Psionic K via Emacs news and miscellaneous discussions outside the scope of other Emacs mailing lists <emacs-tangents@gnu.org> [2025-08-09 10:39]: > > we never give users orders about how to use or not use Emacs > > I have no specific complaints about patches being rejected, but this > community holds numerous security runes that gate the primary development > of Emacs. The existence of a master branch is an instance of an exclusive > solution, one which has much more costly pluralist solutions (forking, > patching) and is more difficult to make robust. What happens to naturally > exclusive resources is a topic of governance that I will leave alone. I > bring it up to highlight the importance of respecting independence when the > resources in question are non-exclusive, such as using or not using Elisp > packages.
It’s not clear which “community” you mean here — Emacs Tangents, Emacs Development, or Emacs Users — and without specifics, this kind of broad criticism isn’t very helpful. If you have concrete issues, such as bugs to report or patches to propose, you’re welcome to submit them so they can be discussed and addressed constructively. > However, I want to focus on the natural outcome of mass-volunteerism. I guess that is something you were telling to yourself, seeing that you deviate into dramatic seas of unreal problems. > Some rightly observe that the tactics of the FSF become stronger > when adopted more broadly. This leads them to reason that a great > deal of shared interest lies in "aggressively encouraging" mass > adoption of the tactics. A fraction of FSF believers who I must say > are too numerous view this shared interest as justification to shape > conversations, dissuade competing ideas, and disrespect participants > in any dialog that does not reinforce the politics of mass adoption > of the principles. The popular movement becomes a consensus by > social coercion. While not expressly a principle of the FSF, it is > a natural emergent consequence of those tactics. You’re speaking in very broad strokes here — “some people,” “a fraction of FSF believers” — but without any concrete examples or actual conversations, it’s hard to tell whether this is based on real interactions or just impressions you’ve picked up somewhere. Have you actually spoken to specific individuals, or is this coming from second-hand ideas? What you’re calling “social coercion” is, in many cases, just awareness-building. When people share FSF principles passionately, it’s often about making others aware of freedoms they didn’t know they were missing — not about forcing conformity. It’s not my role to teach you how to understand social dynamics. If you were my employee, your lack of literacy in social interaction alone would be grounds for disqualification. > Without a means of coordinating signalling, action, and the flow of > non-code contributions, when we say "let's get a lot of people together," > to make our group-amortizing tactics cheaper for each of us, it is immoral > because we are laying what will happen on the shoulders of those who are > generous with no means of recruiting those who understand the shared > interest but hope that someone else will do it first. This is the > volunteers' dilemma, and it must be solved to make all but calls for the > most individualistic of cooperation moral. Are you speaking from a real-world example here? Do you personally know someone who has faced this exact “volunteers’ dilemma,” or can you point to an actual case where it happened? Can you name it? > Let's talk about the well-known line of reasoning that states that > individual incentive is the foundation of open software development (I have > not read if free software advocates differ on this view). Personally, I never heard of "open software development". Maybe you can provide a reference to it. I know organization named Open Source Initiative, or also named as OSI. I believe they are very strict, and I just believe they never used such term like "open software development". Word "Open" as in "Open Source" - Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open Please refrain from using "open" or "open source" as a synonym for "free software." These terms originate from different perspectives and values. The free software movement advocates for your freedom in computing, grounded in principles of justice. The open source approach, on the other hand, does not promote a set of values in the same way. When discussing open source views, it's appropriate to use that term. However, when referring to our views, our software, or our movement, please use "free software" or "free (libre) software" instead. Using "open source" in this context can lead to misunderstandings, as it implies our views are similar to those of the open source movement. > Non-programmers (and indeed many programmers) do not specialize in > the tools used to build the tools they rely on. That is very right. > If the unit of cooperation cannot be measured in code, it must be > some other unit. You can find out some metrics, but when you wish to create something, you need not measure it. > Otherwise the outcome is that we are expecting all non-code > contributing users to ride on the back of those who build the tools. That is maybe your personal opinion, is so negative. So I have no method how to help you see things positively. You see, many programers were users who did not program. And through free software they started programming. Isn't that great? Instead of looking at situation from some isolated and static view point, you must understand that time is factor, and outcomes are processes, and contributing users do not ride on the back of those who build tools but often become contributors themselves over time — whether through code, documentation, translations, testing, advocacy, or funding. Free software is a product of society, not a static ledger of who “owes” what, and today’s non-coding user may be tomorrow’s maintainer. > While we may state that those who program the tools got what they > wanted from their individual incentive, this rationalization leaves > alone a mass of demand that could be served by open software but is > not. I’m not sure what you mean by “open software” — do you mean free software, open source, or something else entirely? > Abandoning these needs to the proprietary software creates a great > deal of harm. Oh? Is it. And as for “abandoning needs” creating “a great deal of harm” — that’s a big claim. What specific needs are you talking about, and what measurable harm are you referring to? > For example, instead of strong enough federation tools to pull apart > SNS services, we have Facebook. Not solving the volunteers' dilemma > and providing means of non-code contributions to convert to open > technologies is, in my view, a practical failure so severe that it > must be immoral in its consequences. So your argument is that because volunteer-driven projects didn’t produce a Facebook-killer in time, the result is somehow immoral? That’s quite a leap. Free software doesn’t guarantee every societal ill gets fixed on schedule — it offers the freedoms for people to try. If no one built your “strong enough federation tools” yet, that’s not immorality; it’s just a gap waiting for contributors. > > This may be no coincidence. Your message says "open" many times and > > "free" never (although "libre" once). I think you are starting from > > the values of the open source camp, rather than the values of the free > > software movement. > > It is no accident. I do not mean the "Open Source" as the FSF has framed > it, and I have taken to using the abbreviation "_OSS" to deliberately > exclude the "free/libre" and provoke conversations such as these. Just to clarify, the FSF has no connection with the "open source" label as used in that context — the two movements have distinct philosophies and origins, though many similarities. > As long as the emergent coercive consensus behaviors of free > software advocates are not clearly denounced by the organization, I > will feel compelled to recommend others to turn away from the FSF. I understand your concerns, but broad accusations of “coercive consensus behaviors” aren’t reflective of the FSF’s principles or actions. The FSF is committed to freedom and respectful dialogue, not coercion. If you have specific examples or incidents, those would be worth discussing. Otherwise, blanket statements risk misunderstanding the community’s true values. The FSF’s mission remains focused on software freedom, and many continue to find great value in that without experiencing the hostility you describe. > As long as the ideologies are too rigid and self-entertaining to > adapt and evolve in a world with persistent internet, the potential > for global community, and e-commerce, I will again have to recommend > others to turn away from the FSF. I hear your frustration about perceived rigidity, but the FSF’s core principles are grounded in protecting user freedoms—values that remain highly relevant in today’s interconnected, digital economy. Evolution and adaptation don’t mean abandoning these foundations; rather, they ensure freedom continues to thrive amid changing technologies. If you see specific ways the FSF can improve or evolve constructively, those conversations are welcome. But dismissing the entire mission risks overlooking the vital role it plays in empowering users worldwide. > Experiments grow and evolve, and if there is one thing the FSF is > known for more than anything, it is beating a consistent drum. Absolutely! The FSF’s drumbeat is so consistent, I’m pretty sure if you listen closely, you can hear it from space — probably annoying a few satellites along the way. But hey, steady rhythm keeps the freedom marching forward! > have observed that beat to be falling away from many pragmatic > opportunities identifiable by my formative values, like an energizer > bunny rolling forward down a steadily steepening hill. Haha, the Energizer Bunny comparison is spot on — unstoppable but maybe occasionally forgetting where it left its roadmap! Sometimes steady persistence needs a little pause to check the terrain before rolling further. > It is immoral not to demand radical change, the embrace of pluralism > in the FSF governance structure, and the introduction of means of > evolution so that what was once an experiment can finally begin to > reach its next stages. Ah yes, radical change and pluralism — because nothing says “stable governance” like reinventing the wheel every other week! The FSF is an experiment, sure, but it’s more like a classic rock band: it sticks to its hits while occasionally trying new riffs — all without turning into a chaotic jam session. Evolution doesn’t need to be radical to be effective; sometimes steady grooving wins the crowd. Jean Louis P.S. Given the pattern here, I’m starting to suspect we might be dealing with a bit of trolling rather than a genuine debate. --- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
