Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Court�s - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

The FSF isn't sanctioning anything here -- the GNU project is run
independtly from it.  While there might be many groups of hackers
outside of the GNU project, the GNU project as such doesn't have
anything called the "GNU assembly".  To call it that, is to
misrepresent the GNU project and how the GNU project is structured and
maintained.

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[shulie]

On 5/3/21 12:40 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Wow, such hypocrisy. 



The hypocrisy is the misusess of GNU trademarks to mislead people.

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Andreas R.]

Hi Jacob,

> There seem to be two
> different people both named Andreas here, 

This is correct. Unfortunately, even though Jean-Louis is a very spirited
defender of GNU, I feel his zeal sometimes gets in the way of reading
comprehension. It happened before, and correcting him on the matter
proved fruitless.

> one of whom is mildly critical of
> this "GNU Assembly" group 

I am very critical of the Assembly, and on points of fault I actually agree
with Jean-Louis (and Alfred), but in my assessment I tried to draw a line
between which transgressions are technical, and which transgressions would
be actionable.

"Actionable" here means involving lawyers and courts and all sorts of
last-resort nastiness to enforce compliance.

In my opinion there are three reasons for the GNU project to try and
avoid getting entangled:

- It costs time and money, and this needs to be weighed against the
potential gains. Forcing GNU maintainers to drop out of the project
is not something resources should be spent on lightly, in my 
opinion.

- As misguided as I feel they are, they are people and volunteers. They
should be able to disagree and voice that disagreement, even if that
disagreement proves provocative to some level. A strict line between
words and actions should be maintained when assessing the actual
damage they are doing to the GNU project and not just a gut feeling
that they are "wrong" overall.

- At the end of 2019 discussion about governance fell apart because it
became clear the then gnu.tools people had no roadmap for governance
other than getting rid of rms. Now, some 20 months later, they still
do not. The Assembly's actions and public visibility seems to hinge on 
controversies surrounding rms. Since these controversies are mostly
sorted by now, taking legal action would provide them with another
controversy to raise their profile again, as it would play to their
"rms - tyrant" narrative.

On that last point, I'd like to stand by my recommendations: that
further action only be undertaken if they start to undermine the
integrity of the GNU project by (for now) adding new projects or by 
changing the definition of software freedom. In these cases it would be
clear to every observer that a tiny minority is trying to force 
their will on the GNU project, so they couldn't use any publicity
to positively raise their profile. The rest of their provocations
should simply be countered by discussion and publications, where
and when possible.

> > [...]
> >  the Glibc abortion joke
> 
> Is that the "Future Change Warning" in the node for the abort() function in
> the manual?  I had always taken that as ridiculing government censorship.

As far as I can tell it's existence was a fairly petty peeve of O'Donnel, but 
was 
defensible since it could be interpreted as political outside of free 
software politics.

In my opinion that defense was negated by his employer butting in, unasked,
on the FSF board governance, stating they should replace their board for no 
free software related reason.

cheers,
Andreas

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Court�s - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[DJ Delorie]

"Alfred M. Szmidt"  writes:
> There is indeed no such group in the GNU project,

There is a GNU Assembly.  You may disagree with it, or wish it didn't
exist, or have complaints about its purpose or status, but it exists.
Denying this doesn't help resolve any of the issues around it.

And I really don't understand your fear of GNU maintainers getting
together and discussing things outside of an FSF-sanctioned enclave.

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Court�s - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[DJ Delorie]

"Alfred M. Szmidt"  writes:
> Because you disagree with a message is not a reason to reject it.
> In either case, there is no such thing as a "GNU assembly",

Wow, such hypocrisy.  Just because you disagree with the GNU Assembly
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Court�s - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

There is indeed no such group in the GNU project, it is not mentioned
in any of the guiding documents for the GNU project, nor is it a group
that has been created in the GNU project since its inception.  The
binutils as manual doesn't count.

Using language like hypocrisy is not kind.

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Ali Reza Hayati]

Should I mention that truth doesn't care about people's feelings? Some 
of you know me, some don't. Those who know me also know that I always 
try to be respectful. However, this doesn't mean I'm always kind.


I respect people, not their opinions. If something is idiotic or dumb, 
that's the case, I can't help it.


Stop whining about people not being nice, instead, focus on the 
arguments. If you don't have a good argument or your whole argument is 
that someone is not nice to you, you're in a wrong earth.


I support you though, I believe we should all fight for a nicer world in 
which people are kind to one another, but as long as it's the matter of 
truth or false, your feelings have no value, this includes me too.


Please people, stop fighting about feelings or people being nice, and 
focus on the arguments. Progress will be made by doing work, not by 
being nice. Now you can be nice while you do work or you're mean and 
still doing work. If you're one of those, then you're fine, if you're 
only focused on being nice, then get out please.


I say all that with respect and a happy face.

--
Ali Reza Hayati (https://alirezahayati.com)
Libre culture activist and privacy advocate
PGP: 88A5 BDB7 E07C 39D0 8132 6412 DCB8 F138 B865 1771



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Jacob Bachmeyer]

Jean Louis wrote:

[...]

Was it me who started split of the GNU project and presented it on
this GNU mailing list? Or was it you?
  


On a minor note, there seems to be some confusion here:  the discussion 
was started by "Andreas R. ", while you are 
replying to "Andreas Enge " on this branch.  There seem 
to be two different people both named Andreas here, one of whom is 
mildly critical of this "GNU Assembly" group and one who jumped in with 
questionable accusations against you, implicitly calling for you to be 
silenced.



[...]
 the Glibc abortion joke
  


Is that the "Future Change Warning" in the node for the abort() function 
in the manual?  I had always taken that as ridiculing government censorship.



-- Jacob

Re: obtaining source with Guix (was: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project)

[Jacob Bachmeyer]

Arun Isaac wrote:

In general, I don't find it easy to find source code for package
"hello".



Don't know what you're talking about. It's very easy to get source code
for a package. For example,

$ guix build -S hello
  


While we are drifting off-topic for this list, perhaps a more 
user-friendly option might be a "guix get-source" command?  As in,


$ guix get-source hello

would materialize the source tree for "hello" in the current directory?  
Or at least retrieve the sources and report where they are now located?


Another variation on the theme would be a "guix source get" command that 
downloads sources to the local pool and a "guix source unpack" that 
materializes a source tree "here".


Fundamentally, this is a user experience complaint, although it does 
involve a critical feature.



-- Jacob

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Court�s - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Because you disagree with a message is not a reason to reject it.  If
you wish to make a nicer atmosphear here, instead of calling for
moderators please try to ask the party to use a kinder tone, that is
far more benetifical.

In either case, there is no such thing as a "GNU assembly", it would
be nice if you stopped misrepresenting the GNU project, specially
since neither you, nor anyone who is part of this out-group speak for
the GNU project.

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Jean Louis, please restrain yourself and stop posing messages with a
reply to each every message on this list.  There is little point to
continue threads that are enteirly unrelated to the GNU project (or
Libreplanet).

More specifically, discussion about groups that are entierly unrelated
to the GNU project are better dome elsewhere -- not here.  

This isn't jean-louis-discuss.

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Adrienne G. Thompson]

> > [...] when a woman wrote us to express
> > personally and specifically her concerns around RMS we ran her off, and
> > ran her down.
>
> If you are talking about the woman who wrote to this list back in Oct
> 2019, I was one  of the people who responded to her, and I was polite
> and respectful...
>


> Since Sep 2019 to this day, RMS has received hundreds --hundreds-- of
> private messages of support, including from women.


+1 Dora!!

Such is the level of fright that this self-righteousness cult has created.
> It's
> unsustainable and it has to stop. It _will_ stop


I disagree, however, that "It _will_ stop". The corporate-backed campaign
against RMS chooses to exploit women to throw their grenades. These women
are proxies, front[women] serving greedy corporate interests seeking to
control Free/Libre/Open-source software.

We should not give them (the proxies) legitimacy by entertaining them.

Legal action will be necessary to bring an end to the attacks.


Adrienne
--
Freedom - no pane, all gaiGN!

References:

   1. GNU C-Graph: http://www.gnu.org/software/c-graph
   2. Code Art Now: http://codeartnow.com
   3. Abertheid Campaign: http://www.abertheid.info
   4. Follow me on Twitter: @AdrienneGT 
   @GNUcgraph 
   5. Let's Link Up: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adriennegt/
   6. Knees On My Neck:
   https://twitter.com/AdrienneGT/status/1288648018783277068
   7. Rise Up for Richard Stallman: https://www.stallmansupport.org

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[shulie]

On 4/28/21 1:35 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> What exactly? Naming a person 4 times while commenting their actions? 



No , for falsely accusing someone of sexually assualt and approving rape
when you know it is just not true.


Furthermore, how can anyone trust them with GNU licensing standards when
they can't stop stepping on the GNU tradmark?

Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Taylan Kammer]

On 30.04.2021 22:28, Jean Louis wrote:
> * Taylan Kammer  [2021-04-30 22:19]:
>> While some might be familiar with similar constructs from corporate
>> life, and while some people coming from a corporate background may be
>> contributing to this CoC current, it seems very obvious to me that CoCs
>> are mainly a manifestation of the contemporary "political correctness"
>> wave, which IMO has more to do with social activism than
>> corporations.
> 
> From a meme on "social activism" and "social justice warriors", on a
> difference between those:
> 
> Ok, here's the diffrence between "social activists" and "social
> justice warriors":
> 
> - Social activist: "oh look, there's no wheelchair ramps into that
>   building. Let's build a ramp!"
> 
> - Social Justice Warrior: "Let's persecute people using the stairs and
>   make them feel bad for having legs!"

Memes don't make good arguments, but they're pretty good at presenting a
straw man in a humorous way.


- Taylan

Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Jean Louis]

* Taylan Kammer  [2021-05-01 04:46]:
> I don't see a problem in that interaction, I think people were being
> sufficiently patient with a person who was being arguably obnoxious.

They want diversity, inclusiveness, but they act exclusively from
their viewpoint, for example that everybody must express themselvs
"nice" how they deem it fit. Yet planet Earth is full of diverse
people.  It is in relation to the Guix's code of conduct:
https://github.com/pjotrp/guix/blob/master/CODE-OF-CONDUCT

As contributors and maintainers of this project, and in the interest of
fostering an open and welcoming community, we pledge to respect all
people who contribute through reporting issues, posting feature
requests, updating documentation, submitting pull requests or patches,
and other activities.

We are committed to making participation in this project a
harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of level of
experience, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation,
disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age,
religion, or nationality.

Person come along and says: So for the good of the guix
system, do what I ask. Please!

and then gets bombarded with rejection until he disappears from IRC
chat.

He already said "Please", but IRC participants don't like the
imperative. I have no problem with imperative neither with
understanding that this guy had a problem and also good intentions.

He is told that he does not behave nice, etc. I cannot see enough
reasons to justify the rejection of that person.

It gives me impression that none of IRC participants truly think of
the code of conduct.

> If you pretend that CoCs exist for people to follow like they're law,
> sure this would seem hypocritical.  The way I see it, they exist as a
> rough guideline and a place to refer to once an actual problem comes
> up.

The actual problem has been demonstrated, the use of sexualized
language is just there. They never handle the problem.

What you again refer to is the biased decision making. They use it on
those who disagree, in general, when it is not one of them. 

> What this means in practice is that someone who is genuinely offended by
> the f-word *could* complain about it, and the Guix maintainers would
> listen.  I'm actually almost certain that if this happened, the result
> would be in favor of the person complaining about the use of the
> f-word.

I am not.

> > Please note: I promote Guix all the time, 24 hours per day, and I have
> > no personal hate against anybody!
> 
> Yes, sure, it definitely shows that you have no personal hate against
> anybody at all from the way you title your emails. ;-)

I understand the irony, but no, I don't have. We speak of public
figures and their actions. Criticizing something is not hate. That is
why words are different.


-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[shulie]

On 4/29/21 12:33 PM, Taylan Kammer wrote:
> Everyone can decide for themselves whether they care about social
> justice, equal opportunity, equity, actively working to fix imbalances
> caused by past injustices, and so on and so forth. 



that is not the question.  The question is if they believe in YOUR brand
of equality and what is an injustice, and what is an injustice worth fixing.


I am not in favor of Bolshovich style communism that kills individuality
in the cause of equality.


the heck with the crazy.  And this has nothing to do with defaming RMS.

Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Taylan Kammer]

On 30.04.2021 22:54, Jean Louis wrote:
> 
> Sample analysis:
> 
> 
> User gnutec is coming for help, his Guix system is broken and he does
> not know better. I did not verify, it could be his first time on chat,
> verify for "gnutec" term, it should be clear that his system is
> broken. The manner of chat or "welcoming" is far from anything we
> talked here. Of course that "there is no warranty" for software, but
> then why open up IRC channel and have such a policy to treat newcomers
> like "bad behavior". All what I can see is that gnutec arrived in good
> faith and had serious problem.
> 
> http://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/2021-02-06.log#221204
> 
> Then at one moment gnutec said:
> 
> So for the good of the guix system, do what I ask. Please!
> 
> then it becomes unwelcoming:
> 
> gnutec, I think your behavior here is really bad and is
> getting us nowhere!
> 
> gnutec, nobody here owns you any help and if you are not
> being nice about it I do not think I am willing to help you in any way
> and that could be the same for everyone else.
> 
> gnutec, I think that does not prevent you from being nice with 
> people here. "So for the good of the guix system, do what I ask. Please" - 
> Since when explicitly giving orders to volunteers is an acceptable behavior.
> Things happen at their own pace, there's so many things to
> do, and each has its own varying priority.
> 
> It is the inability of dftxbs3e to grasp that:
> 
> - person is not writing well English
> 
> - person has serious problem with broken Guix system, and who has that
>   kind of problem could be upset

I don't see a problem in that interaction, I think people were being
sufficiently patient with a person who was being arguably obnoxious.


> Or how about Guix's code of conduct where "Examples of unacceptable behavior 
> by participants include:
> * The use of sexualized language" but then again we have 103
> occurences of "fuck" and majority of them by one of IRC members who is
> good friend among them, like nckx:
> 
> http://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/search?query=fuck
> 
> I don't mind the "fuck" there, but I can imagine there are teenagers
> and people who behave different, rather decent, not using vulgar
> language.
> 
> Now we can see practically that project managers of Guix, WILL
> tolerate their members when they use sexualized language, some of them
> are ready to attack in private as well; but will not tolerate those
> who disagree with their opinions, as if such person would say "fuck",
> would be kicked out.
>
> That is one good practical example with evidences how Code of Conduct
> is practiced in hypocrisy.

If you pretend that CoCs exist for people to follow like they're law,
sure this would seem hypocritical.  The way I see it, they exist as a
rough guideline and a place to refer to once an actual problem comes up.

What this means in practice is that someone who is genuinely offended by
the f-word *could* complain about it, and the Guix maintainers would
listen.  I'm actually almost certain that if this happened, the result
would be in favor of the person complaining about the use of the f-word.


> Please note: I promote Guix all the time, 24 hours per day, and I have
> no personal hate against anybody!

Yes, sure, it definitely shows that you have no personal hate against
anybody at all from the way you title your emails. ;-)


- Taylan


P.S.: I don't want to waste too much time with squabbles on this ML so
excuse me if I don't respond to further emails in this thread, or keep
them very brief.

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Jean Louis]

* Corwin Brust  [2021-04-30 21:29]:
> Thanks Andrea.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:08 PM Andreas Enge  wrote:
> 
> > I call out to the moderators of these mailing lists, if moderation indeed
> > still exists there, to act against such hate mail by Jean Louis singling
> > out an individual whose actions they disagree with:
> >
> > Am Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 10:12:13AM +0300 schrieb Jean Louis:
> > > Ludovic Courtès (Guix)
> > > Ludovic Courtès
> > > Ludovic Courtès
> > > Ludovic Courtès
> >
> > This cannot be qualified but as personal harrassment.
> >
> 
> Cosigned.

Nonsense. No personal harassment involved. I am not hater. That is
fabrication.

As I have not written to Ludovic, it cannot be personal harassment. If
my comments are felt by Ludovic as intense feelings of suffering, I
prefer Ludovic telling me that.

You misquoted me Andresa, I don't appreciate that, as I did not write
four times, one after the other Ludovic's name.

Was it me who started split of the GNU project and presented it on
this GNU mailing list? Or was it you?

In that email, which you misquoted there was me:

- asking you if you represent the AntiGNU assembly? No answer.

- analyzing your groups being divisive, dividing the community

- having personal issues, mixing it with the group's purposes

- infringement of copyrights on your domain gnu.tools, which you did
  not address until today, that I know

- I said Ludovic is not GNU project leader, he could kind of pretend,
  but is not

- I said that I consider him criminal for his public harassment and
  illegal attempt to take-over non-profit such as FSF, and I said I
  consider him criminal. Why? Because criminals want to take what is
  not theirs. Because criminals will accuse others of what they are
  doing themselves. That is my opinion. Since 2019, Ludovic is keeping
  that harassing statement on Guix website, and I asked him to provide
  evidences in 2019, all what he could say was the Glibc abortion
  joke. LOL.

  It is my right to say what I wish and want.

  In 2019, I have asked rekado on IRC to open up the page for public
  comments, he refused. Then I have gathered public comments from
  other websites and published it.

  Your group is not transparent. Don't expect that people don't talk
  about it. I said minimum, other people said so much, and your group
  still behaves so much rightous and free of impunity.

That is not personal harassment, as I did not write to Ludo. I don't
consider it harassment at all, neither I have personally anything
against you Andreas nor Ludo, I appreciate your work, just that I see
your group is confused with directions.

For as long as Guix is keeping the unfounded public shaming page
there, I will keep my pages.

As soon as Guix retracts their pages, I will retract my pages. I think
that is a fair deal.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Jean Louis]

* Corwin Brust  [2021-04-30 21:29]:
> Please reread the threads with an eye to how much good the topics most
> favored on this list have done and will do to draw people and
> public opinion to our cause.  I hope and expect we can move forward with a
> better tone and clearly visible mutual respect.  What I have seen is that
> our "work environment" has been and is becoming increasingly toxic.

I don't agree that discussions with disagreements should be called
toxic, that generalizes things.

IMHO, people did not speak enough, some are taking sides, some are
neutral, there are conflicts, and it is very good that people exchange
opinions and communicate. That is the best, as the communication alone
is minimizing the tensions.

By communicating more, we will also achieve clearly visible mutual
respect.

Also note that when speaking of respect one has to look into related
factors. As when a person gets hit in the face and defends, it is not
appropriate to just come along and say: hey guys, calm down, you are
behaving badly. As maybe both of them will feel injustice and lack of
understanding on observer's side. And maybe one of them was simply hit
without good reason.

What could move towards solving the conflict is to say "what
happened"? And then discussion about that could solve it.

Or maybe, who told you something bad about RMS?

As often are people in the conflict because of rumours.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Jean Louis]

* Corwin Brust  [2021-04-30 21:29]:
> FWIW, I find the flood of replies demanding "evidence" and otherwise
> interrogating the concerns you express here to be excellent substantiation
> in and of themselves.

Corwin, would you be accused of illegal acts or as a complice to
illegal acts, and somebody publishes it online, and persists accusing
you, and not providing evidences persists accusing you, would you then
say the same?


-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Arun Isaac]

> In general, I don't find it easy to find source code for package
> "hello".

Don't know what you're talking about. It's very easy to get source code
for a package. For example,

$ guix build -S hello


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Jean Louis]

* Taylan Kammer  [2021-04-30 22:19]:
> And if you do care about social justice, and just think that CoC are a
> bad way of supporting it, you should be able to make a case for that
> directly, without invoking conspiratorial theories.

The case was already demonstrated numerous times. It is too vague,
never written by attorneys, not aligned with the law, a document that
serves to accuse without hearing, injustice kind of justice. Code of
conduct has purpose to publicly shame.

Major problem is that it is vague, left open to interpretations and
too many times abused.

A decent and kind person will never collide with code of
conduct. Decent person will also not insist too much.

As otherwise, we always had "Terms of service". Website owner, mailing
list owner, IRC boss, whoever in charge was always authorized to
expell others for whatsoever reasons. I don't find it bad. This way
groups of same interest could communicate in pleasure with each other,
whoever they may be.

Code of conduct does not apply to volunteers who never have seen or
read it. It is in wrong place. When employee comes first day for work,
maybe company will tell him here is the code of conduct, please study
and behave. There is dependent relation and obligation, as both
parties are exchanging clearly defined values, like work/time for
salary and there is way how company raises values, and if that value
is damaged by bad conduct of employee, company cannot exchange with
employee.

In online software related or other communities there is almost
nothing that company is giving to volunteers. There is software, but
same software volunteer can get without volunteering or
participating.

Then software project managers may not be very tolerant people as it
is planet Earth, the true diversity is already there. However, some
project managers cannot simply handle their feelings when somebody
comes with disagreements or violent disagreements, and instead of
solving the problem at hand, which is almost always really the issue,
they use Code of Conduct to expell the person, so that they feel
better (instead of therapy). And problem at hand never gets solved.

So Code of Conduct is many times a hideous attempt to ignore the
problem or real issue.

Sample analysis:


User gnutec is coming for help, his Guix system is broken and he does
not know better. I did not verify, it could be his first time on chat,
verify for "gnutec" term, it should be clear that his system is
broken. The manner of chat or "welcoming" is far from anything we
talked here. Of course that "there is no warranty" for software, but
then why open up IRC channel and have such a policy to treat newcomers
like "bad behavior". All what I can see is that gnutec arrived in good
faith and had serious problem.

http://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/2021-02-06.log#221204

Then at one moment gnutec said:

So for the good of the guix system, do what I ask. Please!

then it becomes unwelcoming:

gnutec, I think your behavior here is really bad and is
getting us nowhere!

gnutec, nobody here owns you any help and if you are not
being nice about it I do not think I am willing to help you in any way
and that could be the same for everyone else.

gnutec, I think that does not prevent you from being nice with people 
here. "So for the good of the guix system, do what I ask. Please" - Since when 
explicitly giving orders to volunteers is an acceptable behavior.
Things happen at their own pace, there's so many things to
do, and each has its own varying priority.

It is the inability of dftxbs3e to grasp that:

- person is not writing well English

- person has serious problem with broken Guix system, and who has that
  kind of problem could be upset

Or how about Guix's code of conduct where "Examples of unacceptable behavior by 
participants include:
* The use of sexualized language" but then again we have 103
occurences of "fuck" and majority of them by one of IRC members who is
good friend among them, like nckx:

http://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/search?query=fuck

I don't mind the "fuck" there, but I can imagine there are teenagers
and people who behave different, rather decent, not using vulgar
language.

Now we can see practically that project managers of Guix, WILL
tolerate their members when they use sexualized language, some of them
are ready to attack in private as well; but will not tolerate those
who disagree with their opinions, as if such person would say "fuck",
would be kicked out.

That is one good practical example with evidences how Code of Conduct
is practiced in hypocrisy.

Please note: I promote Guix all the time, 24 hours per day, and I have
no personal hate against anybody!


Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Jean Louis]

* Taylan Kammer  [2021-04-30 22:19]:
> While some might be familiar with similar constructs from corporate
> life, and while some people coming from a corporate background may be
> contributing to this CoC current, it seems very obvious to me that CoCs
> are mainly a manifestation of the contemporary "political correctness"
> wave, which IMO has more to do with social activism than
> corporations.

>From a meme on "social activism" and "social justice warriors", on a
difference between those:

Ok, here's the diffrence between "social activists" and "social
justice warriors":

- Social activist: "oh look, there's no wheelchair ramps into that
  building. Let's build a ramp!"

- Social Justice Warrior: "Let's persecute people using the stairs and
  make them feel bad for having legs!"


Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Corwin Brust]

Thanks Andrea.

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:08 PM Andreas Enge  wrote:

> I call out to the moderators of these mailing lists, if moderation indeed
> still exists there, to act against such hate mail by Jean Louis singling
> out an individual whose actions they disagree with:
>
> Am Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 10:12:13AM +0300 schrieb Jean Louis:
> > Ludovic Courtès (Guix)
> > Ludovic Courtès
> > Ludovic Courtès
> > Ludovic Courtès
>
> This cannot be qualified but as personal harrassment.
>

Cosigned.

FWIW, I find the flood of replies demanding "evidence" and otherwise
interrogating the concerns you express here to be excellent substantiation
in and of themselves.

Peers devoted to free software,

Please reread the threads with an eye to how much good the topics most
favored on this list have done and will do to draw people and
public opinion to our cause.  I hope and expect we can move forward with a
better tone and clearly visible mutual respect.  What I have seen is that
our "work environment" has been and is becoming increasingly toxic.

For example
 - Well respected philosophies are given kilobytes of air-time while any
decent or nuance that could serve to evolve the tactics we apply in
bringing these important points more successfully to the greater community
are ignored or (more likely) heckled, pelted with platitudes and sophistry.
 - Any questioning of the greatness or suggestion of the fallibility of our
esteemed founder is ridiculed.   Is Dr. Stallman so weak we must rush to
deflect any unflattering commentary or views?

I beg the assembly: don't rush to the aid of our principles nor our heros.
They can each take critique. They will grow only stronger for our honesty
even as we become more able to attract and sustain more diverse
viewpoints.  Moreover, your fellow community members are (or should be
assumed to be) as capable as ourselves:  we are each responsible for
separating signal and noise.

Let me be very clear and direct:  when a woman wrote us to express
personally and specifically her concerns around RMS we ran her off, and ran
her down.  There's no place for that in this community, nor in any
community dedicated to the public good.   It has nothing to do with the
veracity much less universality of the concerns she took the time to share
with us.   We should be grateful to anyone troubling to hold up the
mirror.  If we find it distorted, and wonder why that soul searching should
begin at home. When we finally show those questions, we must do so in a way
that encourages and rewards the courage shown.  Little I've read on this
list since the convention has conveyed we are able to do this, much less
that we are committed to doing so.

Thanks for your consideration.

Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Taylan Kammer]

On 28.04.2021 22:12, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
> On 2021-04-22 06:13, shulie wrote:
>> Codes of Conduct are just Facist manifestos
> 
> Part of it is this:
> 
> In the past few decades, free software has made unprecedented
> inroads into the world of corporations, governments and
> institutions.
> 
> Those goons are not comfortable with external players who have
> not signed off on their HR policies.
> 
> (What they are extremely comfortable with is---doh!---using the
> work without paying anyone.)
> 
> A code of conduct document is little more than a condensed set
> of corporate or governmental HR policies, disguised as some
> sort of "organically grown" community document.

Personally I think this is nonsense, and I'm saying that as someone who
doesn't necessarily like CoCs.  (I'm kind of on the fence and have been
changing my mind back and forth.)

While some might be familiar with similar constructs from corporate
life, and while some people coming from a corporate background may be
contributing to this CoC current, it seems very obvious to me that CoCs
are mainly a manifestation of the contemporary "political correctness"
wave, which IMO has more to do with social activism than corporations.


Digression:

I think corporations are often happy to play along with such currents,
as it allows them to appear friendly through mainly superficial policy
and language changes.  See also the constant Pride Month social media
gimmicks, the recent BLM support banners on websites, and so on.  Though
to be fair, even then, I believe that at least some of the people behind
such corporate gimmicks are actually genuine in their feelings and hope
that they're doing a little bit of good.

End of digression.


The underlying question would be where this strong current of "political
correctness" comes from, and what its good and bad sides are.  I think
it's rather silly to think that it's some coordinated, conspiratorial
movement.  Even if there are some bogus aspects to it, I think it's
undeniable that genuine concerns about bias and discrimination in
mainstream culture form at least part of the backbone.  And those
concerns, in my opinion, should be taken seriously.

Everyone can decide for themselves whether they care about social
justice, equal opportunity, equity, actively working to fix imbalances
caused by past injustices, and so on and so forth.  If you don't care
about such things, or disagree that such problems even exist in the
first place, you're entitled to that belief.  State so openly if you
feel the need to, but why create drama?  Isn't it usually the "anti-PC"
people who are all about "we're here to write free software, not do
politics"?  In that case, how about you accept that some projects use
CoCs or whatever, and just focus on the software development?  People
have to adjust to different cultures, languages, and personalities all
the time when working on international projects; how is this different?
 Perhaps the only difference is that this time, the group of people who
are required to adjust are a group that isn't used to having to adjust
to others, as they've so far generally been the dominant group.

And if you do care about social justice, and just think that CoC are a
bad way of supporting it, you should be able to make a case for that
directly, without invoking conspiratorial theories.  (This is roughly
where I stand; I agree with core principles of "social justice" but can
have pretty stark disagreements with others on what actually constitutes
social justice and whether particular policies are more helpful or more
harmful to attain justice.)


Also, apart from the clearly political aspects, there is also the aspect
of simply creating a welcoming environment.  Just look at how some of
the people on this very mailing list speak.  It's absolutely awful.
Many of them I wouldn't really want to work together on a project, let
alone be friends with.  I might force myself to work together with them
to achieve a common goal, but they do make the prospect less attractive.
 For more sensitive people, their language or behavior might be a no-go.
 Objectively, it's better for the members of a project to stick to a
somewhat sterile language and behavior so as not to push away possible
valuable contributors.  CoCs *could* try to achieve just that, though
I'm not sure if they practically do.


All in all, I think a lot of "anti-PC" people need a good old dose of
chill the hell out!  If there really are bad actors trying to split the
community through overly aggressive pushing of certain political topics,
those who go ape-shit at "political correctness" are definitely helping
them a great deal. ;-)


Just my semi-humble two cents.

- Taylan

Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[DJ Delorie]

"Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> writes:
> Those goons

Can we stop with the name-calling, please?  

> (What they are extremely comfortable with is---doh!---using the
> work without paying anyone.)

As one of the goon-workers, I (and my whole group) get paid by our head
goons to work on Free Software.  You're welcome.

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[quiliro]

Jean Louis  writes:

> By the way, could you please update the license on this page:
> https://gnu.tools/en/documents/free-software/
>
> The page is mentioning "open source" that was never in the original
> article for free software here:
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and original article is
> licensed under Copyright © 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, 2009-2019, 2021 Free
> Software Foundation, Inc. This page is licensed under a Creative
> Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. -- which
> means, that you are required legally:
>
> - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and
>   indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable
>   manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you
>   or your use.
>
>   There is no URL to the original article, in fact there is no URL or
>   hyperlink to any GNU.org page, no proper attribution, no license,
>   and no indication of modification. You are required to respect
>   copyrights. 

This makes me doubt if Guix really respects FSF FSDG.  If they cannot
respect free software licenses, maybe they include non-free software.
That is why I proposed in 2019 that approved distros do not audit
themselves for freedom.  A third party should.  But Donald Robertson has
delayed with different excuses over time.  John Sullivan also decided to
overlook this.  They just bounced it back on me, instead of taking
action as FSF should do.  I wonder why they have so much decision power
in FSF and not the board.

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Jean Louis]

* Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> [2021-04-29 10:30]:
> A code of conduct document is little more than a condensed set
> of corporate or governmental HR policies, disguised as some
> sort of "organically grown" community document.

Code of conduct is used in an organization with employees is
fundamentally different to organizations with arbitrary volunteers.

Corporate policy is to exchange with employees, here is the salary,
and in exchange we need the work, and work has to be conducted by
specific manner, for example, don't spit on the floor.

Those corporate Code of conducts are not politics focused, neither
majority of such promote issues like feminism, gender problems,
etc. They are mostly focused on business and how organization conducts
its business matters.

There exist very clear agreement, legal agreement named employment
agreement between the employer and employee.

In our voluntary organizations contributors they do not have any
formal legal agreement with any employee, often there is no employee
and no legal entity. There is no salary for contributors in free
software projects. There is no direct dependency. Sometimes there are
donations.

Those who promote code of conduct speak of wanting diversity. But in
the same time they also speak of not tolerating diversity. It is
contradiction in itself.

If I want diversity, I want diversity. I will then tolerate well
behaved people and bad mannered people. That is diversity for me. I
can immediately think of carnevals, Mardi Grass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mardi_Gras, open air concerts, and
similar public gatherings. There is special feeling coming with it.

On such public gatherings there are all kinds of people, some will be
drunk, some will be funny, there will be abusive and sexist
people. Nobody likes worst happening, but that is true diversity.

Tolerance is key word.

Not assuming bad faith just because somebody is upset or made some sex
related joke.

Code of conduct is strictly a document authorizing thought police to
exclude people out of "their diversity", example from Guix code of
conduct:
https://github.com/pjotrp/guix/blob/master/CODE-OF-CONDUCT

"We are committed to making participation in this project a
harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of level of
experience, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation,
disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age,
religion, or nationality."

The above statement is obviously not true, as it is impossible for a
project maintainer to know what is "harassment free" experience for
everyone.

By the way one of them D.T. tried harassing me online from his farm,
behind computer, and beyond the GNU project but declined meeting me in
person to solve the issue. It is very easy to appear brave behind the
keyboard. Why would I need any "Code of Conduct" to help me with the
harasser? I don't. I can solve issue myself, there is legal system,
there is police, there is recourse for that.

I need no gang of bullies to protect me from bullies. If bully comes
along, I know how to deal with one. 

It is very fine to tell people to stop with harassment.

What is not fine is the open interpretation on what harassment is, and
that a small group is allowed to do basically anything they wish and
want by justifying their actions by Code of conduct. Of course, in
anonymous way. Somebody complained, you said something wrong, we kick
you out.

No expectedhearing, no expected confrontation with accuser, thus open
to misinterpretations on what happened.

More quotes from Guix code of conduct:

"Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:"

The above statement only lists "examples" which means that
interpretation on what is wrong and right is left to project
maintainers.

We already had Terms of Service for every website, in general private
websites can simply kick out any person for whatever reason. I find
that better, not necessarily just, but better to say "this is ours and
we will do what we want" rather than giving appearance of some just
and public cause.

To say these are "examples" makes it open for vague misinterpretations
and thus injustices.

> * The use of sexualized language or imagery

Humans are sexual. We love sex. At least majority of us loves sex.

I cannot possibly imagine why any kind of mentioning of sex or
sexualized language would be "breach" of behavior. There are vulgar
expressions, every decent conference should warn people who express
themselves vulgary. But to prohibit any use of sexualized language or
imagery would IMHO also obstruct freedom zero.

It becomes practically impossible to create programs that recognize
coppulation on pictures and in websites, as the sole mentioning of
those programs would be in violation of the so called code of
conduct.

It becomes practically impossible in such projects with vague codes of
conducts to make software vibrators, and other sex toys, sexual chat,
and dating sites 

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Jean Louis]

* quil...@riseup.net  [2021-04-29 20:47]:
> This makes me doubt if Guix really respects FSF FSDG.  If they cannot
> respect free software licenses, maybe they include non-free
> software.

I am sure that Guix would remove non-free software from system when
such is discovered. Guix will become major system to bootstrap other
distributions. There are many good points.

But licensing issues for software packages are not solved IMHO.

I think nobody reads those licenses.

Example is easy:

$ guix install hello

in /gnu/store the license is there "COPYING" and is fine.

"If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the
Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or
a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided
you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to
find the Corresponding Source.  Regardless of what server hosts the
Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements."

In this example, when I get hello package there is no clear direction
next to the object code saying where and how to find corresponding
source.

On the Guix manual, I cannot find a reference:
https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/html_node/Concept-Index.html

There are 2 mentions of "source" but do not help in getting the source
code for particular package.

I know that sources' locations are embedded in package description,
but that cannot be said to be "clear direction" next to object
code. Package description is source code definitely not readable by
everyone. There is URL like mirror:// and there is scheme which one
need to understand to find the URL to the source.

In general, I don't find it easy to find source code for package
"hello". There may be a way, but it is not aligned with the license.

License is violated how I see it.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Jean Louis]

* quil...@riseup.net  [2021-04-29 19:27]:
> Jean Louis  writes:
> 
> > By the way, could you please update the license on this page:
> > https://gnu.tools/en/documents/free-software/
> >
> > The page is mentioning "open source" that was never in the original
> > article for free software here:
> > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and original article is
> > licensed under Copyright © 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, 2009-2019, 2021 Free
> > Software Foundation, Inc. This page is licensed under a Creative
> > Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. -- which
> > means, that you are required legally:
> >
> > - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and
> >   indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable
> >   manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you
> >   or your use.
> >
> >   There is no URL to the original article, in fact there is no URL or
> >   hyperlink to any GNU.org page, no proper attribution, no license,
> >   and no indication of modification. You are required to respect
> >   copyrights. 
> 
> This makes me doubt if Guix really respects FSF FSDG.  If they cannot
> respect free software licenses, maybe they include non-free software.
> That is why I proposed in 2019 that approved distros do not audit
> themselves for freedom.  A third party should.  But Donald Robertson has
> delayed with different excuses over time.  John Sullivan also decided to
> overlook this.  They just bounced it back on me, instead of taking
> action as FSF should do.  I wonder why they have so much decision power
> in FSF and not the board.

I have tried making that point back in 2016. I am not sure if Guix's
automated system respect licenses, I think it does not. Here is
message from 2016 to Ludovic, it was private, I never got an answer on
that. I wonder why.

[Wed Apr  6 2016]
 Hello Ludovic. I wish to tell you in private.  [09:32]
 I would rather tell you in private for GPL2 conformance   [09:53]
 as when distributing binaries, it is not enough to provide link to
original sources  [09:54]
 also when patching original sources, that is modification  [09:55]
 I guess that functions shall be made to provide: storage (on
servers) for modified sources, to be downloaded later. Or 3-years
written offers.
 anyway there must be storage
 for each version that was ever downloaded as substitute, there
shall be storage.  [09:56]
 and there shall be link in the package definitions if you ask me,
to such source storage, or there must be written 3 years offer...
[09:57]
 so I guess that there are new functions to be made... 

IMHO, those issues are not solved today.

I may be wrong. However, I think I raised that issue on Guix IRC too,
but it was just ignored. 

Issue is however open and ignored for 5 years 23 days.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Jean Louis]

* Federico Leva (Nemo)  [2021-04-28 20:35]:
> Il 28/04/21 18:27, Andreas Enge ha scritto:
> > This cannot be qualified but as personal harrassment.
> 
> What exactly? Naming a person 4 times while commenting their
> actions?

But I am sorry, I don't remember ever writing like 4 times Ludo's
name, I really don't.

Either that was not quoted well, maybe it was changed, or is something
else.

Why should I write 4 times Ludo's name in any email? I don't get
it. Somebody help me.


-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Il 28/04/21 18:27, Andreas Enge ha scritto:

This cannot be qualified but as personal harrassment.


What exactly? Naming a person 4 times while commenting their actions? Do 
you propose to apply such a standard universally, e.g. to an email 
criticising actions by an FSF or GNU office holder? (I might have missed 
something in Jean Louis' message, I admit I've only read it quickly.)


As a reminder, we have the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html

Jean Louis, please consider whether certain expressions, for instance 
"like children", may sound like personal attacks. Andreas, please 
consider whether expressions like "hate email", which seem to attribute 
intent, may be needlessly harsh and inflammatory and therefore fall 
short of the standards proposed by the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines.


Best regards,
Federico

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Jean Louis]

* Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> [2021-04-29 10:30]:
> A code of conduct document is little more than a condensed set
> of corporate or governmental HR policies, disguised as some
> sort of "organically grown" community document.

Every organization may have its own codes, variety of codes are out
there, and there is nothing wrong in attempt to harmonize behavior of
its members.

Here we have the context that is different from commonly used
organizational codes, the new context encompasses new politics such as
feminism, gender problems, and may be construed often as a general
method for thought police. Say something wrong and you are done.

Problem at hand here is that we have various people, some people are
more sensitive than others, but don't want and cannot express
themselves. Some others will come along and inevitably have different
opinions. Those sensitive want to survive well and without being
offended, Code of Conduct mostly serves those who are unable to tell
others how they feel, why they feel so, and unable to provide concrete
objective reasons for it.

As Codes of Conducts are very generalized, not well defined such as
attorney made agreements, they are often abused by their own authors
or by the managers who wrote those Codes of Conducts, they allow wide
range of interpretations and thus misrepresentations.

Example is the Guix' code of conduct as adopted from Contributor Code
of Conduct: https://github.com/pjotrp/guix/blob/master/CODE-OF-CONDUCT

Where it says that they are committed to avoid (among other things):

- Personal attacks
- Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments
- Public or private harassment

Despite that Guix has its own code of conduct and GNU project does not
have code of conduct, in other words they are not same entity, Guix
finds it appropriate to gather group of people, incite them to provoke
personal attacks, annoy others, and make derogatory comments on RMS:
https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/

and to tell "we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over
the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the
empowerment of all computer users. GNU is not fulfilling its mission
when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we
want to reach out to."

That is "derogatory" statement as by definition 1. derogative,
derogatory, disparaging -- (expressive of low opinion; "derogatory
comments"; "disparaging remarks about the new house").

Despite that it is quite clear how people are in support for RMS, the
small group of Code of Conduct people continues with their derogatory
statements.

What is even more interesting is that they use the subdomain
guix.gnu.org which is on GNU.org domain and are able to make such
derogatory statements, and personal attacks.

None of them signers of those defamatory statement did not tell of any
personal issue with RMS, neither how they wanted to handle it in a
good faith.

It is personal attack and public harassment.

It is in contradiction to Guix's Code of Conduct.

The Guix's code of conduct and so many others may have this clause:
"Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior
may be reported by contacting a project maintainer at
guix-maintain...@gnu.org.  All complaints will be reviewed and
investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary
and appropriate to the circumstances. Maintainers are obligated to
maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident."

That clause basically say that accuser will be held anonymous and
maintainers or whoever will be judges to punish the accused. This is
in contradiction to the legal system and established norms of our
civilization, including any mediation process, that accuser and
accused must be brought together in a hearing to make issues evident,
without words, without evidences and hearing, nobody shall be
considered criminal neither should be accused.

Now GNU came first, then came Guix under GNU umbrella. GNU does not
have Code of Conduct, Guix has. Would GNU have Code of Conduct, that
Guix statement would be removed right away.

It is not removed, as the purpose of GNU is not politics, but
distribution of free software. When looking at purposes, the purpose
is stronger and has to be supported foremost. GNU project does not,
obviously it does not practice the methods of thought police.

Here is a story of injustice where Code of Conduct has been applied
and how cruel it comes over:

From:
https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/

> Summary: NumFOCUS found I violated their Code of Conduct (CoC) at
> JupyterCon because my talk was not “kind”, because I said Joel Grus
> was “wrong” regarding his opinion that Jupyter Notebook is not a good
> software development environment. Joel (who I greatly respect, and
> consider an asset to the data science community) was not involved in
> NumFOCUS’s action, was not told about it, and did not support
> it. 

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Jean Louis]

* Andreas Enge  [2021-04-28 18:28]:
> I call out to the moderators of these mailing lists, if moderation indeed
> still exists there, to act against such hate mail by Jean Louis singling
> out an individual whose actions they disagree with:

I have no hate against Ludo, I admire his work and welcome him.

It is only that I state my opinion. Defamation is false accusation of
na offense, or malicious misrepresentatioin of someone's words or
actions. I am fully free to say that Ludovic is leader in Guix and
that he used Guix project for defamatory statements on GNU project and
RMS. That statement of mine is however, so far from any hate.

I don't find it proper as he practices whatever defamatory politics on
GNU pages. Please remove it from GNU pages, stop misrepresenting GNU,
and I will not say here nothing, as your personal opinions are
personal. Then we can take it elsewhere.

Please don't whine if I mention Ludovic, it was not me who started
defamation in the first place. He and you, and all the group, you have
to bear with the consequences. People will talk. Bear with
consequences. My opinion is mild. I really don't hate anybody of these
people, why would I? I find them all intelligent, but I call them
defamatory for the reason, as that is what they do for as long as they
are publishing that statement.

You incited division in GNU project and keep dividing GNU
project. Yes, I find it malicious. You called people into the AntiGNU
assemble, not because they "suddenly discovered the domain" -- but
because you organized them, you are dividing GNU project for your
political reasons. And I can bet you never confronted RMS to speak
about whatever issue you have, so far now you have no objective issue,
just vague issues. Much of it has been already clarified here:
https://stallmansupport.org/

None of you have so far apologized or retracted your defamatory
statements.

You come to GNU mailing list with intention to divide more people,
where it is clear that you want to cause illegal take over of
non-profit corporation. Then you tell me I am the hater? I am very
surprised on that.

Can you respect the legal documents of non-profit named FSF? Can you
understand that it is legally founded non-profit that publishes its
statements annually, and that the only real impact caused was by your
group and similar defamators when they caused RMS to resign? How many
speeches did RMS hold after resignation? Much less than before.

You have to view straight into consequences of your doings. To tell"
the word "defamation" is warning for you. You can also get sued, but
you enjoy the privilege of kindness where somebody values your
projects and your contributions more than the personal image and
fame. You as group basically abuse elder respectful person with
impunity that is to me not understandable.

And so far none of you have any direct issue to solve with RMS, and if
you would have, why don't you solve it?

It is cancel culture.

This is the intersection of people who signed defamatory
statement on GNU Project October 7, 2019, and who are now
also speaking on the mailing list in the AntiGNU Assembly:

The defamatory statement on GNU project The AntiGNU Assembly has about same
and RMS, as published on Guix project   initiators, where it is obvious that
website, hosted under GNU.org,  they disgruntled feelings come from
October 7, 2019, has following  failure to understand that RMS is on
people (and more than that):board:

Ludovic Courtès (GNU Guix, GNU Guile)   Ludovic Courtès (GNU Guile, GNU 
Guile-RPC, GNU Guix, GNU Shepherd)
Ricardo Wurmus (GNU Guix, GNU GWL)  Ricardo Wurmus (Guile-Debbugs, GNU 
Guix, Guix Workflow Language)
Matt Lee (GNU Social)
Andreas Enge (GNU MPC)  Andreas Enge (GNU MPC, GNU Guix)
Samuel Thibault (GNU Hurd, GNU libc)Samuel Thibault (GNU Hurd)
Carlos O'Donell (GNU libc)  Carlos O'Donell (GNU C Library, GNU 
Compiler Collection (GCC))
Andy Wingo (GNU Guile)  Andy Wingo (Guile-OpenGL, Guile-GNOME, 
GNU Guile)
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso (GNU Octave)
Mark Wielaard (GNU Classpath)   Mark J. Wielaard (GNU C Library, GNU 
Compiler Collection (GCC), GNU Classpath)
Ian Lance Taylor (GCC, GNU Binutils)
Werner Koch (GnuPG) Werner Koch (GNU Libgcrypt, GnuPG)
Daiki Ueno (GNU gettext
Christopher Lemmer Webber   Christopher Lemmer Webber (8sync, GNU 
MediaGoblin)
Jan Nieuwenhuizen (GNU Mes  Jan Nieuwenhuizen (GNU LilyPond, GNU 
Mes)
John Wiegley (GNU Emacs)
Tom Tromey (GCC, GDB)
Jeff Law (GCC, Binutils —   Jeff Law (GNU Compiler Collection (GCC))
Han-Wen Nienhuys (GNU LilyPond) Han-Wen Nienhuys (GNU LilyPond)

> Am Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 10:12:13AM +0300 schrieb Jean Louis:
> > Ludovic Courtès (Guix)
> > Ludovic Courtès
> > Ludovic Courtès
> > Ludovic Courtès

I never wrote this, that is not my email, I did not write that above.

> This cannot be qualified but as personal 

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Jean Louis]

* Federico Leva (Nemo)  [2021-04-28 20:35]:
> Jean Louis, please consider whether certain expressions, for instance "like
> children", may sound like personal attacks.

I did not want to tell anything bad about children as they usually
behave somehow to the level of their age. In fact I wanted to use the
word "immature" as in the meaning 1. (2) immature -- (characteristic
of a lack of maturity; "immature behavior"), so I hereby apologize,
and this word may apply to me as well, especially in this paragraph.

Actions done by adults I consider to demand objectiveness. When
confronted to address the issue and person does not address the issue,
then I have no other choice but to say that behavior is immature.

I did ask Ludovic to explain, he did not explain, he has no issue to
tell. So the defamatory statements are there with intentional neglect
of truth.

My comments and talk to Ludo can be seen here:
http://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/2019-10-07.log as under nick jmarciano
and I asked Ludo, if he can tell me facts over the defamatory
statement how "Stallman's behavior over the years has undermined a
core value of the GNU project" (is what Ludo's group is defaming) and
Ludo said, no, Guix chat is not place for the debate. But Guix website
is place for debate, but Guix chate is not place for debate. Of course
I am surprised as in Guix management there is definitely no
transparency neither call for any kind of dialog, like what is taking
place on this mailing list. That does not work there.

I asked them to turn on comments on that page, so that if it is
"collective statement" how the defamatory AntiGNU group wish to say,
that it really becomes collectively commented.

I have asked many times, Ludo refused to tell me. So I asked again, he
refused to tell me.

Then he said he does not like abort joke. But abort joke, did it
really undermine any core value of GNU project?

Sorry, I cannot see that.

> Andreas, please consider whether expressions like "hate email",
> which seem to attribute intent, may be needlessly harsh and
> inflammatory and therefore fall short of the standards proposed by
> the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines.

I really don't hate this people, I am arguing why they are
misrepresenting themselves, that is all.

You want your own space, make it, but don't misrepresent
yourself. Don't you see how much harm you do? Of course that group
cannot see that.

And none of them is making free software speech, they make software,
great, but none of them promotes free software philosophy neither
links to GNU.org pages. 

The AntiGNU assembly opened up because they wanted to do the division
of GNU project, would RMS stay in FSF -- but RMS resigned.

There was almost no activity on gnu.tools website in 2020.

Those "guys" are not even guys, nobody attended the mailing list. It
is just this:
https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assem...@lists.gnu.tools/2020/10/

Until Ludovic Courtès started it:
https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assem...@lists.gnu.tools/thread/SMFKD7M34VUTUW45MSO4UOWL4C7V5FQT/

"Like many I’m astonished by the FSF’s decision to reinstate RMS (who
actually still had voting rights, I recently learned)."

Comment: is not like many, it is  group of people who have different
politics, who then bad mouth RMS and invite quite innocent people into
your divisiveness.  As majority is supporting RMS:
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/ I don't know what you are still
mocking there if you respect some kind of polls or democratic public
opinion. But you don't.

"I support the call in the open letter to RMS¹ “for the removal of the
entire Board of the Free Software Foundation.”  Until it has cleaned
house, this foundation can no longer pretend to represent the free
software movement." --

what a bunch of nonsense!

Ludovic Courtès never gave any, not even one, published free software
philosophy speech. He gave speeches on Guix and technicalities. And
now he is the one who says that!

This is illegal take over attempt of a non-profit corporation that
DOES its job very well. Audited financial statements available:
https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/financial-statements/FinancialStatements-FY2019.pdf

Is there any audited financial statement of Guix? Where is the
accountability?

More from Ludo:

"I also support the call to remove RMS “from all leadership positions,
including the GNU Project” -- sorry, when I read this, I just remember
those jokes with Minion guys, nobody will undertand me, just skip
it. It is ridiculous. I am not calling Ludo to take his shoes out
because I want to slip into his shoes.

Of course I find it disgraceful by definition.

Definition from Wordnet:

1. disgraceful, scandalous, shameful, shocking -- (giving offense to
moral sensibilities and injurious to reputation; "scandalous
behavior"; "the wicked rascally shameful conduct of the bankrupt"-
Thackeray; "the most shocking book of its time")

Yes, I find it shocking that one lacks all the feelings and comes
along to tell project 

Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Andreas Enge]

I call out to the moderators of these mailing lists, if moderation indeed
still exists there, to act against such hate mail by Jean Louis singling
out an individual whose actions they disagree with:

Am Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 10:12:13AM +0300 schrieb Jean Louis:
> Ludovic Courtès (Guix)
> Ludovic Courtès
> Ludovic Courtès
> Ludovic Courtès

This cannot be qualified but as personal harrassment.

Ironically, they are making a very good point why we think that GNU needs
a new start with the GNU Assembly; and this initiative is not that of a
single person, but
   https://gnu.tools/en/people/
lists more than 30 people from the GNU project supporting it.

Andreas

The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Jean Louis]

* Andreas R.  [2021-04-21 09:39]:
> In this mail I try to provide an overview of the "GNU Assembly"
> initiative in relation to the GNU project.

Do you represent the "anti-GNU Assembly"?

Was the "anti-GNU Assembly" approved by GNU project?

Sorry, I see that as incitement to split the GNU project. This group
of people wish to say they represent the whole GNU project and they
present themselves as speakers for GNU project.

It is clear that their activities have not been coordinated with RMS,
and it is also clear from the list of people that they belong to
defamatory group of people.

People who are in conflict over their own good deeds, their
contributions to GNU project, their former respect and admiration to
RMS, and their later disloyalty and defamation of the founder.

Surely, they (like children) seek to have a group similar like a
family as "how it was" and they need to gather together.

However, those are personal problems, unrelated to GNU project.

It is not quite just and fair to call it "GNU Assembly" neither "anti-GNU
Maintainers" as they do not represent the whole GNU project neither
all numbers of maintainers.

People are free to organize how they wish and want. But we have some
unspoken social agreements and also legal agreements.

This domain gnu.tools and "Gatherung under New Umbrella" and Code of
Conduct for GNU are disrespectful attempt to take over the main GNU
project.

Do you understand how many protests and pointers will be there? People
will be writing on their pages and websites and will be protesting.

This is causing division, protests, disagreements.

When some of those people is personally disgruntled why they need to
tear community apart with their personal issues?

> - The main page, https://gnu.tools/, states: 
> 
> "Welcome to the GNU Assembly!"
> 
> Currently the Assembly consists of GNU maintainers. As such using "GNU"
> as part of "GNU assembly" is not misleading or inappropriate. They are a
> subset of GNU, and distinguish themselves from the larger GNU project by the
> distinct qualifier "Assembly".
> 
> "We write free software" where "free software" links to
> https://gnu.tools/en/documents/free-software/

IMHO, their definition is clearly infringing on FSF copyrights as they
have taken it from: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
whereby the page is licensed under Copyright © 1996, 2002, 2004-2007,
2009-2019, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc. -- Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License; and where they
have made a derivative.

They say: "The GNU Assembly produces free software — also referred to
as “libre software”, “liberating software”, or “open source” -- and
further they say "These criteria were spelled out by Richard
M. Stallman in the 1980s" -- which is incorrect, as Stallman never
used "Open Source" -- it is clear misrepresentation of free software
philosophy.

It is obvious that they do not support GNU project.

It is obvious that they want to use "GNU" as a trademark which does
not belong to them.

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc=4808:iwpwdz.2.17

> As far as I can tell, their definition of "free software", other than their 
> off-by-one
> numbering is in line with the official definition at
> 
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

The above hyperlink is not on their website.

They did not hyperlink once to GNU project. That is splinter group
that deviates definitions because they are in disagreements.

> Their definition is less complete, but seems to contain no
> contradictions or misleading information.

It is not so.

Now they even mention "open source" with a footnote how it does not
convey meaning of the freedom.

GNU project never mentions "open source" in such context.

> "Here’s what “GNU” means to us:"
> 
> The bulk of the main page is a set of novelty "backronyms" of GNU to 
> illustrate
> their purpose, none of which are in direct conflict with the actual GNU
> project. They, as much as anyone, should be free to fill in what the GNU
> project means to them and use and contribute to it as they see fit, even
> as a self-defined exclusive club.

That is not so. GNU project is on https://www.gnu.org -- and that is
group of people among larger group of people that have contributed to
GNU project; however, they are not defining the GNU project.

GNU project we have to understand it, is private project of RMS,
supported and could be protected by the FSF, with the independent
management of FSF.

GNU project is not on gnu.tools neither on any of other gnu-related
domains, it is just on www.gnu.org

> The main page includes a link, under "Governance, Not Unilateralism":
> -https://gnu.tools/en/documents/social-contract/

Of course that is a reference to their disagreements to GNU project.

However, nobody forbid them develop free software and contribute to
each other.

Their misrepresentation and disrespect however cannot have positive
impact on community.

> "GNU Social Contract 1.0"
> 
> 

Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Ali Reza Hayati]

Dear Andreas,
I hope you're well buddy.

The GNU Assembly is NOT a subset of the GNU Project or the Free Software 
Foundation. I don't know what their intentions are, if they're 
advocating for free software philosophy I support their purpose but that 
doesn't mean it's OK to in any form or way make people avoid the GNU 
Project.


Please don't post about it here as it most likely hurts the GNU Project. 
The gnu-misc-discuss mailing list is for "General GNU project and free 
software discussions" as stated on lists.gnu.org.


What they state on their website somehow implies that the GNU Project 
has a hostile environment and is toxic to people. Saying their community 
is harassment-free (which is basically impossible because they can 
punish those who harass not prevent them) implies that the GNU Project 
is a place for harassment.


The GNU Assembly got attention exactly after the recent false and 
based-on-lies claims against RMS and I believe how they wrote their code 
of conduct is in fact pointing to those controversies. Please stop it. 
You're free to talk about anything but if it's hurting the GNU Project 
or the Free Software Foundation, you have to stop doing it here.


If you want to help them, I believe they have their own mailing lists.

Thank you.

Please note that I am an individual and I'm not talking on behalf of the 
GNU Project, the Free Software Foundation, or RMS.


On 18/04/2021 23:57, Andreas R. wrote:

In this mail I try to provide an overview of the "GNU Assembly"
initiative in relation to the GNU project.

- The main page, https://gnu.tools/, states:

"Welcome to the GNU Assembly!"

Currently the Assembly consists of GNU maintainers. As such using "GNU"
as part of "GNU assembly" is not misleading or inappropriate. They are a
subset of GNU, and distinguish themselves from the larger GNU project by the
distinct qualifier "Assembly".

"We write free software" where "free software" links to 
https://gnu.tools/en/documents/free-software/

As far as I can tell, their definition of "free software", other than their 
off-by-one
numbering is in line with the official definition at

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

To wit:

-The freedom to run the program as the user wishes, for any purpose.
-The freedom to study how the program works and to change it to suit their 
needs.
-The freedom to redistribute it.
-The freedom to distribute copies of modified versions.

and

-The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
-The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your 
computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition 
for this.
-The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
-The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 
3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from 
your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Their definition is less complete, but seems to contain no contradictions or
misleading information.

"Here’s what “GNU” means to us:"

The bulk of the main page is a set of novelty "backronyms" of GNU to illustrate
their purpose, none of which are in direct conflict with the actual GNU
project. They, as much as anyone, should be free to fill in what the GNU
project means to them and use and contribute to it as they see fit, even
as a self-defined exclusive club.

The main page includes a link, under "Governance, Not Unilateralism":
-https://gnu.tools/en/documents/social-contract/
"GNU Social Contract 1.0"

This is clearly erroneous as there is no such thing as a "GNU Social Contract".

This would be trivial to fix by renaming it to "GNU Assembly Social
contract", but given its history it's unlikely that those who drafted it
would be willing to amend it.

The main page includes a link, under "This Group’s Not Uniform ":
-https://gnu.tools/en/documents/code-of-conduct/

Even though the GNU project has no code of conduct, it should be okay
for any self organising subgroup of GNU maintainers to adopt one. As far
as I can tell, there are no references or indications that this document
would apply to anything or anyone outside of the Assembly.

 From their mailing list:

There are some mentions of "the former GNU project" and "old GNU" by
individual members of the list, but these might be slightly provocative
ways distinguish between their initiative and the GNU project as a whole.

https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assem...@lists.gnu.tools/thread/3PDVUTCKG33R3KY7XCV5TKQUMIW5NMWC/
https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assem...@lists.gnu.tools/thread/JUBZSTVY2LLSXDPKOMOSQBN7VYJ6JN5G/

There are however other claims of direct usurpation of the GNU Project on their
mailing list, such as: "by creating this assembly, we affirmed that GNU
Project leadership is in our hands, collectively, as maintainers and contributors to 
GNU."

Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Since there is no such thing as a GNU assembly (there is a GNU
Advisory Committee), such a rename would also be missleading.  This
group, while they might share some values, is not part of the GNU
project nor does it represent, or speak for it.

Their best course, to not mislead users (though that is their purpose)
would be to rename to something entierly different.

Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[shulie]

On 4/18/21 3:27 PM, Andreas R. wrote:
> Even though the GNU project has no code of conduct, it should be okay
> for any self organising subgroup of GNU maintainers to adopt one. As far
> as I can tell, there are no references or indications that this document 
> would apply to anything or anyone outside of the Assembly.



Codes of Conduct are just Facist manifestos