Re: Endorsing the GNU social contract

[Jean Louis]

* Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro  [2020-04-11 07:38]:
> Hello Mark,
> 
> Mark Wielaard  writes:
> 
> > Thanks for your support. You have been added to
> > 
> 
> I think it’d be helpful to add a section for listing GNU maintainers who
> voice their /rejection/ of the document and another for maintainers who
> voice their /neutrality/, alongside the current list of the ones who /do
> endorse/ it.
> 
> This way we can get a better picture of how things stand now
> community-wise.[1]

Best for them, maintainers of non-GNU domain, named wiki.gnu.tools is
to handle their issues on their own website, in their own mailing
lists, as that is not subject for this mailing list. 

Jean

Re: Endorsing the GNU social contract

[Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro]

Hello Mark,

Mark Wielaard  writes:

> Thanks for your support. You have been added to
> 

I think it’d be helpful to add a section for listing GNU maintainers who
voice their /rejection/ of the document and another for maintainers who
voice their /neutrality/, alongside the current list of the ones who /do
endorse/ it.

This way we can get a better picture of how things stand now
community-wise.[1]


Footnotes: 

[1] By applying the very idea promoted to itself, in a meta-circular
analysis (kind of).

-- 
Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro (oitofelix) [0x28D618AF]



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Jean Louis]

* Mark Wielaard  [2020-02-29 02:39]:
> Of course the FSF is involved in GNU governance. They raise money in
> the name of GNU, we assign copyright to the FSF, they hold all our
> assets, and they keep lists of people who may use those resources for
> which purposes.

First there was RMS, then GNU, then FSF.

Raising money in the name of GNU is quite welcome by anybody, you are
also free to raise money in the name of GNU, why not, GNU project will
gladly accept donations. That does not relate to any governance.

Assigning copyrights to FSF is quite a good protection that is
expected to last over longer periods of time. Foundations as FSF are
founded for the reason to carry on in the future and ensure the
financial existence of various projects. There is nothing wrong that
any type of foundation holds funds for GNU and financially supports
GNU and any other free software. This alone does not speak or relate
to any governance by definition. In fact, me or you, we could setup a
foundation for the same purpose and collect funds for GNU, but we do
not govern it.

Holding "all assets" is also similar, it is and may not be
"governance". Foundations are registered for exactly such purposes to
hold assets, so that assets are not in personal name. Normally,
foundations have control over assets, however, that is up to the
founder to decide what type of control is given to the
foundation. That still does not say nor automatically assign
governance of GNU to the FSF. It is obvious from both websites that
FSF does not govern GNU project, so your statements lack some legal
analysis.

Keeping a list of people means not that organization is governing
something else, like GNU, but only the list in question.

I have 26 employees currently, each of them is having their tools,
uniforms, and they govern what they were given to govern, exactly
those specific tools and uniforms, and that is all by my decision, so
that does not make those people "govern" the business.

> The FSF is the legal entity which runs GNU.

Incorrect.

> We should coordinate governance issues with the FSF.

Ha ha ha.

Number one, if you are not voting member in the FSF, there is nothing
to say for FSF. If you are not on board, there is nothing to say or
demand, it is private foundation, not public.

Number two, both GNU and FSF are private projects. Your attempts are
not legitimate.

> There are lots of issues which are the shared responsibility of GNU
> volunteers and the FSF.

Responsibility and control are related but not same. You may have
responsibility and promote GNU and free software in your own area. I
am doing it myself in my specific area. Thus responsibility is always
free to take and to conduct.

> Given that GNU is a program of the FSF I do think they have such a
> responsibility to all GNU volunteers.

Sorry.

First there was RMS, then GNU, then FSF.

RMS have founded FSF for the financial survival and promotion of free
software.

GNU is not a program of the FSF, just as the father cannot be the son
of his own son. It is not logical.

First there was RMS, then GNU, then FSF.

> The FSF encourages adopting an anti-harassment guide and I think we
> should take that much more serious:
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/contribute

Harassment is in many countries illegal, feel free to use the legal
recourses if you feel harassed.

In many civilized countries it is also illegal to accuse a person of
harassment if it was not the case, as that may amount to defamation,
and various other illegal acts.

Jean

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > > The FSF keeps ignoring our calls for a neutral discussion space.
   > 
   > The FSF is not involved in GNU governance, so why should they provide
   > such a thing?

   Of course the FSF is involved in GNU governance. They raise money in
   the name of GNU, we assign copyright to the FSF, they hold all our
   assets, and they keep lists of people who may use those resources for
   which purposes. 

Raising money and being involved in governance are two different
things, and one does not entail the other.  There are several non-FSF
venues for raising money, but like the FSF they are not involved in
GNU governance which is at the discretion of the chief GNUisance.  

   The FSF is the legal entity which runs GNU. 

The FSF doesn't "run" the GNU project, they do alot of important legal
work for us, but we have many projects that are not copyrighted by the
FSF.  There are many projects that get their funding from other
entities as well.

   We should coordinate governance issues with the FSF.  There are
   lots of issues which are the shared responsibility of GNU
   volunteers and the FSF.

This we really refers to your gruop, and not the GNU project or the
governance structure of it with chief GNUisance, who already does this
type of work with the FSF.  

The only responsibility that GNU maintainers have is to follow GNU
policies, and some basic legal obligations toward the FSF so that
paper work is in order or not wrong. 

   > The FSF has no such responsibility.  They provide infastructure.

   Given that GNU is a program of the FSF I do think they have such a
   responsibility to all GNU volunteers.

The GNU project is not a program of the FSF, the FSF _sponsors_ our
work.  You confuse the historical context, the GNU project existed
before the FSF, and the initial goal of the FSF was to support the GNU
project in its work to create a free operating system.

   The FSF encourages adopting an anti-harassment guide and I think we
   should take that much more serious:
   https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/contribute

The FSF and the GNU project are two different entities, what the FSF
does or doesn't is better directed to the FSF and not here.  The GNU
project has decided on a different strategy on the matter with the GNU
Kind Communicate Guidelines
(https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html).

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 00:38:25 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> Moderation of this list was taken over because moderators were supposed
>> to have been appointed by GNU leadership.  That was a procedural error,
>> which was no fault of your own and I apologize for, and has since been
>> addressed so that it doesn't happen again.
>
> Which is a funny meta-discussion when the list is used to define what
> "GNU leadership" means :)

Yes, my phrasing was intentional.

I understand that you disagree with and want to change how GNU is
governed, but refusing to acknowledge the current leadership doesn't
change what it is.

>> > The FSF keeps ignoring our calls for a neutral discussion space.
>> 
>> The FSF is not involved in GNU governance, so why should they provide
>> such a thing?
>
> Of course the FSF is involved in GNU governance. They raise money in
> the name of GNU, we assign copyright to the FSF, they hold all our
> assets, and they keep lists of people who may use those resources for
> which purposes. The FSF is the legal entity which runs GNU. We should
> coordinate governance issues with the FSF. There are lots of issues
> which are the shared responsibility of GNU volunteers and the
> FSF. After discussions on this list we sent various of those issues to
> the FSF so we can better coordinate:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-12/msg00026.html

We're talking past one-another, which is unfortunate, because it makes
it difficult to have constructive conversation.

I do hope that in the near future the FSF will make a direct and
unambiguous statement on this matter, because I don't see any other way
to resolve this dispute.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Mark Wielaard, 27/02/20 15:59:

I am very sorry for this. And I apologize because I was one of the
people who suggested people discuss things on this list. And I was one
of the original moderators of this list till Mike and Brandon decided
they wanted to do moderation on their own without my and Carlos help
[*]. In hindsight suggesting this list was a terrible recommendation


I hope you realise that this sounds like "I thought this list was a good 
space when I believed I could steer the conversation the way I wanted 
thanks to my moderator powers".


Federico

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Mike,

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:47:35PM -0500, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> Firstly, I want to reiterate that the unwelcoming and unkind behavior
> on this list is not acceptable.

Thanks.

> Moderation of this list was taken over because moderators were supposed
> to have been appointed by GNU leadership.  That was a procedural error,
> which was no fault of your own and I apologize for, and has since been
> addressed so that it doesn't happen again.

Which is a funny meta-discussion when the list is used to define what
"GNU leadership" means :)

> > The FSF keeps ignoring our calls for a neutral discussion space.
> 
> The FSF is not involved in GNU governance, so why should they provide
> such a thing?

Of course the FSF is involved in GNU governance. They raise money in
the name of GNU, we assign copyright to the FSF, they hold all our
assets, and they keep lists of people who may use those resources for
which purposes. The FSF is the legal entity which runs GNU. We should
coordinate governance issues with the FSF. There are lots of issues
which are the shared responsibility of GNU volunteers and the
FSF. After discussions on this list we sent various of those issues to
the FSF so we can better coordinate:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-12/msg00026.html

> > And I think it is unacceptable that people are afraid to publicly
> > discuss why they participate in GNU because they feel intimidated and
> > fear to get personal threats or have to endure racist or sexist
> > language. IMHO the FSF really has a responsibility to the GNU
> > volunteers to be able to work and communicate with each other without
> > having to feel harassed all the time. And I have recently withdrawn
> > most of my funding to them because they are not taking this
> > responsibility seriously.
> 
> The FSF has no such responsibility.  They provide infastructure.

Given that GNU is a program of the FSF I do think they have such a
responsibility to all GNU volunteers. The FSF encourages adopting an
anti-harassment guide and I think we should take that much more
serious: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/contribute

Cheers,

Mark

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 14:59:46 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> I am very sorry for this. And I apologize because I was one of the
> people who suggested people discuss things on this list. And I was one
> of the original moderators of this list till Mike and Brandon decided
> they wanted to do moderation on their own without my and Carlos help
> [*]. In hindsight suggesting this list was a terrible recommendation
> and I realize now that I put some people, who just wanted to discuss
> what they love about being GNU, through a lot of pain. I am very sorry
> for that. I am certainly not recommending people make themselves a
> target by publicly posting to this list anymore.

Firstly, I want to reiterate that the unwelcoming and unkind behavior
on this list is not acceptable.

Many of us within GNU, including myself, strongly recommended against
use of this or any public list for these discussions, which I feel
should be happening internally.  But despite that disagreement, you
should be able to hold these discussions without harassment.

Moderation of this list was taken over because moderators were supposed
to have been appointed by GNU leadership.  That was a procedural error,
which was no fault of your own and I apologize for, and has since been
addressed so that it doesn't happen again.

> I have heard from various people they felt intimidated both by
> reactions on the list, some by fellow GNU participants and from 
> outsiders sending them some of the most offensive email they ever
> received. Some contain direct personal threats, extremely racist or
> sexist language and even antisemitic views (luckily most of the worst
> ones aren't posted to the list, but there have certainly also been
> implicitly/implied threats and racist or sexist views posted on this
> list).

I'm ashamed that GNU lists have been host to such garbage.

> The FSF keeps ignoring our calls for a neutral discussion space.

The FSF is not involved in GNU governance, so why should they provide
such a thing?

GNU has also rejected creating such a list.  If the FSF were to provide
a list for discussing GNU governance, that would not only be
overstepping, but it'd be in defiance of GNU.

> And I think it is unacceptable that people are afraid to publicly
> discuss why they participate in GNU because they feel intimidated and
> fear to get personal threats or have to endure racist or sexist
> language. IMHO the FSF really has a responsibility to the GNU
> volunteers to be able to work and communicate with each other without
> having to feel harassed all the time. And I have recently withdrawn
> most of my funding to them because they are not taking this
> responsibility seriously.

The FSF has no such responsibility.  They provide infastructure.  They
are responsible for _their own_ lists and other forums.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer
GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B  2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le jeudi 27 février 2020, 16:27:57 CET Ruben Safir a écrit :
> Frankly, this entire email is a lie.

No you can’t say that.  

> It is very subtle,

Yes it is.  For that subtle fact: this mail doesn’t contain anything 
factually false.  So it’s not a lie, and doesn’t even necessarily contains 
lies.  The only things I could doubt on are motivations (or rather: their 
evolution), which are both: a) unprovable and b) not to be speculated on.  
However even here, whatever my doubt, I can’t possibly imagine there’s not 
at least a part of truth in it.  Because it is hard to have friends, or at 
least colleagues, cosupporters of same views, etc. being hurt and not 
having an issue with that.

> but it an
> example as to why you receive such a strong push back.  You are NOT
> honest and your motivations [further speculation]

Since it is subtle, you’d better analyse it further and comment it in a 
less easy-to-withdraw manner.  And when it’s too difficult… well don’t.  If 
something is “too subtle” it likely doesn’t have *yet* the easy 
consequences you’d like to criticize.  So wait for them to appear, and 
keep privately, and kindly, your reservations.  Stay on a “I can’t explain 
why, but reading XXX, I don’t trust him…”, never more.  And preferably say 
that when it’s appropriated to say (when a friend of yours asks you, or 
when there’s a public consultation, and only *once* without repetition).

If you had to get angry, do that in front of someone that would understand 
and stand it.

> > I am very sorry for this. And I apologize because I was one of the
> > people who suggested people discuss things on this list.
>
> The use of the term "things" here is a lie and newspeak.

No, it is a general term.  People can be lazy.  They also can be lazy to 
purport theirs opponent’s views, but there’s no way using the word “thing” 
for anything is exagerated.  It is only imprecise, but then precize 
yourself.  People are allowed to be lazy, if they’re not sure what they’re 
talking about (make suggestions, instead of accusations).

> What you suggested is that since you have two supporters moderating this
> list,

They don’t have anymore, they regret that actually.  So you,re wrong.

> [same accusations as always] are the "things" you decided to do.

This was obvious.  Nobody is stupid.  You can use different terms as them 
for what, because of differing viewpoints, yet everybody understand them to 
refer the same thing.

> > In hindsight suggesting this list was a terrible recommendation
> > and I realize now that I put some people, who just wanted to discuss
> > what they love about being GNU, through a lot of pain.

> It was never your intention to discuss what you "love about being GNU".

I think it could.

> What there has been a discussion about has been the creation of a domain
> that claims it represents GNU

That was likely *after* they decided the list wasn’t as fit as it was 
initially.

> At no time has there been any discussion of what we love about GNU,

They were distracted, likely.  By opposition.  Not necessarily yours.  But 
maybe without non-GNU people they would have more talked about GNU.

> > I am very sorry
> > for that.
> 
> Save me the crocodile tears.  Your efforts made RMS homeless for a
> period of time.

No they weren’t there at that time.  It was the consequences of MIT 
people.  These people aren’t MIT people.  Don’t conflate accusations like 
the people you hate did with rms.  I’m sure he wouldn’t like that as well.  
Also because he’s more reasonable.

> > I am certainly not recommending people make themselves a
> > target by publicly posting to this list anymore.
> 
> Your hostile effort to take over GNU will be resisted by people of fine
> moral character and real concern for the freedoms it strives to protect
> no matter where you attempt to destroy GNU.

Harassment, insults, etc. aren’t “resistance”.  And behaving by repetition 
demonstrate the opposite of “concern”.

> > I have heard from various people they felt intimidated both by
> > reactions on the list, some by fellow GNU participants and from
> > outsiders sending them some of the most offensive email they ever
> > received.
> 
> Since you have a pattern of lying, I chose not to believe that without
> proof.

Do you know Okham’s razor?  Hanlon’s razor?  First postulate incapacity, 
before to postulate malevolence.  You’re not the only violent party.  And 
you could as well consider people are more affected by what you write than 
you think.  And yet, because they believe to be right, they could keep 
doing it yet being affected and even hurt by you.  Because it is noway 
related.

> Granted
> though, I grew up in the deep ghetto of East New York, Brooklyn and not
> some lillywhite ivy league town, so my sensibilities aren't yours.  When
> I was a teen-ager, people were shot dead on the street for an argument
> over a nickle bag.

Does it still nowadays?  With time, and economical development, violence 
decreases (sometimes

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Andreas R.]

Hi Mark,

I think this adequately illustrates one of the fundamental problems
with your social contract. The contract states it "commits to providing 
a harassment-free experience"

but for the gnu.tools initiative itself harassment seems defined by
what its review commitee finds expedient.

Asking for feedback, and then ignoring pertinent and neutral questions
consistently can also be considered harassment. This is amplified by 
the persistent gerrymandering through the definition of "stakeholders", 
continuously repartitioning those involved in the discussion to guard 
the gate of acceptable criticism and questions.

It's also true that many, including myself, have received unwanted and even 
aggressive  messages. I think everyone on the list has. This is also
harassment.

But now, this latter type of harassment is presented as a main problem, and 
gnu.tools presents itself as a solution in what seems to be another
effort to shut out those who are skeptical about the initiative.

> The FSF keeps ignoring our calls for a neutral discussion space. And I
> think it is unacceptable that people are afraid to publicly discuss why
> they participate in GNU because they feel intimidated 

Could you provide any examples of where gnu-misc-discuss was less than neutral? 
A
few messages have slipped through with the moderation acknowledging them
and apologising.

The bulk of intimidating messages were addressed directly to recipients or
seem to originate from an external mailing list that gnu-misc-discuss readers 
were subscribed to by a third party without their consent, and completely 
outside of GNU or the FSF.

What type of communications could the FSF provide that would prevent such
things from happening?

> We are working on providing a better discussion space for GNU
> volunteers, but that is taking some time. I hope we can soon though, so
> people who do want to publicly discuss why and how they want to
> participate in GNU can do that in a more safe space.

Given the track record of transparantly discussing "how"s and "why"s
by gnu.tools leadership I don't think creating a separate channel where 
no one will even ask the questions because everyone already agrees will
improve public discussion.

Insults and intimidation on gnu-misc-discuss, detrimental though they may
be, are not an adequate reason for the lack of answers or for restructuring
the venue of the discussion to something under your direct control.

thanks,
Andreas R.

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   I am very sorry for this. And I apologize because I was one of the
   people who suggested people discuss things on this list. And I was one
   of the original moderators of this list till Mike and Brandon decided
   they wanted to do moderation on their own without my and Carlos help
   [*]. 

Now now, Mark, that is just untrue.  It is the GNU project that
decided that you, and Carlos, were moderating in a immensly biased
manner, disgarding perfectly valid discussion topics because you
personally disagreed with them, it wasn't a decision done by Mike or
Brandon.

The one sideness of your discussion is getting quite silly, you refuse
to address even the simple fact that you do not want show what the GNU
project has to say.  You ignore any questions to that effect, and
instead spread utter untruths.

I think calling you group for the Manor farm is quite apt, only those
whom you agree with will be heard.  Four legs bad, two legs good.

   The FSF keeps ignoring our calls for a neutral discussion space. 

Again you forget that the FSF isn't responsible for the GNU project,
and the GNU project did provide such neutral discussion spaces.  For
example this list, and several internal lists.

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Mark,

On Sun, 2020-02-23 at 11:36 -0700, Mark Galassi wrote:
> I wrote to endorse the GNU social contract and received an email which
> made me feel insulted and intimidated (this one said "F*** you", so not
> much risk of misinterpreting the language).  I also got a sequence of
> replied from people telling me I was wrong to do so.  These seem to be
> canned replies that are sent to other people who endorse it.  They did
> not make me feel as intimidated, but it still seems like a strange
> campaign.
> [...]
> A person responded to my endorsement of the social contract (which I had
> misspelled as social construct - ooops).  This person wrote back to me
> and the list saying:
> 
> > F*** you and your illconceived campaign to destroy GNU
> 
> > And f*** that mailing list run by a theif and a bully
> 
> [they had the full swear word in there; I replaced part of it with *s so
> that we don't vent it too much and end up in search results for hostility]
> [...]
> I feel that this mailing list has people who get really hostile and
> insult people like me who have dedicated their lives to being GNU
> contributors (in my case since 1985).
> 
> I will not get turned off of the good work for GNU by this specific
> insult targeted at me, but I can see that in the future I might get
> dispirited, and I know new people who have decided to not get in to the
> internals like this.

I am very sorry for this. And I apologize because I was one of the
people who suggested people discuss things on this list. And I was one
of the original moderators of this list till Mike and Brandon decided
they wanted to do moderation on their own without my and Carlos help
[*]. In hindsight suggesting this list was a terrible recommendation
and I realize now that I put some people, who just wanted to discuss
what they love about being GNU, through a lot of pain. I am very sorry
for that. I am certainly not recommending people make themselves a
target by publicly posting to this list anymore.

I have heard from various people they felt intimidated both by
reactions on the list, some by fellow GNU participants and from 
outsiders sending them some of the most offensive email they ever
received. Some contain direct personal threats, extremely racist or
sexist language and even antisemitic views (luckily most of the worst
ones aren't posted to the list, but there have certainly also been
implicitly/implied threats and racist or sexist views posted on this
list).

The FSF keeps ignoring our calls for a neutral discussion space. And I
think it is unacceptable that people are afraid to publicly discuss why
they participate in GNU because they feel intimidated and fear to get
personal threats or have to endure racist or sexist language. IMHO the
FSF really has a responsibility to the GNU volunteers to be able to
work and communicate with each other without having to feel harassed
all the time. And I have recently withdrawn most of my funding to them
because they are not taking this responsibility seriously.

We are working on providing a better discussion space for GNU
volunteers, but that is taking some time. I hope we can soon though, so
people who do want to publicly discuss why and how they want to
participate in GNU can do that in a more safe space.

Cheers,

Mark

[*]
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-11/msg00096.html

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   The best solution to the problem is a public mailing list whose
   subscribers are limited to GNU stakeholders.  This would go a long way
   towards discourse civility, and is what was asked for in the beginning;
   you have the power to do such a thing.

This list is exactly for that, for anyone who is interested in the GNU
project.  We won't limit who is allowed to subscribe, since we wish to
welcome anyone -- even people like yourself.

Your behaviour and attitude is already leading to a slippery slope,
you not only wish to dictate what GNU maintainers must support, but
now you wish to limit discussion to those whom you find acceptable.

That is not something the GNU project will do.  Anyone who wishes to
be a GNU "stakeholder" is exactly that.  If you wish to have
discussion amongst GNNU maintainers, we already have such lists in
place.  All of this you know perfectly well.

   It is possible to ban people who have a pattern of problematic behavior.
   It too would go a long way to solving this problem.  You have the power
   to do this, also.

You already assume that this isn't the case already.  And as you can
see, that had the exact opposite result -- we cannot do anything when
people harvest email addresses and sends them unsolicited emails or
subscribes to lists -- this counts double for you, Andy.

   It is possible to be more vigorous in moderating.  You and Brendan took
   it upon yourselves the task of moderating this list, so this also is
   within your power.  
   And yet for some reason you used this power to let
   the message referred to in
   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00441.html
   go through.

You make the bad faith assumption that the list is already not
moderated heavily.

If a user has not sent anything notoriously garbage like, they will
not be moderated.  That does not stop them from sending garbage later,
when they are no longer under moderation.

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le lundi 24 février 2020, 12:31:45 CET Ruben Safir a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:58:28PM -0500, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> > Firstly: I'm sorry that you are receiving those messages.  People
> > should not feel harassed in that way when communicating on GNU lists.
>
> WRONG
> 
> When people declare open war against RMS and GNU, they should definitly
> feel harrassed.

Nobody deserve harrasement.  Not only morally but harassement is also a 
loss of time.  Unless you just want to annoy people…  But I believe 
willingly trying to annoy anyone, except maybe someone who is exclusively 
occupied by you, is never anything but a loss of time because it can’t be 
good (tell me why if I’m wrong).

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Andy Wingo]

Hello Mike,

On Mon 24 Feb 2020 04:58, Mike Gerwitz  writes:

> We've had a few people in particular that have been especially
> problematic, and one person in particular that has many different
> aliases and has even gone so far as to create a separate list that the
> person has forcefully subscribed people to.  I condemn this
> behavior.  But there's little we can do to stop it.

I am very sorry, but this is simply not true.

The best solution to the problem is a public mailing list whose
subscribers are limited to GNU stakeholders.  This would go a long way
towards discourse civility, and is what was asked for in the beginning;
you have the power to do such a thing.

It is possible to ban people who have a pattern of problematic behavior.
It too would go a long way to solving this problem.  You have the power
to do this, also.

It is possible to be more vigorous in moderating.  You and Brendan took
it upon yourselves the task of moderating this list, so this also is
within your power.  And yet for some reason you used this power to let
the message referred to in
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00441.html
go through.

In a message to Andreas Enge
(https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00433.html),
you write:

> But coming to this list, raising an inflammatory topic, and then
> demanding that moderation be used as a tool to reduce tensions is not
> acceptable either.

Here you have chosen instead to blame the recipients of harassment for
the harassment that they have received: it says "you deserve it", in
pretty much those words.

Honestly I hope that one day we are able to look back on these days and
laugh at our foibles, but I get the feeling that a lot of water will
have to run under the bridge for that to happen.  In the meantime I
think that GNU maintainers that are unhappy with the present situation
have to effectively treat the more official leadership lines as damage,
and route around them.

Regards,

Andy

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 21:13:48 +0100, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> We've had a few people in particular that have been especially
>> problematic, and one person in particular that has many different
>> aliases and has even gone so far as to create a separate list that the
>> person has forcefully subscribed people to.  I condemn this
>> behavior.  But there's little we can do to stop it.
>
> I am very sorry, but this is simply not true.

There is noting we can do to stop someone from scraping email addresses
from a public list and subscribing those users to another list.  That is
what I was referring to.

> The best solution to the problem is a public mailing list whose
> subscribers are limited to GNU stakeholders.  This would go a long way
> towards discourse civility, and is what was asked for in the beginning;
> you have the power to do such a thing.

I do not have the power to do such a thing.  That is beyond the
authority granted to me.

> It is possible to ban people who have a pattern of problematic behavior.
> It too would go a long way to solving this problem.  You have the power
> to do this, also.
>
> It is possible to be more vigorous in moderating.  You and Brendan took
> it upon yourselves the task of moderating this list, so this also is
> within your power.

Moderators of this list have offered their time to work within certain
guidelines.

> And yet for some reason you used this power to let the message
> referred to in
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00441.html
> go through.

To be clear: you're saying that I personally used my "power" to
personally approve a racist message to this list?  What an absurd
accusation.  I just got done condemning someone for calling another
person "sick", which is far less offensive.

Just because a message makes it to this list does not mean that it was
approved.  Not every message going to this list is moderated.  Before
reading this accusation of yours, I read a private message from another
person offering his/her time to help moderate this list, wondering how
such a message got through, and it's being investigated.  Do you not
assume that we're acting in good faith?

You know quite well that GNU is a project of volunteers.  And I can
assure you that I'd rather not be spending my time babysitting this
list.  Messages like this do not help matters any.  I would not have
approved that message if it was presented to me in a moderation queue.

> In a message to Andreas Enge
> (https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00433.html),
> you write:
>
>> But coming to this list, raising an inflammatory topic, and then
>> demanding that moderation be used as a tool to reduce tensions is not
>> acceptable either.
>
> Here you have chosen instead to blame the recipients of harassment for
> the harassment that they have received: it says "you deserve it", in
> pretty much those words.

Once again you accuse me of something I have not done, this time by
deliberately twisting my words, in plain sight nonetheless.  I did not
say "you deserve it", or even imply such a thing.  The moderators do not
cater to individuals' expectations.  I would hope that one would
consider that to be a good thing, since you wouldn't want us to cater to
the expectations of those you disagree with.

I have made strong efforts to be a neutral party throughout all of this,
but I will not tolerate attempts to smear my or other volunteers'
efforts.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer
GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B  2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Mike Gerwitz]

Mark:

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 11:36:16 -0700, Mark Galassi wrote:
> I wrote to endorse the GNU social contract and received an email which
> made me feel insulted and intimidated (this one said "F*** you", so not
> much risk of misinterpreting the language).  I also got a sequence of
> replied from people telling me I was wrong to do so.  These seem to be
> canned replies that are sent to other people who endorse it.  They did
> not make me feel as intimidated, but it still seems like a strange
> campaign.

Firstly: I'm sorry that you are receiving those messages.  People should
not feel harassed in that way when communicating on GNU lists.

Unfortunately, though, as Alfred has mentioned, there's nothing we can
do to prevent people from contacting you privately.  But if you do
receive a message privately which has also been CC'd to this list, and
find that it does not appear in the list archives, then you at least
know that the moderators have attempted to mitigate some of the damage
by preventing it from reaching the list.

We've had a few people in particular that have been especially
problematic, and one person in particular that has many different
aliases and has even gone so far as to create a separate list that the
person has forcefully subscribed people to.  I condemn this
behavior.  But there's little we can do to stop it.

> I wrote the following to the list last week but it got rejected by
> moderation for being "off topic".  Since this list seems to have a lot
> of traffic which is a soul-search on how we should interact, I think it
> must have been rejected by mistake by an overworked moderator, which is
> understandable.

I appreciate your perspective.  Considering that I see no problem with
this message, I'll assume that your interpretation is correct. 

> I don't see clear information about moderation, and don't know right now
> how to write to the moderators directly (the page
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss doesn't give
> moderator addresses).

I'm the publicly listed owner of the list.  While I don't frequently
moderate, please feel free to get in touch with me directly.  I've been
more active the past few days, but even when I'm not, I'll see direct
messages to me.

> I would suggest that the moderators of this list set something up to
> avoid the trolling.  Even if they block such a response to the whole
> list, it still goes directly to the person posting.  Some weird other
> addresses were also added.

We're doing the best we can, but only so much is within our
means.  Certain people have caused us a substantial moderation burden.

> I won't post the person's name here, but moderators: if you want I can
> share the details with you directly.  Email me directly if you would
> like to work on this and need my help.

Feel free to forward me any details and we can see if it's anything
we're not already aware of.

Happy hacking.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Endorsing the GNU social contract

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-23 01:34, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

Per the request offered by email, I am offering my support for the GNU
social contract.

I, maintainer of package LilyPond, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU
Social Contract, available at 
https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract.


Did you read it carefully?

Also, do you endorse this one:  
https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct

Re: Endorsing the GNU social contract

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hey Han-Wen,

Han-Wen Nienhuys  skribis:

> Per the request offered by email, I am offering my support for the GNU
> social contract.
>
> I, maintainer of package LilyPond, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU
> Social Contract, available at https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract.

Noted, thank you!

Ludo’.

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Here it is with my suggestion for the moderators.  

Thank you.  Moderators cannot do anything when someones CCs you
directly, none of the messages you mentioned went through to this list
that I can see (you can see the public archive at
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/).  So this means
that moderation has been successful, but the way email works there is
little to nothing one can do when one is CCed...

   I also now realize that part of the response had to do with the
   bizarre "hangout" mailing list that was created to get some
   postings to many people on this list without going through this
   list.

Alas moderators are not in control of what other people do on non-GNU
mailing lists, like mass subscribing or mailing people against their
will.  :-(

feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Mark Galassi]

Dear GNU maintainers,

I wrote to endorse the GNU social contract and received an email which
made me feel insulted and intimidated (this one said "F*** you", so not
much risk of misinterpreting the language).  I also got a sequence of
replied from people telling me I was wrong to do so.  These seem to be
canned replies that are sent to other people who endorse it.  They did
not make me feel as intimidated, but it still seems like a strange
campaign.

I wrote the following to the list last week but it got rejected by
moderation for being "off topic".  Since this list seems to have a lot
of traffic which is a soul-search on how we should interact, I think it
must have been rejected by mistake by an overworked moderator, which is
understandable.

Here it is with my suggestion for the moderators.  I also now realize
that part of the response had to do with the bizarre "hangout" mailing
list that was created to get some postings to many people on this list
without going through this list.

= = =

A while ago there was a discussion of moderation on this mailing list,
but I lost track of what was happening.

A person responded to my endorsement of the social contract (which I had
misspelled as social construct - ooops).  This person wrote back to me
and the list saying:

> F*** you and your illconceived campaign to destroy GNU


> And f*** that mailing list run by a theif and a bully

[they had the full swear word in there; I replaced part of it with *s so
that we don't vent it too much and end up in search results for hostility]

I don't see clear information about moderation, and don't know right now
how to write to the moderators directly (the page
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss doesn't give
moderator addresses).

I feel that this mailing list has people who get really hostile and
insult people like me who have dedicated their lives to being GNU
contributors (in my case since 1985).

I will not get turned off of the good work for GNU by this specific
insult targeted at me, but I can see that in the future I might get
dispirited, and I know new people who have decided to not get in to the
internals like this.

I would like to remind everyone that Richard has said quite clearly that
everyone who contributes to GNU should be treated as acting in good
faith.

I would suggest that the moderators of this list set something up to
avoid the trolling.  Even if they block such a response to the whole
list, it still goes directly to the person posting.  Some weird other
addresses were also added.

I won't post the person's name here, but moderators: if you want I can
share the details with you directly.  Email me directly if you would
like to work on this and need my help.

I would like to point out something rather nice that happened on the
gnu-community-private list (I'm just quoting a snippet, and I replaced
the person's name since that is a private list).  Clearly this poster
had a disagreement with others and questioned their good faith, but then
realized that s/he should not have, and wrote a very nice email.

The snippet:

aPoster> It was wrong for me to ask people to leave this community. I
aPoster> apologize, and take back my above suggestion.

(my reply below: )

aPoster, it is nice to see that you have the character to post this kind of
correction.

I hope that when people back off from a hurried possibly hostile
statement (although this one was much milder than a lot of what we see
on this list) they will always know that the silent majority praises it.

The first thing I did when I saw aPoster's adjustment was to go and
re-read all of their previous emails to make sure that I had paid
attention to their points.

Re: Endorsing the GNU social contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Thank you for showing your support for the GNU project.  But this is
not a document by the GNU project, as a GNU maintainer you are not
required to endorse or even support the GNU philosophy or free
software movement since we wish to welcome anyone and everyone if they
wish to contribute to the GNU system.

Endorsing the GNU social contract

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

Per the request offered by email, I am offering my support for the GNU
social contract.

I, maintainer of package LilyPond, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU
Social Contract, available at https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract.

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

Re: Endorsing the GNU social contract

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Han-Wen,

On Sun, 2020-02-23 at 10:34 +0100, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> I, maintainer of package LilyPond, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU
> Social Contract, available at 
> https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract.

Thanks for your support. You have been added to


Cheers,

Mark

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 16 février 2020, 21:27:51 CET Ruben Safir a écrit :
> It is objected to and resisted by the GNU
> Project.

No.  rms said people could publish whatever they want, and GNU project 
doesn’t oppose a such initiative, but doesn’t support either.  What it 
object to, is calling it “GNU”.

Just to lower the confusion.  Nuances have to be taken.

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Ruben Safir]

On 2/17/20 11:33 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 2/14/20 8:45 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Further, RMS is a member of the GCC steering committee, and I believe
> has veto power (possibly only over non-technical decisions).  So the
> likelihood of that /committee/ endorsing the Social Contract is low.
> 
> I do not know if other GNU projects have a similar oversight structure.
> 
> nathan
> 


And yes Nathan, I am fully aware that your not part of the rebellion per
se, but you are argueing for censorship...

that sucks


-- 
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002

http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 17.02.2020 20:29, Mark Wielaard wrote:

You might want to ask the GCC steering committee about the current
situation. According tohttps://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html  he is on the
GCC steering committee as representative of the FSF.


The same page says:

  Membership in the steering committee is a personal membership. 
Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only; steering 
committee members do not represent their employers or academic institutions.

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

You promulgate the incorrect notion that the FSF appoints maintainers
for GNU projects, this is false.

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Nathan,

On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 17:33 +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 2/14/20 8:45 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Further, RMS is a member of the GCC steering committee, and I believe has 
> veto 
> power (possibly only over non-technical decisions).  So the likelihood of 
> that 
> /committee/ endorsing the Social Contract is low.

You might want to ask the GCC steering committee about the current
situation. According to https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html he is on the
GCC steering committee as representative of the FSF. He resigned as
president and from the board of the FSF, so maybe another FSF officer
took his place. But he might also still be on steering committee on
personal title. https://gcc.gnu.org/gccmission.html says various
(legal) responsibilities still remain with the FSF. It might simply be
one of these governance questions that hasn't been fully answered yet.

> I do not know if other GNU projects have a similar oversight structure.

GDB has an FSF appointed committee, but without an FSF representative: 
https://sourceware.org/gdb/committee/

glibc used to have a Steering Committee, but they dissolved themselves
a couple of years ago because the community was able to self-govern:
https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-03/msg01038.html
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/MAINTAINERS

Cheers,

Mark

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Nathan Sidwell]

On 2/14/20 8:45 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:


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.


Further, RMS is a member of the GCC steering committee, and I believe has veto 
power (possibly only over non-technical decisions).  So the likelihood of that 
/committee/ endorsing the Social Contract is low.


I do not know if other GNU projects have a similar oversight structure.

nathan

--
Nathan Sidwell

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Jean Louis]

* Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> [2020-02-16 23:20]:
> On 2020-02-16 11:28, Jan Nieuwenhuizen 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.
> > 
> > Thank you all for working on this.
> 
> That's not working; working is writing code, debugging, documenting,
> reviewing.
> 
> This monkey business of social contracts is just political sport.
> 
> People working on copylefted software need not share any "core values"
> other than that copylefted software.
> 
> Someone working on the compiler front end can be a communist, whereas
> the type checker could be hacked on by (necessarily) a fascist.

That is right, thank you.

That is what keeps us together and bringing people together, a common
thing to us which is free software vision and GNU operating system,
that is peace making mechanism. Then we learn to accept each other as
well regardless of differences. GNU project was designed that way
since inception, it was designed well.

Making of anti-social contracts does not contribute to bring people
together based on common thing on which we agree, which is free
software. It is dividing people based on their behavior and acceptance
or rejection of certain rules. That is what GNU project never was, and
will not become.

Jean

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Ruben Safir]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:01:26AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hoi Janneke,
> 
> On Sun, 2020-02-16 at 20:28 +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> > I, a maintainer of GNU Mes and GNU LilyPond and a developer on GNU Guix
> > and GNU 8sync, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available
> > at .
> 
> Thanks for your support. 

You are not authorized to get support.  What support are you gathering
here?  What do you do with this support?

You continue this nasty charade, and this game with you needs to be
ended by the GNU Governance.


> You have been added to
> 
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Mark

-- 
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com 

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive 
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com 

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, 
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Ruben Safir]

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 08:28:50PM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Thank you all for working on this.
> 


There is nothing to thank them for.  They are doing it for there own
greedy reasons.

> > If you are a GNU maintainer and do support this initiative please reply
> > to this email, Reply-To set, (preferably signed with your OpenPGP key)
> > stating:
> >
> >   I, maintainer of package X, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU
> >   Social Contract, available at
> >   .
> >
> > You will then be listed here:
> > 
> 

This cross posting from the illegal website needs to be banned.

> I, a maintainer of GNU Mes and GNU LilyPond and a developer on GNU Guix
> and GNU 8sync, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available
> at .
> 
> > You might have seen that 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.


It is NOT SUPPORTED BY GNU.  It is NOT SUPPORTED by Stallman in his ROLE
as head of the GNU Project.  It is objected to and resisted by the GNU
Project.


> 
> Of course it is a personal choice for every one of us whether or not to
> uphold these basic GNU values.  

The values in this agreement are NOT GNU values.  They not only have
nothing to do with GNU, but they weaken the GNU project and its purpose.

The GNU values is outlined in the Four Freedoms.  In this video, for
example:

http://www.nylxs.com/images/rms_four_freedoms_2016.ogv

you find Richard Stallman ***BRAVELY*** in the face of toltalerian
dictatorship confront forces of digital censorship, control, and
repression, in a place where his message, and the real message of GNU
could have caused him to be arrested and even killed.  It has happened
in that country, and happened recently.

There is no subsitution for these values and there is no substitution
for this man, a man I personal consider my friend.

> I know that GNU maintainers are not
> required to adhere or uphold even any free software values and I must
> say that was pretty shocked when I learnt that, but it makes me happy to
> be able to make this commitment of freedom towards our users.

This contract is a fraud and does nothing to promote freedom or help
GNU.

It seeds discent and lays down cover for an aggressive attack on RMS and
GNU, to create a pretense for destroying the organization and destorying
RMS personally.

Don't make yourself an enemy of GNU and its mission.  Don't cohort with
lynch mods and pirates.

Ruben

> 
> Greetings,
> janneke
> 
> -- 
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen  | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
> Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com

-- 
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com 

DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive 
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
http://www.brooklyn-living.com 

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, 
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Mark Wielaard]

Hoi Janneke,

On Sun, 2020-02-16 at 20:28 +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> I, a maintainer of GNU Mes and GNU LilyPond and a developer on GNU Guix
> and GNU 8sync, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available
> at .

Thanks for your support. You have been added to


Groetjes,

Mark

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-16 11:28, Jan Nieuwenhuizen 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.


Thank you all for working on this.


That's not working; working is writing code, debugging, documenting,
reviewing.

This monkey business of social contracts is just political sport.

People working on copylefted software need not share any "core values"
other than that copylefted software.

Someone working on the compiler front end can be a communist, whereas
the type checker could be hacked on by (necessarily) a fascist.

There is no need to have the same political views, listen to the same 
music

or anything else.

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Mark Wielaard writes:

> Hi all,
>
> After several months since our statement that it is time for GNU
> maintainers to collectively decide about the organization of the
> project, we are finally ready for a first small step towards that.
>
> There was a bit of push back that left us no choice than to setup our
> own space for this project. See https://wiki.gnu.tools/ Tools for GNU
> maintainers by GNU maintainers.
>
> But after lots and lots of discussions, a DRAFT proposal and a feedback
> process [*] we finally have: https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract
>
> 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.

Thank you all for working on this.

> If you are a GNU maintainer and do support this initiative please reply
> to this email, Reply-To set, (preferably signed with your OpenPGP key)
> stating:
>
>   I, maintainer of package X, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU
>   Social Contract, available at
>   .
>
> You will then be listed here:
> 

I, a maintainer of GNU Mes and GNU LilyPond and a developer on GNU Guix
and GNU 8sync, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available
at .

> You might have seen that 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.

Of course it is a personal choice for every one of us whether or not to
uphold these basic GNU values.  I know that GNU maintainers are not
required to adhere or uphold even any free software values and I must
say that was pretty shocked when I learnt that, but it makes me happy to
be able to make this commitment of freedom towards our users.

Greetings,
janneke

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen  | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com

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: 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

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[David Malcolm]

On Fri, 2020-02-14 at 01:20 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> After several months since our statement that it is time for GNU
> maintainers to collectively decide about the organization of the
> project, we are finally ready for a first small step towards that.

> There was a bit of push back that left us no choice than to setup our
> own space for this project. See https://wiki.gnu.tools/ Tools for GNU
> maintainers by GNU maintainers.
> 
> But after lots and lots of discussions, a DRAFT proposal and a
> feedback
> process [*] we finally have: 
> https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract
> 
> 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.

Thanks for working on this.

> If you are a GNU maintainer and do support this initiative please
> reply
> to this email, Reply-To set, (preferably signed with your OpenPGP
> key)
> stating:
> 
>   I, maintainer of package X, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU
>   Social Contract, available at
>   ;.

You will then be listed here:
> 

I, a maintainer of GCC [1], endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social
Contract, available at .

I'm endorsing it in a personal capacity (rather than on behalf of my
employer).

Dave


[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=search;s=David+Malcolm;st=author