on this... If so, lets make the answer hypothetical, about a "current event" that could be happening, and for which expressing a message with timeliness was important) (And yes, with this I am probably forcing you to disclose a position on the subject... I'm sorry for that. But I think that, as a candidate for the DPL position, knowing your position on the issue also makes sense) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
