Re: GNU Social Contract 1.0 - doubts

[Phil Maker]

Final answer to the Social Contract Question from Phil Maker

1. Since I've only got two options (:-)) I choose "I do not adhere" which
should be read as after
a bit of investigation and time wasting that this is a very bad idea.
Every rock you lift up has
something under it (who, why, how, ). I'm with RMS on this.

2. Feel free to publish my name as  a dissident. This is to suggest I
disagree is fine, but to suggest
I not adhere to some of your standards would be unfortunate. Using the
word dissident is fine.

Have a good one.




On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 9:14 AM Brian.Tiffin 
wrote:

>
> Phil Maker wrote:
> > Ludovic, ...,
> >
> > Re the Social Contract I'm sure greater minds than mine have looked at
> > it but I feel obliged to make some sort of response of which the next
> > paragraph is the only
> > important one.
> >
> > Given the two options "I endorse" or "I do not adhere to" may I be bold
> as
> > to choose
> > the third option, i.e. no thanks, not interested, neither answer is
> > acceptable to me.
> > Please be so kind as to record that somewhere and if you make any public
> > lists of
> > responses it would be nice to put that in.
> >
> >
> Totally agree with Phil on this one.  I voted no on even holding these
> discussions in a public area, months ago now.  Still don't want to take
> part.
>
> So, you'll find my imaginary non endorsement tucked inside my letter to
> Santa.
>
> If that sounds like an unkind swipe, it is.  I have no inclination to
> think that any, ANY, of these current modes of communication are well
> intended; responses will not be veiled as well intended or kind.  Akin
> to when you may have to slap someone in the face when they are risking
> themselves and others in a state of panic.  Sowing discontent with a
> polite smile is not good, it smacks of evil and willful ignorance.
>
> I'll add that I'd like to be removed from any further imaginary fair-use
> of the email address that was scraped from fencepost, Ludovic.  Make
> that removal real, please.  You were not given my permission for use of
> that information for that purpose.  And now you are given an explicit
> demand to cease and desist.  The fact that that information might happen
> to match what I may have exposed on gnu-misc-discuss and other lists is
> irrelevant.  Cease and desist usage for those imaginary purposes.
> Personally speaking, there is no i in my concept of team GNU.  There is
> "me", Richard Stallman and those he deems worthy of the Gnuisance moniker.
>
> This us versus them wedge is imaginary; the fallout and after effects
> are and will be real, and in my opinion, damagingly so.
>
> Have good, make real
>
>
>

-- 
Phil Maker
email: 
phoneemail:  -- email to phone (fastest)
phone: +61 (0)447 630 229

"Think on this doctrine, that reasoning beings were created for one
another's sake; that to be patient is a branch of justice, and that men sin
without intending it" -- Marcus Aurelius

Re: GNU Social Contract 1.0: "level of experience" rhetoric

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-14 15:58, Phil Maker wrote:

Ludovic, ...,

Re the Social Contract I'm sure greater minds than mine have looked at
it but I feel obliged to make some sort of response of which the next 
paragraph is the only

important one.


Here is a problem:

  "[The GNU Project] welcomes all contributors, regardless of their 
gender,
   ethnicity, sexual orientation, level of experience, or any other 
personal

   ^^^
  characteristics."

Firstly, as a consumer of GNU programs, I expect that software to be
developed and maintained by experts who have a high level of experience.

I've never been employed in any software organization in which anyone
could just walk in from the street and start coding. Commercial software
shops don't just take anyone; why would a free software project be
any different?

The GNU project is not an appropriate vehicle for inexperienced people
who are trying to stuff their resumes.  Also, it is not some sort of 
coding

asylum for industry rejects.

Secondly, where is the problem? Are there documented instances where
someone submitted a quality patch to a GNU project, but was instead
interrogated about their level of experience and consequently rejected?

However, whereas that is fine for patches coming in from outsiders,
the gatekeepers who control what goes in better have some combination
of talent and experience.

People with no talent or experience are not a protected class; it's
not discrimination to keep them out of projects.

This kind of "regardless of level of experience" nonsense has no place
anywhere in an organization like GNU.

Re: avoiding the bias in vocabulary

[Daniel Pocock]

On 15/02/2020 21:11, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
> On 2020-02-15 09:56, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> There are a lot of words used in various discussions today that have
>> some bias.
>>
>> For example, the word /ban/ is quite disparaging to the victim.  Simply
>> using the word continues the bias.
> 
> Note that this word is quite central in the "Code of Conduct" proposed
> on the
> disruptive, deceptive "gnu.tools" site.
> 
> There's gonna be witch hunts if these brown shirt scoundrels have their
> way.

Using the word ban in a formal document is incredibly immature.

It implies that this is more like a WhatsApp group than an organization
of professionals.

Regards,

Daniel

Re: avoiding the bias in vocabulary

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-15 09:56, Daniel Pocock wrote:

There are a lot of words used in various discussions today that have
some bias.

For example, the word /ban/ is quite disparaging to the victim.  Simply
using the word continues the bias.


Note that this word is quite central in the "Code of Conduct" proposed 
on the

disruptive, deceptive "gnu.tools" site.

There's gonna be witch hunts if these brown shirt scoundrels have their 
way.

Re: GNU Social Contract 1.0 - doubts

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-15 10:10, Andreas Enge wrote:
thanks for thinking about the options and sharing your opinion! 
Speaking

strictly logically, a third option is not possible


"If you're not with us, you're against us, comrade."

You may wanna brush up on logic, there, buddy.

It's quite a broad field, you know; there is a lot more
to it than first order predicates that have only
true and false values.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-14 17:33, Mark Wielaard wrote:

The goal of the GNU Social Contract is to state the core values
GNU maintainers who have endorsed it are committed to uphold. It
is both an agreement among us, GNU contributors, and a pledge to
the broader free software community.


You and your cohorts are not adequately explaining this:

What is the difference between this document and the content of the
GNU licenses (and numerous other materials that speak to user freedoms),
GNU Coding Standards and the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

If someone endorses the document, what from the above are they
rejecting, if anything?


Additionally, we think it can be a first step towards formalizing
a transparent and collective governance of the GNU Project.


How so? What sentences in the the document speak to governance?

If your goal is to replace the governance, then why doen't your
website say that, and have documents that address themselves to
specific proposals regarding governance?

Document your proposed org chart, detailing who is to be responsible
foir what, and the flow of decision making and so on.

Instead of some half-assed indirection through some social contract
nonsense.

If you want transparency, start by being transparent.


This initiative is not supported by Richard Stallman.


Why would anyone support an unnecessary initiative?

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Andreas Enge]

Hello Andreas (R.),

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:14:32PM +0100, Andreas R. wrote:
> Could you clarify what this cut-off date of February the 24th means? What 
> happens afterwards? 

afterwards we know who endorses and who does not :-)

> Since there is no reason for this bloc not to exist, even within
> the GNU project, there should be no reason for any sort of cut-off date.
> In fact, keeping endorsement open-ended might be exactly the
> legitimate tool for influencing governance, since maintainers
> within the block should get, by their own projections, more contributors
> and make development easier. This should logically lead to a situation
> where over time the amount of maintainers and contributors inside the bloc 
> would grow up to a point where where any leadership question becomes moot.

I agree with your analysis that trying to form a stronger GNU community
should (and probaby will) be an open-ended process, requiring ongoing efforts
with all interested people. And maybe people who are not interested in the
GNU Social Contract now might change their mind later and should get an
opportunity to join. At the same time, we wanted to have a clearly defined
process with a given timeline, so that at its end we know where we stand,
and who "we" are at this point in time. The idea is not to bug maintainers
indefinitely about endorsement, but to inform them about the initiative and
to give them a reasonable time frame to make up their mind for the time being.

Andreas (E.)

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 15.02.2020 20:02, Andreas Enge wrote:

It is an agreement between those who endorse it, evidently. I am not presuming
anything else. It is you who write "all GNU contributors", not me.


Saying "us, GNU contributors" is all too easily taken to imply that you 
represent all GNU contributors. Why don't you choose a better, more 
specific term, as has been suggested multiple times?


I could call it "GNU SJW WG" (in jest, mostly), but *any* name would do, 
that would somehow differentiate the signatories from the whole project.


Preferably in a way that doesn't imply that the rest of the project are 
terrible people.

Re: GNU Social Contract 1.0 - doubts

[Andreas Enge]

Hello Phil,

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 09:28:56AM +0930, Phil Maker wrote:
> Given the two options "I endorse" or "I do not adhere to" may I be bold as to
> choose
> the third option, i.e. no thanks, not interested, neither answer is acceptable
> to me.

thanks for thinking about the options and sharing your opinion! Speaking
strictly logically, a third option is not possible - but of course people
may not feel strongly either way, so socially speaking, there are probably
tons of options (including differentiated opinions on the different points
of the GNU Social Contract, supporting some points, but not others). I do
not think, however, that we should record all potential replies in detail,
as this would just blur everything. I would say that if you do not support
any of the two options, then just do not reply and do not appear under any
of them in the wiki.

Andreas

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Daniel Pocock]

On 14/02/2020 18:03, Andreas Enge wrote:

> We have invited all GNU maintainers to send a message until February 24,
> the end of the endorsement period, to endorse this version 1.0 of the
> GNU Social Contract, or to declare they do not wish to adhere to it.

You appear to be presenting that as a binary decision.

The way you write "do not wish to adhere to it", you appear to be
implying that people who don't explicitly and publicly endorse it are
therefore against it.

There are many people who may already be quite comfortable with some or
all of the social contract but they don't want to publicly endorse it in
its current form.

A situation where people have to choose one side or the other is
basically a split or a fork of the community.  If that is what you want,
please don't hide behind the social contract, why not just create a gnu
group with a gnu name and ask everybody who wants a social contract to
resign from GNU and join your group instead?

Maybe you could call your new group "GNU Europe", taking inspiration
from the business model of the "FSF Europe" domain squatters?

Personally, I'm not speaking for or against your social contract.  My
concern is with the process.

Regards,

Daniel

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Andreas Enge]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 07:11:31PM +0200, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> On 14.02.2020 20:03, Andreas Enge wrote:
> > It is both an agreement among us, GNU contributors
> 
> It's an agreement between select GNU maintainers.
> Why do you presume to speak for all GNU contributors? Or even a majority of
> us?

It is an agreement between those who endorse it, evidently. I am not presuming
anything else. It is you who write "all GNU contributors", not me.

Andreas

gnu social construct 1.0 endorsement

[Samuel Thibault]

Hello,

I am co-maintainer of GNU Hurd.  I endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social
Contract proposed at .

Samuel


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

avoiding the bias in vocabulary

[Daniel Pocock]

There are a lot of words used in various discussions today that have
some bias.

For example, the word /ban/ is quite disparaging to the victim.  Simply
using the word continues the bias.

>From a technical perspective, banning somebody from a mailing list and
censoring somebody on a mailing list are both achieved by clicking the
same button.

Use the word ban, it leaves a lingering feeling that the volunteer may
have done something questionable.

Use the word censor, it implies the organization is avoiding some
questions.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 15.02.2020 3:33, Mark Wielaard wrote:

 This initiative is not supported by Richard Stallman.
 Nevertheless, we consider it a legitimate action by and for GNU
 maintainers to collectively define the core values we believe GNU
 stands for.


That makes it sound like Richard is the sole contrarian, and you five 
(or however many) represent all the "good guys" GNU maintainers who are 
endorsing this document.


I get that there is an idea floating around that maybe RMS is not great 
at "social stuff", but what you've demonstrated here, probably with good 
intentions, is the Elephant in a China Shop approach to politics that 
befits a regular engineer (in a Dilbert sense).


Whereas Richard's views on this and related subjects have been 
repeatedly demonstrated to be quite refined, apparently over decades of 
dealing with them.

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 14.02.2020 20:03, Andreas Enge wrote:

It is both an agreement among us, GNU contributors


It's an agreement between select GNU maintainers.

Why do you presume to speak for all GNU contributors? Or even a majority 
of us?

Re: gnu social construct 1.0 endorsement

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Samuel,

On Sat, 2020-02-15 at 07:49 -0800, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> I am co-maintainer of GNU Hurd.  I endorse version 1.0 of
> the GNU Social Contract proposed at
> .

Thanks for your support. You have been added to


Cheers,

Mark

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Andreas R.]

Hi Andreas,

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 07:03:07PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
> 
> We have invited all GNU maintainers to send a message until February 24,
> the end of the endorsement period, 

Could you clarify what this cut-off date of February the 24th means? What 
happens afterwards? 

As things are there is a bloc of of GNU maintainers that will voluntarily
hold themselves to different standards than required by the GNU
project. These bloc-internal standards are fortunately not incompatible with the
current requirements of the GNU project, so there is no conflict in
that regard, nor any need for an ultimatum.

To push for endorsement it has been alleged that:
- the GNU project is faltering
- certain maintainers preclude possible contributors from participating.

Since there is no reason for this bloc not to exist, even within
the GNU project, there should be no reason for any sort of cut-off date.
In fact, keeping endorsement open-ended might be exactly the
legitimate tool for influencing governance, since maintainers
within the block should get, by their own projections, more contributors
and make development easier. This should logically lead to a situation
where over time the amount of maintainers and contributors inside the bloc 
would grow up to a point where where any leadership question becomes moot.

The thing currently working against the formalisation of the bloc
is a good name for the faction. I'm afraid "gnu.tools", with ".tools"
being a top level domain will be considered too close to gnu itself 
to fairly represent what is only a subset of GNU maintainers.

I'm sure the current gnu.tools leadership is open to discussion on
the naming matter and can come up with a more amiable identifier to
represent their movement that would be  acceptable to all parties.

thanks,
Andreas R.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   This initiative is not supported by Richard Stallman.

That is quite false, you're free to do any kind of initiatives you
wish, so it is quite the opposite.  What the GNU project won't do is
to require volunteers to agree to any kind of document similar to
this.

So why not add the offical stance of the GNU project, verbatim,
instead of misrepresenting the GNU project in this manner?


Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:26:51 -0500
From: "Richard Stallman (Chief GNUisance)" 
To: r...@gnu.org
Subject: What's GNU -- and what's not

The GNU Project is sending this message to each GNU package 
maintainer.

You may have recently received an email asking you to review a
document titled "GNU Social Contract" and then to endorse it or reject
it.  It does not entirely accord with the GNU Project's views.  It was
created by some GNU participants who are trying to push changes
on the GNU Project.

The message also proposed to "define" what it means to be a "member of
GNU", and cited a web page presented as a "wiki for GNU maintainers",
It may have given the impression that they were doing all those things
on behalf of the GNU Project.  That is not the case.  The document, 
the
wiki, and the proposed idea of "members" have no standing in the GNU
Project, which is not considering such steps.  The use of a domain not
affiliated with GNU reflects this fact.

GNU package maintainers have committed to do work to maintain and add
to the GNU system, but not anything beyond that.  We have never
pressed contributors to endorse the GNU Project philosophy, or any
other philosophical views, because people are welcome to contribute to
GNU regardless of their views.

To change that -- to impose such requirements -- would be radical,
gratuitous, and divisive, so the GNU Project is not entertaining the
idea.  Likewise, we will not ask package maintainers to be "members"
instead of volunteers.  If you contribute to GNU, you are already a
member of the GNU community.

The wiki that they set up "for GNU maintainers" represents them, not
the GNU Project.  People are always free to publish what they think
the GNU Project should do, but should not presume it will be accepted
or followed by the GNU Project.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Andreas Enge]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 05:27:17AM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Since you are not the head of the GNU project, it is not in your
> capacity to decide what the values of the GNU project are.  

Well, being just one out of, I think, a few hundred GNU maintainers and many
more contributors, I can of course not "decide" by myself what the values of
the GNU Project are. But the process of reaching this document has been open
and collective, so that we hope that it reflects a broader consensus than
just individual opinions. And the endorsement period is also there to gauge
whether the document strikes a more general chord.

Andreas

Re: Moderation

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:00:41PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> To make matters worse, my own posts are moderated and I’ve seen a 2- to
> 3-day delay before they’d reach the mailing list lately.  That makes it
> hard for me to participate.
> 
> Meanwhile, all the abuse email is getting through unmoderated AFAICS
> (i.e., there’s no delay between their ‘Date’ header and the time I
> receive them.)

I am seeing the same thing. My own posts seem to take multiple days to
arrive on the list. While others seem to only have a short delay. If
there is anything I can do to help with the moderation please let me
know.

Thanks,

Mark

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Alfred,

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:42:23PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Please rename the non-GNU social edict to something that else, since
> it does not reflect the stance of the GNU project.  You're perfectly
> free to host such a document, but is is untrue to say that this is a
> document supported by the GNU project.

Thanks for your feedback. I have added a little bit of background to
 that
hopefully clarifies the situation:

The goal of the GNU Social Contract is to state the core values
GNU maintainers who have endorsed it are committed to uphold. It
is both an agreement among us, GNU contributors, and a pledge to
the broader free software community.

Additionally, we think it can be a first step towards formalizing
a transparent and collective governance of the GNU Project.

This initiative is not supported by Richard Stallman.
Nevertheless, we consider it a legitimate action by and for GNU
maintainers to collectively define the core values we believe GNU
stands for.

Cheers,

Mark

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

While GNU maintainers and volunteers are free to endorse anything they
want, this is not a document that is affiliated with the GNU project.

I suggest everyone to read what the GNU project stance is:

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:26:51 -0500
From: "Richard Stallman (Chief GNUisance)" 
To: r...@gnu.org
Subject: What's GNU -- and what's not

The GNU Project is sending this message to each GNU package 
maintainer.

You may have recently received an email asking you to review a
document titled "GNU Social Contract" and then to endorse it or reject
it.  It does not entirely accord with the GNU Project's views.  It was
created by some GNU participants who are trying to push changes
on the GNU Project.

The message also proposed to "define" what it means to be a "member of
GNU", and cited a web page presented as a "wiki for GNU maintainers",
It may have given the impression that they were doing all those things
on behalf of the GNU Project.  That is not the case.  The document, 
the
wiki, and the proposed idea of "members" have no standing in the GNU
Project, which is not considering such steps.  The use of a domain not
affiliated with GNU reflects this fact.

GNU package maintainers have committed to do work to maintain and add
to the GNU system, but not anything beyond that.  We have never
pressed contributors to endorse the GNU Project philosophy, or any
other philosophical views, because people are welcome to contribute to
GNU regardless of their views.

To change that -- to impose such requirements -- would be radical,
gratuitous, and divisive, so the GNU Project is not entertaining the
idea.  Likewise, we will not ask package maintainers to be "members"
instead of volunteers.  If you contribute to GNU, you are already a
member of the GNU community.

The wiki that they set up "for GNU maintainers" represents them, not
the GNU Project.  People are always free to publish what they think
the GNU Project should do, but should not presume it will be accepted
or followed by the GNU Project.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   just a public heads-up on progress on the GNU Social Contract. Following
   our initially announced timeline, we had put online the first draft at the
   end of January. 

The GNU project has rejected the idea of a social contract.  Can you
please rename it so to stop causing confusion?  Seeing that this does
not reflect what offical stance of the GNU project.

   The goal of the document is to formulate a common core set
   of values for the GNU Project, on which we can jointly build to form a
   stronger community. It is both an agreement among us, GNU contributors, and
   a pledge to the broader free software community. Additionally, we think it
   can be a first step towards formalising a transparent and collective
   governance of the GNU Project.

Since you are not the head of the GNU project, it is not in your
capacity to decide what the values of the GNU project are.  

That you have resorted to unethical behaviour by harvesting private
information, spreading falsehoods and that we haven't added this to
the GNU project web site should make that quite clear.

Re: gnu social construct 1.0 endorsement

[John Darrington]

There is no such thing as the "GNU Social Contract".   The
text to which you refer has no affiliation to GNU, is not
a contract in any legal nor even colloquaial sense of the word.
Furthermore it tries to impose upon people  a very anti-social regime.

J'


On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:25:33PM -0700, Mark Galassi wrote:
> 
> I am the founder and co-maintainer of the GNU Scientific Library, and of
> Dominion, and I am GNU contributor since 1985.  I endorse version 1.0 of
> the GNU Social Contract, available at
> .
> 
> Mark Galassi
> 

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

GCC has a steering committee apointed by the head of the GNU project,
not the FSF.  The FSF isn't responsible for GCC.  

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi David,

On Fri, 2020-02-14 at 09:31 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: 
> I, a maintainer of GCC [1], endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social
> Contract, available at .

Thanks for your support. GCC has an FSF appointed steering committee
 which is what we would
traditionally call the official GNU maintainers for a GNU package.
But given that GCC is so big they delegate responsibility to
maintainers for larger subsystems/packages, of which you are one.
I have created a special section on
 to list
GNU community members like yourself who have endorsed the GNU
Social Contract.

Cheers,

Mark

GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Andreas Enge]

Hello all,

just a public heads-up on progress on the GNU Social Contract. Following
our initially announced timeline, we had put online the first draft at the
end of January. The goal of the document is to formulate a common core set
of values for the GNU Project, on which we can jointly build to form a
stronger community. It is both an agreement among us, GNU contributors, and
a pledge to the broader free software community. Additionally, we think it
can be a first step towards formalising a transparent and collective
governance of the GNU Project.

We received a number of questions and suggestions on the first draft of the
document, witnesses to our collective approach to shaping a document that
can help us go forward together. We discussed all the input with great
care; it is documented, together with the adopted resolutions, at:
  https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback

The result of all this is version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, see
  https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract

We believe that the outcome is an even snappier document, which lays out
our common foundations even more clearly, and thank everyone of you who
contributed to improving it.

We have invited all GNU maintainers to send a message until February 24,
the end of the endorsement period, to endorse this version 1.0 of the
GNU Social Contract, or to declare they do not wish to adhere to it.
The current status is maintained at:
  https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract-endorsement

Happy “I Love Free Software” day, and thank you for supporting GNU!

Andreas

Re: gnu social construct 1.0 endorsement

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Mark,

On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 12:25 -0700, Mark Galassi wrote:
> I am the founder and co-maintainer of the GNU Scientific Library, and of
> Dominion, and I am GNU contributor since 1985.  I endorse version 1.0 of
> the GNU Social Contract, available at
> .

Thanks for your support. You have been added to <
https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract-endorsement>

Cheers,

Mark

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] security alert... worth noting

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le vendredi 14 février 2020, 20:52:06 CET Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) a 
écrit :
> Not everyone has that control over their mail, unfortunately.

You can still filter client-side.  Most clients do that, and if your mail-
reading software is free, it is easy to implement.  Either you do that per 
list-id.  Either you do that by marking it as spam, letting spamassassin 
and other bayesianly deduce other mail headers this is spam.  I use KMail 
which apparently can do that (deduce if a mail is spam or not based on its 
content, automatically, with nothing manual except marking what is a spam 
or not), and with Gnus and emacs you can easily filter lists.

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] about the GNU promise

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le jeudi 13 février 2020, 18:43:33 CET Ruben Safir a écrit :
> On 2/12/20 12:54 AM, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> > Personal attacks weaken your argument and are not appropriate for this
> > list.
> 
> No censorship does that.

Censorship doesn’t work since you circumvent it by using several mail and 
even setting up another mailing list.  So nope, you still weakening it 
yourself, even without censorship (because you were weakening it before 
censorship happened, and even whene there wasn’t), or without working 
censorship.

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] What's GNU -- and what's not

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Don’t use capslocks.  I mean, don’t avoid to use them while you mean them.  
But if you *feel* you mean and thus need them, just wait a little, calm 
down, do something else, write your thing, and only when you becomes 
getting indifferent enough about what you wrote to be able to remove 
capslocks without feeling you’re lying, do that, maybe lower the tone and 
increase the kindness, and then send.

Le samedi 8 février 2020, 17:24:35 CET Carlo Wood a écrit :
> You seem very well aware that staying polite and keeping a
> smile at all times is very important for this goal.

Oh now that recalls me sealioning [0], something described as a form of 
trolling I recently discovered (but iirc it was used against rms, saying 
criticizing rms led to sealioning, I think)… now maybe it also applies in 
the other direction?

[0] http://wondermark.com/1k62/

But there are two things to keep in mind when speaking about sealioning: 
“sufficient ignorance/stupidity never can be distinguished from trolling” 
and the Hanlon’s razor: “never explain by malice what can be explained by 
incompetence/stubborness/stupidity/etc.” (it’s simply okham’s razor 
applied to the hypothesis of presence of will).  This is important to keep 
being inclusive and not just ignore or expell people out of unprovable 
supposition, or unbased feelings.  From any side.

Ludo could simply be really naive and not remark why his tone, even to 
people who could like the concept of democracy anywhere, cause distrust.  
Just as people defending rms could not understand why… well I don’t 
understand anyway and I’m tired.  Let’s forget this and just work at what 
we can when we can…

> At the same time you make use of the emotions that this hostile
> takeover causes among a few people to make THEM look like fools
> (since they are NOT keeping their emotions in check). This is,
> obviously, because they have a lot to lose if you win this battle,
> while you are not running any risk since you have nothing to lose,
> only to gain.

Well, in current state of affairs, he could loose maintainership… or rather 
not, I hope, because rms won’t decide that over such actions (he simply 
spoke out stuff and set up a website, doesn’t harm stuff under git or 
whatever technical about guile/guix yet, he has his free speech he can use 
however well or bad he wants), otherwise that would be somehow a win for 
such ideas.

> The fact that bring all of this under the pretense of improving
> the GNU organization - instead of talking about what your real
> goals are - proves to me that you manipulative.

Actually “improving” is indeed really general and thus create distrust, 
yet I think the “real goals” has been already stated “democracy” so that 
to get rid of rms, because some people are tired of him or don’t like him.  
And getting rid of such a historical figure can’t call for replacement, so  
only a less impersonated (thus hopefully maybe less politically 
centralized) power could do anyway.

Let’s note that rms already conceded that something should be worked upon 
anyway so that we keep stuff running once he’s dead (be that in how long 
possible, but even if we find a way around curing oldening itself, we’re 
never 100% safe from an accident).  But I’m unsure simply getting a 
selection of maintainers who would have declared to agree with free-
software (along with, btw, as do the “social contract”, ask to warrant 
upholding ambitious wide goals and reject certain people upon selected 
behaviors), without any other technical baggage or experience, is good.

Either technical experience is important, and then we already have some 
comitees and groups within GNU that likely would have a role in GNU 
governance in a post-rms world, either it’s not, and then why only 
maintainer? why not any member of FSF(E|LA|etc.)? but then it becomes a 
mess.

> I've seen this type of thing before; lots of "political" babble
> and arguments like "how can it be bad when more people get to
> have a say in the matter?" after which those people nod and "vote"
> yeah. Then suddenly you are the sole active members of a committee
> that will take things a step further.

Saddly, yes, it most of time works like that.  You need traction for 
democracy, and contradiction, above all.  But until then I saw more people 
ignoring each other than compromises.

And you know what? that really looks like GNU, very GNU, really GNU.  No 
compromises. never.  No real communication.  Ludo&al, by their way of 
trying to kick rms out, are showing to be at least somehow pretty similar 
to him, even to what they may criticize of him.  It doesn’t surprise me.  
For some reason people within GNU, without having concerted, without 
having formulated it even once, without requiring it in any manner, ends 
being really similar people.

I take that as a compliment for rms.  And for them.  And for me.  And for 
many people I know there.  Now find a way to formalize that and to overcome 
that so to be able to actually wor

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] State of the GNUnion 2020

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le mercredi 12 février 2020, 19:13:12 CET Eli Zaretskii a écrit :
> I could also offer a different measure of the health of GNU: look at
> the projects that are at the base of any OS: GCC, glibc, Binutils,
> GDB, etc.

Btw how’s glibc? fine? yes? no? how are you?

Sometimes I feel like we should ask “how are you” to packages and computer 
programs, and listen to them.
 
> And then we have Guile, whose development pace leaves a lot to be
> desired, if we really want it to become the GNU standard extension
> languages.  Strangely, the Guile developers, including Andy Wingo,
> don't seem to do anything about that.  There are no discussions about
> making the project more active, none at all.  Does that mean the Guile
> level of activity is OK with Andy?  If so, how does that live in peace
> with the seemingly grave outlook for the rest of GNU?

Oh please yes! Scheme is a so beautiful language.  It deserves better.  I 
wished it could have a better place inside GNU.  But instead it keeps 
developing on its own side instead of linking with anything…

At some point someone introduced some confusion by saying “GNU should have 
done the right thing and dubbed Racket as officiel GNU extension language”.  
Well, Guile has an originally an history of minimalism and lightness so 
that to be used to extend… though I don’t feel it anymore… and it is GNU… 
and it is easily interfacable with C… so I should have been able to defend 
it in my mind…  But however, with the way guile grows nowadays, I could do 
nothing but realize that, in the current state of affairs, yes, I would 
have been happy if there was racket instead of guile…

I MEAN THEY GOT FUNCTIONAL DRAWING, WE NEED THAT INTO GIMP/GTK/whatever

> Last, but not least: I'm not at all sure that statistics of the kind
> we were presented, which is based on various measures of package
> activity, tells anything about "the health of GNU", because GNU, at
> least as I understand that term, has almost nothing to do with
> development activity of GNU packages.  The development activity is
> determined solely by the project's development team and its abilities
> to draw contributions and find worthy development goals.  GNU as an
> organization doesn't have any impact on that, because they almost
> never interfere into these matters (unless there's some sort of
> scandal, which happens only very rarely).

Actually, as gender metrics and other, I think this has a lot to do with 
outside world.  Maybe with free-software, or IT, as a whole.  As I saw 
some peeks and linear growth and decrease… I saw something interesting, 
but wouldn’t link that with GNU.

I think the life of how Canonical, Apple, Google, Microsoft and RedHat 
develop have more influence on such metrics than anything related to GNU or 
rms.  If one day microsoft decide to free C#/.NET, or Apple to switch to 
LLVM, or Canonical to change init system, start or abandon a new frontend 
system, google to change tech or language, redhat to change anything to 
the way they contribute GNOME… that sure will change a lot.

And that is driven by money.

But we keep talking complaining about opinions and talking about politics 
without talking about money.  There is a problem.  This is not serious.  
If you want to speak about project health, development efforts, etc. at 
some time you’ll need to speak about who contributes on their free time 
and who does as a salaree, who is paid, how many people, which who’s 
money, etc.

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Cause for bans

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le jeudi 6 février 2020, 10:51:24 CET Ludovic Courtès a écrit :
> John Darrington  skribis:
>>
> The draft of the Social Contract at
>  does not mention how people
> should be “expelled” if they “disagree”.  On the contrary: it’s about
> building a shared understanding of what some (hopefully most!) of us
> commit to as members of the Project.

a “contract” is something you sign, agree upon, or accept.  To be useful, 
either you’re gonna make it mandatory (for anything), like becoming a 
maintainer (so then it would be actually maybe “less worse” (in some 
sense) but inconsistant: old maintainers there before it was “accepted” 
(it won’t) could stay, and new one couldn’t join), either to discriminate 
people in any way according their views.

Discriminating, is, imho, something that can be productive and useful.  
But in a political or so organization (like FSF for instance: it could be 
meaningful to ask FSF members, when they join, to assess they’re in favor 
of free-software movement’s ideals). Not in a technical project like GNU.  
In the humanist (and you don’t need to be) sense, anyone should be able to 
contribute because it is mere work of the mind, worked upon 
internationally.

> > I think that banning such people would make us guilty of the same
> > crimes that they have committed.
> 
> Please do not misrepresent this initiative.  It’s about making GNU
> stronger; you may disagree with the approach, but that doesn’t make it a
> “crime” in any sense of the word.

“crime” is a legal and hard word, its broader, common and metaphorical 
sense is better encompassed by “bad” (the substantive, like in “their 
bads”) or anything alike (but it doesn’t sound like really high language).

However, calling for people to be expelled (as it has been for rms) is 
encompassed by what he says “seeking to expell people” as one document of 
yours did, as well by one or several likely goal for a such “contract”.  

Then the “crime” wouldn’t be the act, but the promotion of that act 
(though that last act could also be considered as such)… you can interpret 
that in two ways: either expelling is the crime we ought not to reproduce, 
but nobody was (yet) expelled, so we just mean we won’t promote crimes we 
accuse you of calling for.  Either the crime is directly to call for such 
expulsion.  And then the crime has already been committed by both the 
authors and the people criticizing them, then it would be more like 
“you’re doing the same crime, we won’t do as well [please apologize]”.

> I would like us to move forward: what do you think GNU will lose or gain
> as a project if its members endorse a document stating its core values?

Members.

Because currently they’re “volunteers” first and foremost, and “members” 
only as a state of fact resulting of it.  Several of them already 
publictly claimed they weren’t free-software supported, and even used and 
enjoyed proprietary software.

So two possibilites: first, they don’t sign it, so what you say either 
don’t realize (its members didn’t sign it), either they’re not members 
anymore (and we’ve lost volunteers) ; second, they do, so they lie, your 
document becomes a lie, and a tool of deception or at least of dishonesty, 
like it is already common in pretty much all political organizations (and 
GNU, thankfully, is not one).  I think this is a fair amount of why some 
people aggressively reacts to it :/ they feel the potential of dishonesty 
that could come from a such thing.

> What would you add or remove to the values currently listed in the
> draft?

Either remove everything, either add everything, and make that an FSF 
thing, not a GNU one.

> What other initiatives would you propose to improve cohesion?

Stop requiring stuff from maintainers.  Maybe, if you’re so eager to do 
democracy, inclusion, feedback, etc. you should just join a GLUG or a FFDN 
ISP (if you don’t already), and go vote and do politics there and within 
FSF, propose votes, make polls, possibly about technical stuff, and get 
back to GNU, at least for information.  That’d be more relevant.

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] What's GNU -- and what's not

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le lundi 10 février 2020, 00:18:30 CET Mark Wielaard a écrit :
> Hi Frederico,
> 
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 01:48:28AM +0200, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> > I'd like to stress a passage which made me think quite a bit:
> > > We have never
> > > pressed contributors to endorse the GNU Project philosophy, or any
> > > other philosophical views, because people are welcome to contribute
> > > to
> > > GNU regardless of their views.
> > > 
> > > To change that -- to impose such requirements -- would be radical,
> > > gratuitous, and divisive,
> > 
> > What holds the project together is indeed something else. One can
> > debate what qualifies as "views" and whether radical changes are
> > necessary, but personally I appreciate being reminded to be careful
> > about this point.
> > 
> > I've tried to think of analogues outside the usual communities we
> > usually have in mind. In my home town there is a refectory run by
> > Franciscans: I may be mistaken, but if you volunteer there you're not
> > even asked whether you're a Catholic, let alone asked to join
> > functions if you don't want. I understand one may consider that a
> > more menial task, less likely to be influenced by philosophical
> > thoughts than what one might code in their software, but it's just a
> > comparison, not a model.
> 
> It is a nice comparison. This is what the GNU Social Contract tries to
> capture with "The GNU Project welcomes contributions from all and
> everyone". Even from people not endorsing all views of the GNU
> project. As long as they respect our policies of course. It would be
> good to have that added in a more explicit way. Others have also
> suggested to add an explanation like that.

You raise an interesting point.  If the Social contracts at the same time 
support free software, and welcomes everybody… and as you say it welcomes 
even those who don’t, so who didn’t signed it… so… what is it for?

rms said in the past that it didn’t align with GNU’s views, and you tried 
to search and ask what in its content what would not… but have you 
considered its mere *existence* is that?

Because GNU’s view may be not to discriminate in any way by any contract.