* Thompson, David <dthomps...@worcester.edu> [2020-01-10 10:53]:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 4:28 PM Brandon Invergo <bran...@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > As does Richard.  He largely only retains responsibility for
> > project-wide decisions while the rest is delegated.  In the overwhelming
> > majority of cases he lets the maintainers, webmasters, etc. do their
> > jobs independently.  Many of the email exchanges I have with him end up
> > with "DTRT" ("do the right thing", meaning, use my judgment).  He very,
> > very rarely intervenes in the development of individual packages (other
> > than Emacs, of course).
> The problem is that when he chooses to step in, GNU is worse off
> because of it.  See the glibc abort "joke", "kind communication
> guidelines" vs. code of conduct, etc.
> - Dave

It is not abort joke, it never was "abort" joke. Media with you
included is twisting it and as media has certain keywords to pick up
and earn money on it, you think it is justified to blame anybody for a
joke? LOL.

It is censorship joke:

GNU Kind Communication Guidelines vs. Code of Conduct is for me very
clearly Individualism approach vs. Collectivism approach.

You have learned in your life that all groups shall be run by
Collectivism approach, starting from governments, schools, any kind of
groups, there are everywhere some rules and if anybody break the rule
that person shall be somehow responsible or get punished for it.



With GNU Kind Communication Guideliness, I do not think that anybody
got banned from mailing list way too early, probably many times person
have been warned, and asked to improve the style. It is finally a

3. guidepost, guideline, rule of thumb -- (a rule or principle that
provides guidance to appropriate behavior)

It is not a code. Not a code of conduct.

1. (9) code, codification -- (a set of rules or principles or laws
(especially written ones))

GNU project is based on RMS having such approach to let individuals
participate individually, individual makes his own choices, think his
own thoughts, is responsible for own choices.

When imposing "Code of Conduct" you would be turning GNU fundamental
principles upside down from Individualism to Collectivism. Because the
Collectivism approach is all what you have learned, as since your
kindergarden, people were imposing the rules onto you, school had
rules you had to live with, your university and any other group,
including governments.

You have to understand that you are now in the group where you are not
coerced into limits, and that this is not desire neither goal of this
group. Individuals decide how much to contribute and in which manner,
and GNU is not going to judge them, GNU is to guide them.

" The first way is individualism, which states that each individual is acting 
on his or her own, making their own choices, and to the extent they interact 
with the rest of the group, it's as individuals. Collectivism is the second 
way, and it views the group as the primary entity, with the individuals lost 
along the way.

Objectivism supports individualism in this sense. In a different sense, 
individualism is meant to be whether the individual is different from everyone 
else, or whether he makes up his own mind about things, or what-not. But in the 
individualist-collectivist sense of the term, individualism just means that the 
individual is a separate entity, making his own choices, thinking his own 
thoughts, and responsible for his own choices.

Collectivism views it in some other way. It sees the group as the
important element, and individuals are just members of the group. The
group has its own values somehow different from those of the
individual members. The group thinks its own thoughts. Instead of
judging the group as a bunch of individuals interacting, it judges the
group as a whole, and views the individuals as just members of the

From: http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture39.shtml

Jean Louis

Reply via email to