On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 3:28 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> Seeing the word "dysfunction" I don't remember using I want to clarify
> the non-openess which I intended to criticize. The SC is not "open" because:
> - it appoints itself (new members, that is) - in fact in theory it
> should be
On 4/6/21 3:57 PM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
Seeing the word "dysfunction" I don't remember using I want to clarify
the non-openess which I intended to criticize. The SC is not "open" because:
- it appoints itself (new members, that is) - in fact in theory it
should be appointed
by the
On 4/6/21 12:27 PM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:21 PM Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:08 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>>>
>>> Richard Biener pointed out dysfunction in the SC. The case of the
>>> missing question I asked in 2019 also
Hi Richard,
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 03:21:01PM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> That's all true. It's still true that since GCC is a GNU project, formally
> its maintainers are appointed by RMS (I've just read the official governance
> structure document!).
I think this is unfair to the
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:21 PM Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:08 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> >
> > Richard Biener pointed out dysfunction in the SC. The case of the
> > missing question I asked in 2019 also points to that. This response
> > gives me no confidence
Ian,
thank you for taking the time to write this. I appreciate that you have
reached out. I do have a couple of comments though.
On 4/1/21 3:19 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:08 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I think you want the steering committee to issue a statement
> If RMS had ever done the same (pretty unlikely, Fortran isnt't his
> thing), I would have done the same without thinking twice about it.
I agree with that sentiment. The fact that somebody has a certain
role doesn't necessarily mean that the question is asked with that hat
on: it may be
On 01.04.21 22:33, Joseph Myers wrote:
And while in that case RMS probably learned of modules and libcody through
the SC mailing list, in general he has this habit of asking GNU package
developers random questions related to their packages.
I've been asked a few questions about gfortran by
On 4/1/21 10:33 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
RMS once asked me about the status of fused multiply-add support in glibc.
I don't know why. He wasn't asking for any changes or objecting to
anything the glibc maintainers had done. I'd hope that future Chief
GNUisances won't try to get involved in
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
> > 2) Last year, I asked for libcody to be added as a subcomponent, with
> > its Apachev2 license intact. AFAICT RMS was involved in that licensing
> > discussion, /for which I never received a response/. He was not at the
> > FSF then, so he
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:08 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
> You, the SC, have chosen to fix this as a clerical error. The most
> do-nothing response, other than actually doing nothing.
>
> I am profoundly disappointed that you have not even acknowledged the
> harm RMS has caused. Using passive
On 3/31/21 2:27 PM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
[I previously sent this from another email account, but it seems to be
lost. I am sending this on behalf of the GCC Steering Committee.]
In 2012 RMS was added to the GCC Steering Committee web page
based on his role in the GNU Project, though
[I previously sent this from another email account, but it seems to be
lost. I am sending this on behalf of the GCC Steering Committee.]
In 2012 RMS was added to the GCC Steering Committee web page
based on his role in the GNU Project, though his role as a member
of the Steering Committee has
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 7:44 AM Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:23 AM Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
>
> > I may have lost it in the enormous flood of text, but I want to ask these
> > general questions.
> >
> > 1. Is there a published code of conduct for GCC community members,
>
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 at 2:56 AM
> From: "David Malcolm"
> To: "Christopher Dimech" , "Mark Wielaard"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
&
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 5:28 AM Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>
> And just to repeat - all the GCC governance structure (the "SC") represents
> all of the same non-openess as the FSF governance structure (because
> the "SC" is in fact appointed by the Chief GNUisance "or his delegates").
While
On March 31, 2021 5:23:09 PM GMT+02:00, David Edelsohn
wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:46 AM Florian Weimer
>wrote:
>>
>> * David Edelsohn via Gcc:
>>
>> > Has the GCC SC blocked any new port or major feature? Not that I'm
>aware of.
>>
>> What about the plugin framework? The libgcc
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:46 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * David Edelsohn via Gcc:
>
> > Has the GCC SC blocked any new port or major feature? Not that I'm aware
> > of.
>
> What about the plugin framework? The libgcc licensing change would
> not have happened naturally. Someone had to step
On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 16:18 +0200, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
[...snip...]
> As for the "safe spaces" phase, this is about eliminating anything
> and
> everything that could emotionally troubling students. This assumes a
> high
> degree of fragility among western students. I work as a
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 at 1:28 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: "Mark Wielaard"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I'm a bit in a
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:23 AM Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
> I may have lost it in the enormous flood of text, but I want to ask these
> general questions.
>
> 1. Is there a published code of conduct for GCC community members,
> possibly different ones depending on which level of the
I may have lost it in the enormous flood of text, but I want to ask these
general questions.
1. Is there a published code of conduct for GCC community members, possibly
different ones depending on which level of the organization you're in?
2. Is there a formal process for receiving claims of
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 11:34 PM
> From: "Mark Wielaard"
> To: "Giacomo Tesio"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Hi Giacomo,
>
> On Tue, Mar
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 14:30, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> But people, groups and incentives changes.
> Stallman does not.
Well, he's not immortal. Are you really suggesting that his crowning
achievement (the free software movement and copyleft) is actually not
sustainable, and only works if he's
* David Edelsohn via Gcc:
> Has the GCC SC blocked any new port or major feature? Not that I'm aware of.
What about the plugin framework? The libgcc licensing change would
not have happened naturally. Someone had to step in and delay the
plugin framework feature until the licensing changes
Hi Mark,
I'm a bit in a hurry and do not really want to focus on what happened
in Harvey: to my eyes that story just show you cannot trust people just
because they are nice and well known "open source" contributors, or
because they work for big multinational that "do no evil" or even
join the
Hi Martin,
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:53:20 +0200 Martin Jambor wrote:
> Dear Giacomo,
>
> On Tue, Mar 30 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:50:52 +0200 Martin Jambor wrote:
> >
> >> Unfortunately, all people are also able to close their eyes and
> >> ears and ignore
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 2:59 PM David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 8:28 AM Richard Biener via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 1:36 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > >
> > > You are referencing the recent open letter which isn't really what
> > > people are discussing
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 8:28 AM Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 1:36 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >
> > You are referencing the recent open letter which isn't really what
> > people are discussing here. Although many probably sympathize with
> > calling for the removal of
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 13:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> And just to repeat - all the GCC governance structure (the "SC") represents
> all of the same non-openess as the FSF governance structure (because
> the "SC" is in fact appointed by the Chief GNUisance "or his delegates").
The SC was appointed
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 12:36, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Again, it isn't about this one or two incidents. I am sure someone can
> find a way to explained it away by saying people simply misunderstood
> his intentions or that no law was broken. But it is about a pattern of
> behavior that shows RMS
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 1:36 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> You are referencing the recent open letter which isn't really what
> people are discussing here. Although many probably sympathize with
> calling for the removal of the entire Board of the Free Software
> Foundation and calling for Richard
Hi Giacomo,
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:28:49PM +0200, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> I've to say I'm a bit confused, but maybe we have different sources and
> experience so we have different perspective on the matter.
Yes, I am pretty sure the perspective changes for people who have had
longer, or more
To me (not being a contributor) this is the best contribution to the
discussion so far.
Am 30.03.2021 um 17:24 schrieb Maksim Fomin via Gcc:
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, 26 March 2021 г., 23:02, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I would rather not have to write this email. Like many
Dear Giacomo,
On Tue, Mar 30 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:50:52 +0200 Martin Jambor wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, all people are also able to close their eyes and ears
>> and ignore mistreatment when they are not the victims and when their
>> friend or their favorite public
Dear Alfred and Alexandre,
It seems that neither of you would like to offer any evidence
that counteracts what I have already been given by multiple
individuals. Furthermore,
Alexandre:
> A misguided person thought that reciprocating the doxxing against RMS
> was a good way to defend him.
I ("new moderator") won't recount what happened, it is neither here,
or there, but Mark is presenting a very biased view of what occured,
and also one of the reasons why he no longer is a moderator.
The claims about doxxing, etc, are entierly untrue and unfounded.
On Mar 30, 2021, JeanHeyd Meneide wrote:
> Taking the correction into account
*nod*
> What you've presented here is your word ("This
> accusation is outright false, beyond any possible doubt."),
True, I didn't claim to be offering evidence, and that didn't seem
necessary since all the
Dear Alexandre,
As stated here, shortly after I sent my message
(https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235197.html):
> Apologies, a correction here. I should have more carefully read
> it, but this paragraph:
>
> > My problem is Dr. Richard M. Stallman stands credibly and
> >
On Mar 30, 2021, JeanHeyd Meneide via Gcc wrote:
> My problem is Dr. Richard M. Stallman stands credibly and
> factually accused of Doxxing and GCC contributor/participant and
> knowingly manipulating the project for his own personal reasons.
This accusation is outright false, beyond any
ot;
> *To:* "Christopher Dimech"
> *Cc:* "Joseph Myers" , "GCC Development" <
> gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, "Nathan Sidwell"
> *Subject:* Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
> Sorry for the confusion, but was this response directed to
Giacomo wrote:
>Stallman cannot betray Free Software AND get away with it.
>So to me (and to many others) Stallman is a sort of a living warranty.
That's fine. He doesn't need to be in the GCC SC to do that.
He can continue to provide guidance on the spirit of Free Software
without having an SC
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> That being said (and for full disclosure), I also consider his return to
> the FSF fair, because the shitstorm that caused his resign two years
> ago was built on top of a severe misrepresentation of his words, as
> described here
Hi everybody, thanks for your feedbacks.
I've to say I'm a bit confused, but maybe we have different sources and
experience so we have different perspective on the matter.
Let's start with something I want to clarify:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:07:07 -0400 JeanHeyd Meneide wrote:
> You state it
I encourage everyone to please try to keep this discussion focused on GCC.
If there is a message that is completely unrelated to GCC, I encourage
not responding, or responding off-list.
Thanks.
Ian
On 3/30/21 7:10 PM, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 4:50 AM
From: "Martin Jambor"
To: "Giacomo Tesio"
Cc: "GCC Development"
Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
Dear Giacomo,
On Tue, Mar 30 2021, G
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 5:45 AM
> From: "Joseph Myers"
> To: "JeanHeyd Meneide"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2021,
Dear Giacomo,
Apologies, a correction here. I should have more carefully read
it, but this paragraph:
> My problem is Dr. Richard M. Stallman stands credibly and
> factually accused of Doxxing and GCC contributor/participant and
> knowingly manipulating the project for his own personal
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021, JeanHeyd Meneide via Gcc wrote:
> So, it boils down to this for me: either GCC is a place where all
> contributions are welcome, or GCC is a place of hypocrisy, where
> contributions are welcome except when Stallman (or someone else in a
> position of power) lobbies a
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 4:50 AM
> From: "Martin Jambor"
> To: "Giacomo Tesio"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Dear Giacomo,
>
> On Tue, Mar 30 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
Dear Giacomo,
I want to reply specifically to you because you, like me, are a
new contributor, and I have a few questions and a few points that I
think are salient in this discussion.
> As an Italian I'm having a hard time trying to follow your reasoning
> about Stallman being a problem to
Hello Giacomo and everyone else!
As a neighbour to your north (Austria), and another potential
newcomer, I would also like to point out that I do not believe the
views given by Nathan and others in support of him are very
US-centric. At least I would hope that most countries are in pursuit
or see
Dear Giacomo,
On Tue, Mar 30 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Hi Nathan and hello everybody,
>
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:02:30 -0400 Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
>> The USA is not the world and the SC is not the US government. For
>> those in the USA, the (inapplicable) first amendment provides 5
>>
> 3. Most of claims about Stallman are not true (to be more precise -
> they are deliberately misrepresent what Stallman said to make his
> views to look immoral).
I would like to suggest that this discussion will go better without
making accusations that people are "deliberately" doing
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, 26 March 2021 г., 23:02, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> I would rather not have to write this email. Like many developers, I just want
> to write code. Right now we’re working towards the GCC 11 release. I thought
> about deferring this email. But there’s
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 1:16 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: "Nathan Sidwell"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Hi Nathan and hello everybody,
>
> On Fri, 26 Ma
Hi Nathan and hello everybody,
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:02:30 -0400 Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> The USA is not the world and the SC is not the US government. For
> those in the USA, the (inapplicable) first amendment provides 5
> rights, including showing an unwelcome guest the door. [...]
>
> If we
> I respect that you want stay out of the discussion, but I think that to
> present this as some larger societal issue which is somewhat academic
> is wrong.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say or imply that. What I meant to say is
that the very specific discussion we're having in this forum *mirrors*
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 11:55 PM
> From: "Richard Kenner"
> To: dim...@gmx.com
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, m...@klomp.org, m...@soulstudios.co.nz, nat...@acm.org
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> > Here is something close t
> For a leadership position, which serves as an example for
> the community and to some extent demonstrates the values shared by the
> community, I think it is reasonable that there is a decreased
> expectation of privacy.
.. and libel and defamation laws in the US reflect that, for example.
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 12:13, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> On 3/30/21 11:34 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 11:14, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> >> We could just rename it to "GCC", in much the same way that Acorn Risc
> >> Machine became Advanced Risc Machines, then just "Arm". But I'd
On 3/30/21 11:34 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 11:14, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> We could just rename it to "GCC", in much the same way that Acorn Risc
>> Machine became Advanced Risc Machines, then just "Arm". But I'd much
>> prefer that the FSF got its house in order.
>
>
Not quoting anyone here. As a long time user of GCC, I am just worried
about the project. Hence my few comments and reasons for being part of
this movement called free-software.
RMS paid a visit to our premise in year 2000 or may be 2001. The
institute where I started working as a Visiting
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 11:14, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> On 3/30/21 10:47 AM, Didier Kryn wrote:
> > Le 30/03/2021 à 10:25, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc a écrit :
> >> I've been asking myself what benefit GCC gets from being linked to GNU and
> >> all I can think of is the DNS records for gcc.gnu.org.
> >
On 3/30/21 10:47 AM, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 30/03/2021 à 10:25, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc a écrit :
>> I've been asking myself what benefit GCC gets from being linked to GNU and
>> all I can think of is the DNS records for gcc.gnu.org.
>
> Can you remind the meaning of GCC. Isn't it "*GNU*
Hi Alexandre,
On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 23:08 -0300, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> I request that, if you found anything that holds up to your high
> standards of evidence-checking, you submit it to the voting members
> of the FSF, so that we can look into it and take appropriate action.
If you
Le 30/03/2021 à 11:47, Didier Kryn a écrit :
Sorry it wasn't Jonathan Wakely but Richard Biener
> Le 30/03/2021 à 10:25, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc a écrit :
>> I've been asking myself what benefit GCC gets from being linked to GNU and
>> all I can think of is the DNS records for gcc.gnu.org.
>
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 10:48, Didier Kryn wrote:
>
> Le 30/03/2021 à 10:25, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc a écrit :
> > I've been asking myself what benefit GCC gets from being linked to GNU and
> > all I can think of is the DNS records for gcc.gnu.org.
>
> Can you remind the meaning of GCC. Isn't
Le 30/03/2021 à 10:25, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc a écrit :
> I've been asking myself what benefit GCC gets from being linked to GNU and
> all I can think of is the DNS records for gcc.gnu.org.
Can you remind the meaning of GCC. Isn't it "*GNU* Compiler
Collection" ?
If this is still true,
Hi Richard,
On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 08:18 -0400, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
> I mostly want to stay out of this and will leave much of this discussion to
> others (though I have met RMS personally on a number of occaisions), but I
> want to mostly say that I agree with Jeff that it's important
A good reason why Richard should be on the SC is to that he does
demonstrates the values of the GNU project, that of the free software
movement and the FSF. GCC is a important project, and having the head
of the GNU project involved -- even if mostly uninvolved in daily
topics, is a ultimately a
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021, 11:13 Richard Biener via Gcc, wrote:
>
> I do think that the request at hand puts specific pressure on the SC
> members that
> is unwarranted - you ask for them to respond but they are likely powerless
> as to
> the actual request.
I don't think they are powerless, but it
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021, 02:34 Christopher Dimech via Gcc,
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Insofar as Stallman is the foundation of all authority, He exercises that
> foundation because He is the founder of His own work. He is the foundation
> upon which all other authority stands or falls. We use the term
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021, 08:48 mfriley via Gcc, wrote:
> For the record, I am not a GNU contributor--I am only chiming in as a
>
> FOSS sympathizer. I will not pretend to be unbiased, or to have any sort
>
> of personal experience with, or extensive knowledge of, RMS's behavior
>
> apropos of GCC,
For the record, I am not a GNU contributor--I am only chiming in as a
FOSS sympathizer. I will not pretend to be unbiased, or to have any sort
of personal experience with, or extensive knowledge of, RMS's behavior
apropos of GCC, or any other GNU project.
> (For the last point, I don't think
Joseph,
On Mar 29, 2021, Joseph Myers wrote:
> This is based on the longstanding,
> well-documented patterns of how he has misbehaved towards women,
I have a great deal of respect for your attention to detail.
I can hardly believe you would make such a claim without having actually
looked
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 1:30 PM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers"
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor" , "GCC Development"
> , "Mark Wielaard" , "Nathan Sidwell"
>
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> On
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 12:20 PM
> From: "Joseph Myers"
> To: "Mark Wielaard"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, Mark W
On 2021-03-29 17:39, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
You might say that the fullness of Thomas Jefferson's legacy should be
acknowledged, but he did a bit more with his life than own slaves, just
as the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. did more with his time on earth
than cheat on his wife
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 12:09 PM
> From: "Ian Lance Taylor"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "Soul Studios" , "GCC Development"
> , "Mark Wielaard" , "Nathan Sidwell"
>
> Subject: Re: Remove RM
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> He does indeed show up randomly claiming authority even if the GNU
> community has told him no. And it is important to say upfront he has
> no authority and that his attempts to cancel the work of hardworking
> GNU contributors is unwelcome. IMHO for
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 4:33 PM Christopher Dimech via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Here is something close to the fundamental issue: Believing in private life,
> that people are entitled to their own associations and opinions (even bad
> ones!),
> and entitled to make their own mistakes, too — and that,
021 at 9:41 AM
> From: "Soul Studios"
> To: "Richard Kenner"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, m...@klomp.org, nat...@acm.org
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
>
> On 30/03/2021 1:18 am, Richard Kenner wrote:
> >> I think I
On 30/03/2021 1:18 am, Richard Kenner wrote:
I think I will leave this discussion up to those who have more
familiarity with the guy than I do. There's no doubt that some of the
stuff Stallman has written creeps me the hell out, and I think it was
more the tone of the OP I objected to.
I
> On 27 Mar 2021, at 08:08, Didier Kryn wrote:
>
> I've been lurking on this list for a while but never contributed in
> any way to the project. Therefore I understand my voice has little weight.
>
> I'm terrified by this campaign of harassment against the person who
> has given the
> I think I will leave this discussion up to those who have more
> familiarity with the guy than I do. There's no doubt that some of the
> stuff Stallman has written creeps me the hell out, and I think it was
> more the tone of the OP I objected to.
I mostly want to stay out of this and will
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 9:03 PM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
> [double sigh, attaching a pdf causes it to be blocked, and I guess the number
> of
> URLs is also triggering a spam trap for the follow up. I have removed many of
> the URLS from this, you'll have to use your google-fu for sources. I
, they are highly misguided. Money and power often buy what
they shouldn't.
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 at 11:21 AM
> From: "Soul Studios"
> To: "Mark Wielaard" , "GCC Development"
> Cc: "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steeri
We are not talking about some single recent incident, but about
decades of problematic behavior. At the last face-to-face GNU Tools
Cauldron, everybody I talked to about it had some story about being
harassed by RMS, had witnessed such harassment or heard from or knew
someone who had been.
I
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
> - Natural Resource Exploration and Production
> - Free Software Advocacy
>
>
> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 at 6:13 AM
> > From: "Mark Wielaard"
> > To: "JeanHeyd Meneide"
> > Cc: "GCC Development"
On 3/28/21 8:20 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Thanks for clarifying your understanding of Nathan's goal.
I may indeed have misread and mistaken Nathan's goal and means.
I thought the goal was to improve the GCC community by addressing the
gender imbalance, and that the means (misguided, IMHO) was
ent: Monday, March 29, 2021 at 6:13 AM
> From: "Mark Wielaard"
> To: "JeanHeyd Meneide"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 10:3
On Mar 28, 2021, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> It shows we don't tolerate harassment in our project.
It shows we will favor and engage in harassment against a certain
demographic group, while pretending or believing it will somehow
make for a welcoming atmosphere.
> everybody I talked to about it had
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 10:33:15AM -0400, JeanHeyd Meneide wrote:
> This is unacceptable. The only reason I was told - as early as
> yesterday, by Free Software advocates, to my socially distanced face -
> that Stallman was still here is because he was powerless and had no
> effect on
"
> Cc: "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Alexandre,
>
> Making our community more welcoming is indeed a process. And some
> steps will just be symbolic. But I don't believe removing RMS from
> (perceived) leadership p
On 3/27/2021 2:49 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 3/26/21 9:02 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Dear members of the GCC Steering Committee (SC), I ask you to remove
Richard Stallman (RMS)
I do fully support Nathan's request.
Speaking strictly for myself, not as a representative of the steering
On Mar 28, 2021, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Nathan posted today's followup.
Erhm... Nathan, please accept my apologies.
I misread someone else's message under the false impression
it had come from you.
--
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
Free Software Activist
Setting aside whether or not RMS should be associated with the GCC
project for a bit, I'm particularly concerned about the tone of some of
the messages on this thread. People can and will have differences, and
that is fine. But the discussion needs to stay civil.
To those who have
Hello, Siddhesh,
Thanks for clarifying your understanding of Nathan's goal.
I may indeed have misread and mistaken Nathan's goal and means.
I thought the goal was to improve the GCC community by addressing the
gender imbalance, and that the means (misguided, IMHO) was to distance
ourselves from
Dear GCC Community,
Hi. My name is JeanHeyd Meneide, my online moniker is "ThePhD"
(not an actual Doctor. Yet!). I spend a lot of my time hacking on C
and C++. Some of the things I've done include:
- Contributing (mostly) a Implementation [1]
- Doing a GSoC for GCC and writing up about
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
