On 10/11/19 2:41 PM, Taylan Kammer wrote: > On 07.10.2019 16:32, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Hello Guix! >> >> We, a group of GNU maintainers sharing a vision for a stronger GNU >> Project, are publishing this statement today: >> >> https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ >> >> We are somewhat abusing the Guix blog here, for lack of a better >> place, but OTOH the future of GNU is obviously relevant to Guix. >> (Ricardo and I started this initiative before Tobias, Maxim, and >> Marius were on-board.) >> >> This mailing list is maybe not the best place to discuss this in >> detail but your local GNU maintainers will surely be happy to answer >> any questions you may have. :-) >> >> Ludo’. > > > Hi all, > > Some drama about this leaked out of my mailing list-specific sub-folders > (which I only skim occasionally) into my main INBOX, so of course I had > to jump straight into it even though I'm barely around these days. ;-) > > > Jokes aside, I wanted to ask: > > Hasn't RMS already officially stepped down? What position does he hold > within today's GNU project other than being a wise old person (wise with > respect to his topics of expertise) who is respected a lot? > > From what I can tell, the GNU project is a collection of very loosely > coupled sub-projects and the maintainers and contributors collectively > hold a lot more power than any single person. So in a way I guess I > don't really see what the statement is trying to accomplish, although I > agree with the sentiment of it. What is the desired effect and end > result of publishing the statement? > > I'm not asking rhetorically, I think it would help the discussion a lot > to clarify concrete goals instead of just signaling a sentiment. > > > A second question: > > Assuming the talk about RMS's behavior includes his voicing of certain > unpopular opinions, rather than just behavior that directly targets a > person (like undesired advances), are we going to have a discussion > about which opinions are considered "taboo" within the GNU project? > > That is, opinions which shall not be expressed while working with other > GNU contributors, or not expressed publicly at all by high ranking > representatives such as maintainers of important (or any) packages? > > (I'm not referring to any particular opinions voiced by RMS. I'm asking > generally.) > > I wouldn't be *categorically* opposed to such limitations. For instance > I would welcome a rule that officially bans sympathizing with neo-Nazis. > However, I frequently see people go overboard with what they consider > to be "hateful" ideas that ought to be taboo and banned from communities. > > I've been banned from some places myself, and decided to quit some other > places after receiving hostility. I've seen some of the very people who > support the banning others for being "hateful" against minorities defend > or even openly celebrate threats or real acts of physical harm and > vandalism against other political minorities. > > (My hiatus from contributing to free software has, I would say, about > 10% to do with sensing such vibes from some community members who see > themselves as socially progressive, though it's 90% about things related > to me and not the community. Still, if I find time to come back, I'd > like to know how much self-censorship I have to apply and how much I > have to tolerate opinions which I in turn find offensive.) > > > Personal suggestions re. second question follow; feel free to stop > reading here if you don't want to get into more and more off-topic > territory. > > > My personal suggestion would be to keep a very small list of explicit > limitations, probably just the support or apologia of neo-Nazism and > child sexual exploitation. Voicing such opinions on any channel of the > GNU project would be a reason to terminate someone's access to the > channel. Voicing them on any public channel would disqualify someone > from maintainer and similar positions, and perhaps allow other members > to raise a complaint against their involvement as a contributor too. > > I think it's important to have such an explicitly and clearly laid out > set of rules on what world-views get to be silenced, as otherwise you > get repeated arguments about free speech. > > All other political conflicts should IMO be decided on a case by case > basis with the goal of reaching mutual compromise within the confines of > the communication channels of the GNU project. That is, 1. no favorites > on who gets to silence who and 2. the silencing shall be limited to the > project's communication channels. For example let's take homosexuality > and religion. A gay community member could request another member to > refrain from expressing religious views critical of homosexuality within > the project's communication channels, as it offends her or him. On the > flip side, a religious person could request another member to refrain > from expressing political views in support of normalizing homosexuality > within society, because that in turn offends them. Outside channels of > communication of the project, both could express their opinions. This > freedom would apply even to maintainers. This means that one might have > to put up with the fact that the maintainer of a project privately holds > opinions which one finds offensive. The maintainer could voice those > opinions on other public platforms, but not the communication channels > of the GNU project where another member might object. (Basically same > rules for maintainers and contributors.) > > I think it's important to keep the rules rather slim and neutral like > this, as otherwise people get too censorship-happy and you fall into the > problem of "who gets to decide what's offensive." > > > Remarks to clarify my general thoughts on these issues and where I'm > coming from: > > When "getting offended" becomes a socially accepted reason to silence > others, it's a no-brainer that those who hold unjust social power and > want to keep it would also start using the "getting offended" card to > silence their opposition. As such, "political correctness" cannot help > political minorities in the long run; it will inevitably lead to more > and more political opinions of minorities being labeled "politically > incorrect," as those in positions of unjust power learn to use the > language of the oppressed. (I personally believe that this is already > happening on a large scale.) >
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend. No animal shall wear clothes. No animal shall sleep in a bed. No animal shall drink alcohol. No animal shall kill any other animal. All animals are equal.
