Hi, I just wanted to add my two cents.
Right now to my understanding we have some sexist jokes in the source code and promotional matterials, we also have language in some manuals or translation that is not directed to people but instead to men only and lastly we have the issue of our founder which has arisen the last month. To my understanding we aren't talking here about being proactive in political issues like feminism. Organizing rallies, funding minorities to work. If you ask me that should be a goal. To support and help all the people get involved in computing. That is what sets GNU appart for me. But as a first step we should talk about treating other humans that want to help with the project with respect and not abusing their boundaries. That needs two steps for me: 1) Remove all the sexist, racist or questionable jokes in general from the site, manuals, promotional materials and anywhere they are visible. I get that some people think they are joke. But this is public speaking we are talking about. In private people can do whatever they want. If you think that the people should grow a thicker skin: Why don't you have a thicker skin to remove them and why do you want to exclude certain people from GNU since it is for everybody? 2) There needs to be some serious discussion about RMS and how he has impacted potential contributions up until now. I would like to believe that GNU is a community and not a religion. So there can be after RMS. Or better the community decides with nobody in charge, or a council. Regards, Fannys. Oct 14, 2019, 19:32 by taylan.kam...@gmail.com: > On 14.10.2019 03:44, Richard Stallman wrote: > >> >> > The GNU project should publish a list of ideologies that are officially >> > banned from its channels so people know what they're in for. >> >> No ideology is "banned" on GNU Project mailing lists, but they are off >> topic so people should not discuss them here. >> > > Some political topics come up inevitably. For instance, trying to > increase the reach of the free software movement among women (who make > up roughly half the human population) makes it necessary to understand > certain feminist issues to some degree, and undertake measures based on > that understanding. > > As such, some maintainers say that GNU should be a feminist project so > women can contribute and benefit as much as men. According to this > perspective, being neutral on feminism equals following the status quo, > which means that mistreatment of women is seen as normalcy (not seen as > mistreatment in the first place), which means that the GNU project by > nature excludes the majority women (those who don't tolerate being > mistreated). > > Of course, this is only one perspective. The opposing perspective might > claim that the fact that women are vastly under-represented in the free > software movement is related to the nature of the female and male sexes > in humans, that feminist theories are wrong and therefore unnecessary to > understand or follow, because they will not make a difference. That in > itself is a political position as well, but one which many people don't > recognize as a political position, because those people perceive it as > being "common sense" or "normal" and therefore supposedly apolitical. > > In effect, the GNU project is forced to choose a political position. > Either one that considers the status quo of a vastly male-dominated free > software movement as being normal, or one that considers the status quo > to be flawed and feminist action to be necessary to improve things. > Saying "feminism is off-topic" and taking no action means implicitly > taking the political side of the status quo. > > Let me attempt to draw up an analogy: > > Imagine you visit a workplace which makes heavy use of proprietary > software. You try to explain to the workplace why proprietary software > is harmful and how they would benefit from free software. They say > "that sounds very political, and our company is not political, therefore > we won't bother looking into this any further." In effect, they have > made a political choice to continue supporting proprietary software, > under the foolish impression of being apolitical, because they don't > realize that using proprietary software is a political choice too. > > It is the same thing when the GNU project says "feminism is political, > and the GNU project is apolitical except for free vs. proprietary > software." It is not actually a decision to be apolitical on feminism, > but a decision to support the sexist status quo. > > > That being said, if the GNU project decided to become feminist, that in > turn would alienate anti-feminists, and lessen their contributions. > > Even though I personally feel strongly about feminism, I'm trying to be > objective here and consider the fact that the contributions of > anti-feminists to free software are not to be ignored either. Besides, > the movement might go on to incorporate more and more such social > political issues, until only people who believe in a very strict set of > political perspectives feel welcome. That would probably end up > excluding me too, given that I have my fair share of clashes with what > might be called "liberals" or "progressives" in the mainstream. > > For that reason, I would suggest a sort of middle ground that hopefully > appeases the majority of people on all sides: the GNU project should > incorporate a feminist understanding for the purpose of solving the most > pressing issues that prevent women from joining. That probably includes > humor that offends women, overly insistent "romantic" advances, out of > place sexualization, and so on. (Any textbook on how to combat sexual > discrimination in the workplace should be a good start for a full list > of such issues. When in doubt, we should ask a woman like Selam Gano > instead of trying to figure it out ourselves.) > > Once principles like those are set in place, the GNU project could > clarify that one is not expected to ascribe to all the theories of > feminism, only follow the ground rules. One might privately hold > strongly anti-feminist beliefs, and that would be fine, so long as > misogynist behavior or speech isn't brought to the community. > > Likewise, a feminist would be expected not to push the buttons of > anti-feminists in the community. The rules for not offending others > would go both ways and ultimately not favor any full political ideology. > > > The same would apply to other social political topics. There would be > basic anti-racist principles, without forcing people to agree with > everything written by Martin Luther King Jr or Malcolm X. There would > be basic anti-transphobia principles, without forcing people to agree > with the theories of Julia Serano on sex and gender. There would be > basic anti-Muslimophobia principles, without expecting people agree that > Islam is a good ideology. And so on and so forth. > > Political disagreement, no matter how strong, does not preclude > respectful treatment of one another. > > > The Code of Conduct adopted by Guix and many other projects already > seems to attempt something like what I'm describing, but I've seen some > people (including maintainers) speak in a way as if the CoC means that > we ought to agree to the full political perspectives underlying the > anti-discrimination principles. I've seen them behave as if not > agreeing to said political perspectives in and on itself amounts to > being a discriminatory person and therefore undesired in the community. > Any CoC that's put in place to prevent discrimination against minorities > should clarify that nobody is expected to agree to a concrete political > perspective, only behave in ways that ensure mutually respectful and > kind behavior. > > > GNU Kind Communication Guidelines on the other hand do not go into > sufficient detail on what counts as unkind communication. The whole > thing with issues such as racism and sexism is that certain types of > behavior against the political minority in question is normalized within > society, and the unkindness inherent within not recognized as unkindness > in the first place. This is why men constantly say that women > over-react. They think they are being kind, when the women are > experiencing their behavior as rather unkind. This is why it's > necessary to draw clearer lines. > > The reactions of many people in this discussion also prove that it's > very unclear what counts as "unkind." Those criticizing the joint > statement published by Ludo have claimed that the statement is unkind to > the highest degree. Some have then went on to call some people (who are > not involved in this discussion) "pond scum" and characterize that > wording as merely "defense." > > > Without attempting to list and properly enforce clear guidelines that > are both sufficiently protective of political minorities and yet don't > force entire political perspectives on anyone, I can only see this > community splintering. > > > - Taylan >
