* Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> [2019-11-11 15:44]:
> I think the whole “us vs. them” discourse, plus telling that “they” have
> ulterior motives, is uncalled for.  Once again, your scenario that “they”
> are trying to publicly shame the GNU Project is not only insulting: it’s
> implausible because “they” *are* part of GNU, and for a long time.

That is hypocrisy. The public shamings page as published by Guix and
Ludovic states "Joint statement on GNU project" while you are thinking
Dr. Stallman. You speak about Stallman, yet you focus on GNU project.

You are publicly shaming GNU project, Dr. Stallman, Guix, and
yourself. That is the fact supported by so many media news that have
badly and wrongly misinterpreted the statement you made.

You have chosen to wrong Dr. Stallman for behavior in public,
published in public, published on his doman GNU.ORG, that is public
shamings by definition. You are in house of Dr. Stallman, pointing to
public that Dr. Stallman did something terribly wrong and that he
ruined his house.

Insulting to you or not, that is the fact, it changes nothing.

There is also fact that nothing from above you will not publicly admit
to be true, and with that type of attitude of course that you will
face the walls in your attempts to bring any new action.

In general, your words mean less than birds' singing on the tree,
which are in fact beautiful and pleasant to listen to. But also not
practical for anything in life or GNU.

> Some GNU hackers have been wanting GNU to be community-run.  What we’re
> doing here is trying to build consensus on how we define GNU and our
> commitment to it.  It shouldn’t be too difficult because, as has been
> noted, this draft just summarizes points very well explained
> elsewhere.

Your way of running Guix is not "community run" Guix. It is your way
and you got community around you. There is Ludovic and few trusted
people around Guix, and there is no such thing as "community run"

Your draft is hollow, it is repeating in poor words what is elsewhere
mentioned and thus lacking substance, it is totally not necessary as free
software philosophy cannot be summarized to those few

Please see Alfred's answers here:


Quote of Alfred's words:

"Have you discussed this with RMS?  No.  So by that alone, it doesn't
look good -- you're trying to force maintainers to your world view
with a total disregard for their opinions."

Jean Louis

Reply via email to