Re: compiler
On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 09:51:00PM -0700, Jaime Guzman Gaytan via Gcc wrote:
> How can I get the compiler if I don't have internet in my apartment?
Depending on what platform you're on, there should be a package (deb, rpm, etc)
which you can download at i.e. work or a local library or university. Put that
on a USB stick and take it home, then use your package manager to install it.
--
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 4:06 PM BST, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing
> about
> GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this
> conversation is not constructive.
This feels like that moment in 8Mile, "pay attention, you're saying the
same shit that he said." The personal insults and technical semantic
arguments are testament to the fact that you're not willing or not able
to argue the points. It's quite incredible that two people have replied
to the same multiple-hundred word e-mail about a broad issue of trying
to gatekeep discussion and both have focused on semantics ("it's not
*all* day"). I will remember not to use hyperbole in future for fear of
it being taken literally and used as an excuse to dodge the point.
> > Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users'
> > opinions
> > were as valid as contributor's opinions.
>
> That depends on the user.
>
> Once upon a time, free software's developers *were* it's primary users,
> i.e. they built the technology for themselves and made it freely
> available in the hope that it would be useful to others. It's also the
> case that the vast majority of GCC *current* users are not here making
> proclamations about what GCC's project governance should be. Rather it's
> a vocal and vanishingly small minority, who have contributed nothing of
> value, code or insights, and continue to vocally do so. Many of GCC's
> users are, however, watching in horror at the absolutely amateurish way
> in which this is playing out and wondering if their long term commitment
> should be to using this piece of software to build their
> products/businesses.
It's obvious that the majority of current users aren't here, the majority of
current users don't use the mailing lists. What have you done to try to
consult their opinions on the matter? It's amazing how much effort is being
expended to silence opposition, whilst not even one argument has been made
as to how breaking from FSF/GNU will result in a better technical outcome.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 7:29 AM BST, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, 02:41 Frosku, wrote:
>
> > On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> > > That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
> > > their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
> > > driven dissenters into silence.
> >
> > The problem is, Alex, that the trolls mostly haven't been on the dissenting
> > side. All of the childish namecalling -- "jerks", "trolls", "crazies" --
> > and the insinuations that our voices aren't worth listening to because we
> > don't get paid $250,000 a year by Google to contribute to GCC all day are
> > coming from the pro-forking side.
> >
>
> Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing
> about
> GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this
> conversation is not constructive.
>
>
>
> > Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users' opinions
> > were as valid as contributor's opinions.
>
>
>
> That depends on the user.
Thanks for perfectly illustrating my point. I don't agree with you so my opinion
isn't valid and I'm stupid/clueless/etc.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
> their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
> driven dissenters into silence.
The problem is, Alex, that the trolls mostly haven't been on the dissenting
side. All of the childish namecalling -- "jerks", "trolls", "crazies" --
and the insinuations that our voices aren't worth listening to because we
don't get paid $250,000 a year by Google to contribute to GCC all day are
coming from the pro-forking side.
Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users' opinions
were as valid as contributor's opinions. For a project like a compiler which
exists solely to enable other projects to exist, it seems like the only users
who are deemed worthy of representation in the 'room where it happens' now
are the major Corporations with the ability to sponsor a contributor on their
behalf. It's becoming very difficult to engage in good faith against this
kind of overt hostility to the grassroots users.
> Violent emotional responses is what trolls of all alignments aim for.
> Let's not give them that. Let's not give them reasons to denounce
> censorship either. Let's dissent politely and kindly, without calling
> them names, whether trolls or jerks or crazy. Ad troll[i]um is a very
> popular fallacious argument these days, but it's just as logically
> unsound as other fallacies.
I've only seen one or two genuine 'trolls' in the discussion, as in, people
who are just here to fish for a reaction who don't have an actual vested
interest in the outcome. All of them have sent a couple of messages and then
left. Completely agree with you that 'ad trollum' is being deployed here to
conflate the legitimate voices of concerned free software advocates with
childish trolling, much to the detriment of the level of conversation.
> It's true that negotiating and settling with wildly different opinions
> requires more effort than having despotic powers to dictate the right
> answer. The community has made it clear what political model it
> prefers, so let's put that in practice, shall we?
I think there's a fundamental disagreement here where we're defining 'the
community' broadly -- to include contributors, users, and pretty much the
whole free software and GNU community -- and certain people on the pro-
fork side are taking a more corporate view that only 'the firm' should get
any input into 'internal business'. This is not the free software community
that I recognize.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 8:13 PM BST, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> Utter nonsense, Alex. I think it's clear I don't agree with most of
> your posts on this list in the past month, but it would be silly to
> suggest that you should not be allowed to post here, given your track
> record. Dave didn't say who he thinks should or shouldn't be
> moderated, so why do you think he said that those he agrees with are
> welcome to share their opinion? He said "those who have never
> contributed to GCC but persist in emailing the list" so why do you
> infer he only means those he disagrees with? Are you projecting maybe?
I'm genuinely trying to wrap my head around this. Front and centre of the
anti-RMS argument is that this is about becoming more welcoming. Is this
some kind of Orwellian doublespeak? That the project should become more
welcoming by casting off the neurodivergent leader who founded it and
putting up more barriers to participation?
Whoever heard of a free software community which bans its users from
participating? Let alone one which erects this metaphorical Trumpian wall
with its wrought iron, well-manned gates under the guise of being *more*
welcoming?
> To me a simple rule makes sense (and is what is used on another list
> that I am the moderator for, with not a single complain about my
> moderation in many years): every new subscriber has their "moderated"
> flag set by default. When a moderator approves their post, they have
> the option of clearing the "moderated" flag, if it's clear they are
> going to contribute usefully. That flag can be set again if somebody
> is disruptive or refuses to follow the list policies and stay on
> topic.
Why is it that those with the most radical ideas always seem to have the
least tolerance for dissent and feel the most threatened by discussion?
It's quite clear that your criteria for 'disruption' has more to do with
whether or not people agree with you than whether or not they're making
actual arguments or contributing in good faith. You're proposing for GCC
to act even less accountable to its (non-corporate) users than corporate
America does. How is this in the spirit of free software again?
How many values is it worth casting down the drain to achieve this promised
utopia where people never have to hear a voice they disagree with again?
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:08 AM BST, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> But in fact, millions of people outside the US would feel excluded.
> And threatened. But we are all "jerks", right?
>
> ...
>
> Such culture is also dominated by RICH men, but it's unable to see the
> problem in term of global and local distribution of wealth and power
> and thus interprets it as a matter of sex, gender and race.
>
> Which is obviously totally fine for rich men, as it distract people's
> attention from the root of their power and won't really fix the problem.
Did you ever notice that income group (in a global sense) is never a
protected characteristic in these COCs which proclaim to defend the
disenfranchised and the disadvantaged? It would seem to me that low income
is the greatest predictor of disadvantage globally.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:29 AM BST, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Beware with what you desire, Frosku.
>
> On April 16, 2021 11:15:57 PM UTC, Frosku wrote:
> >
> > I can't speak for others, but for me at least, replacing ties with GNU
> > with ties to another well-respected (non-corporate) entity in the free
> > software world like Debian or the Apache foundation would go a long way in
> > allaying my worries about this shift.
>
> Pretending to defend Free Software is way cheaper that to actually
> defend it.
> In particular against a Google employee that violate GPL during his
> working hours.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235224.html
What I desire is that GCC stay a part of GNU, a project that exists solely
to create a free operating system for the entire world to use. What I fear
most is a GCC steered by essentially a monoculture of paid big-tech coders
with no input from the free software community or GCC's non-corporate
users. Therefore, if a childish and ultimately unwarranted split is to
happen, it should be with the oversight of an organization friendly to free
software values. Not Google and not Facebook.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:08 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> > I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
> > my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
> > norms.
>
> Can you not imagine… some people have already felt that way for quite
> some
> time, and became excluded? That it is not a hypothetical for them?
>
> Aaron
Absolutely, and we should find ways to re-include them without swapping
their exclusion for the exclusion of other vulnerable people.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:04 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2021, at 1:36 AM, Frosku wrote:
> > I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
> > my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
> > norms. This is not normal. Just because some of you are paid very nice
> > salaries to hack on free software doesn't mean all of us are.
>
> I don’t make a dime. I find it hard to imagine it would take you
> all of your time not to act like an asshole. Nobody has even
> asserted professionalism should be required of professionals.
>
> Yet you seem extremely uncomfortable with some bare minimum standards.
>
> I assumed as a technical, somewhat obsessive person, you have already
> Googled “microagressions”, imagined what they would be in the
> context
> of a major open source project, and what in-group and out-groups exist
> in
> this context, then came to some kind of conclusion that explains your
> hostility.
Aaron,
If you could kindly refrain from making repeated character attacks and
trying to imply that because I disagree with you on policy I must be
some kind of knuckle-dragging bigot, that would be a really good start
to having a productive discussion. Perhaps instead of talking about
whether I'm "obsessive", want to "act like an asshole", etc we can
pretend we've been through that tiring exercise and discuss substance.
My "hostility" to codes of conduct is that I have little confidence that
they would be applied evenly (in which case, the way you've spoken to me
thus far would surely not be considered proper conduct as you've taken
little time to drop to the level of ad hominem attacks and implications)
and would instead be used as a battering ram against people who are a)
neurodivergent and struggle with social norms or b) are from different
cultures which are more direct in communication style.
It's all well and good to talk the talk of diversity and inclusion, but
it seems to me that what's actually achieved is locking out some of the
most isolated and vulnerable people -- who have found a home in our
community -- in order to make some of the most privileged people in
society more comfortable. *That* is the source of my hostility to what
I believe is for the most part a noble but misguided proposal.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 9:27 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> Give me a break Forsku.
>
> Could you care to share how you feel imposed upon or feel
> disenfranchised by
> this discussion not being sensitive to your culture? How does a code of
> conduct,
> or how would discouraging “micro-aggressions” disrespect your lived
> experiences
> or make it uncomfortable for you to contribute to GCC?
I have no idea what "micro-aggressions" are other than what I read on the
news. It's not a concept that is known outside of a bubble in parts of the
United States. I have never lived in that bubble, it is not a term I have
ever heard face-to-face, therefore I have no idea whether it affects me or
not. I do know that I'd feel pretty uncomfortable signing up to not cause
something when I have no idea what it is.
I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
norms. This is not normal. Just because some of you are paid very nice
salaries to hack on free software doesn't mean all of us are.
> It’s interesting the unkind reaction Liu Hao received in this very
> thread
> when they encountered the arguments making a false equivalency of these
> proposals
> to their countries’ history. I’m sure he felt not great, being
> forced to either
> defend the CCP or not share their views on the questions of this
> conversation.
I didn't see that, but yes it's unreasonable to expect anyone to defend the
CCP (or any government for that matter) in order to contribute views to an
argument. Everyone should be encouraged to share their views on something
which is important to all of us: the wellbeing of GCC going forwards.
Language like "give me a break", btw, or expecting someone to explain how a
code of conduct which hasn't been written yet 'imposes' on them personally
is also not encouraging.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 7:21 AM BST, Chris Punches wrote:
> I've lived in most states in the US and can confirm exclusionary
> regional cultures not only exist but are more common than the absence
> of them.
>
> You might not see it in Sioux City, but you'll see it in LA, you'll see
> it in Dallas, Bangor, Miami, Baton Rouge, Chickasha, pretty much
> anywhere you travel to will have that, and some of their elements
> aren't pretty -- they do have one thing common among all of them --
> they are aversive to each other based on perceived lifestyle, legacy,
> and value system superiority.
>
> California culture has earned theirs as much as any of the other US
> regions have. I would find it difficult to believe that someone who
> didn't notice that had actually been to these places and examined for
> this -- it is no secret, and many people in those places generally
> pride themselves over it.
>
> I think there may be a tendency in some academic communities to ignore
> or marginilize the prominnence in their worldview the parts of society
> that do not fit within their value systems as well.
I wasn't even implying that these cultures are 'good' or 'bad', just
that they exist and differ from the various regional cultures which
exist all over the world. I think people were quite touchy at my line
of questioning. I recognise that there are differences between i.e.
LA and Seattle or SF and NY, but those differences pale in comparison
to the differences between Moscow and LA, Beijing and NY, or Sydney
and SF -- and those are all still large international cities.
The fact that over 50% of the SC is based in (probably?) urban North
America should give pause to some humility that it may not represent
the truly global nature of hackerdom. On a technical front this isn't
important, but if you're trying to impose *culture* on a global group,
it might be useful to remember that you have a steering group in which
over 50% of its members represent urban North America, but in the
world, only about 2% of the population live in urban North America.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 5:05 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not prescriptive.
> > It's
> > just a reference to the fact that a *lot* of the SC live in California, and
> > any
> > culture prescribed by the steering committee will be overly influenced by
> > that
> > commonality.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, 2 of the 13 members of the GCC steering
> committee live in California.
>
> Ian
And the rest of the west coast United States / New England?
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 5:28 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:08 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, I also think that a project which goes too far in
> > policing speech, especially speech unrelated to the project, will drive away
> > talented people who are more than willing to comply with the project's norms
> > within the project's spaces. Trying to enforce the 'California cultural
> > standard' on not only someone's interactions with the project but their
> > entire life (which may be lived in a very different cultural setting) seems
> > very invasive and culturally exclusionary.
>
> I do live in California, but I don't know what the "California
> cultural standard" is. It's a big place, and it's full of people who
> behave in all kinds of different ways. Harvey Weinstein and
> brogrammer culture are California cultures. You presumably have
> something in mind, but I'm not sure it's a real thing.
There isn't a real name for any given culture because culture is such an organic
thing. When I think of codes of conduct I come back to i.e. Linus giving people
a hard time in code reviews, or Coraline Ada Ehmke's critiques of meritocracy.
Neither of these beliefs about what culture should be (Linus' or Coraline's) are
objectively right or objectively wrong, but both are likely to attract different
people, and result in different outcomes.
When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not prescriptive. It's
just a reference to the fact that a *lot* of the SC live in California, and any
culture prescribed by the steering committee will be overly influenced by that
commonality. You will have ideas about what is welcoming, what is polite, etc
which are shaped by your upbringing just as I or anyone else does. These are
not objective truths, or internationally accepted as such.
> > I'd be interested to know where you draw the line as to what behavior is
> > related to the project, or if you don't draw a line, why volunteers in
> > China,
> > Russia, Poland etc should be expected to accept an entire political doctrine
> > over their life to contribute to a compiler toolchain.
>
> How did we get to accepting an entire political doctrine?
>
> What I have in mind is treating people with respect. For example, I'm
> involved with the Go programming language. The Go community has a
> code of conduct: https://golang.org/conduct. The key elements are:
>
> - Be friendly and welcoming
> - Be patient
> Remember that people have varying communication styles and that not
> everyone is using their native language. (Meaning and tone can be lost
> in translation.)
> - Be thoughtful
> Productive communication requires effort. Think about how your words
> will be interpreted.
> Remember that sometimes it is best to refrain entirely from commenting.
> - Be respectful
> In particular, respect differences of opinion.
> - Be charitable
> Interpret the arguments of others in good faith, do not seek to
> disagree.
> When we do disagree, try to understand why.
>
> Avoid destructive behavior:
>
> Derailing: stay on topic; if you want to talk about something else,
> start a new conversation.
> Unconstructive criticism: don't merely decry the current state of
> affairs; offer—or at least solicit—suggestions as to how things may
> be
> improved.
> Snarking (pithy, unproductive, sniping comments)
> Discussing potentially offensive or sensitive issues; this all too
> often leads to unnecessary conflict.
> Microaggressions: brief and commonplace verbal, behavioral and
> environmental indignities that communicate hostile, derogatory or
> negative slights and insults to a person or group.
I certainly prefer it to the Contributor Covenant, however the last
point ('microaggressions') is an example of 'California culture'. In
most of the world, we do not have any such concept. The examples I've
seen online for what counts as a microaggression include asking questions
like "where are you from?"
I'm assuming this is considered offensive because there's a trend of using
it to imply that someone "isn't welcome" in the local area, but in most of
the world this isn't considered an offensive question. As someone who
spends the vast majority of my time in countries that aren't my birthplace,
it's one of the questions I hear the most.
I'm not sure that most of us who live outside of cultures where "micro-
-aggressions" are a commonly referenced 'thing' would know if we're making
one or just being friendly. As an aside, would this be applied to
communication in GCC spaces or to all off-list communications i.e. Twitter
/ Weibo postings, e-mails, things said at unrelated conferences?
> And I have to note that I have seen very few people here saying "RM
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 10:39 AM BST, Kalamatee via Gcc wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 05:59, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> > Ian Lance Taylor :
> > > Patronizing or infantilizing anybody doesn't come into this at all.
> >
> > I am not even *remotely* persuaded of this. This whole attitude that if
> > a woman is ever exposed to a man with less than perfect American
> > upper-middle-class manners it's a calamity requiring intervention
> > and mass shunning, that *reeks* of infantilizing women.
> >
> > > We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to
> > > succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many
> > > are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have
> > > to short-stop unwelcome advances, where you are required to deal with
> > > "men with poor social skills." Or you can choose to spend your time
> > > on the project where people treat you with respect. Which one do you
> > > choose?
> >
> > The one where your expected satisfaction is higher, with boorishness
> > from autistic males factored in as one of the overheads. Don't try to
> > tell me that's a deal-killer, I've known too many women who would
> > laugh at you for that assumption.
> >
> > > Or perhaps you have a job that requires you to work on free software.
> > > Now, if you work on a project where the people act like RMS, you are
> > > being forced by your employer to work in a space where you face
> > > unwelcome advances and men who have "trouble recognizing boundaries."
> > > That's textbook hostile environment, and a set up for you to sue your
> > > employer. So your employer will never ask anyone to work on a project
> > > where people act like that--at least, they won't do it more than once.
> >
> > Here's what happens in the real world (and I'm not speculating, I was
> > a BoD member of a tech startup at one time, stuff like this came up).
> > You say "X is being a jerk - can I work on something else?" Your
> > employer, rightly terrified of the next step, is not going to "force"
> > you to do a damn thing. He's going to bend over backwards to
> > accommodate you.
> >
> > > (Entirely separately, I don't get the slant of your whole e-mail. You
> > > can put up with RMS despite the boorish behavior you describe. Great.
> > > You're a saint. Why do you expect everyone else to be a saint?
> >
> > I'm no saint, I'm merely an adult who takes responsibility for my own
> > choices when dealing with people who have minimal-brain-damage
> > syndromes. OK, I have probably acquired a bit more tolerance for
> > their quirks than average from long experience, but I don't believe I'm
> > an extreme outlier that way.
> >
> > What I am pushing for is for everyone to recognize that *women are
> > adults* - they have their own agency and are in general perfectly
> > capable of treating an RMS-class jerk as at worst a minor annoyance.
> >
> > Behaving as though he's some sort of icky monster who should be
> > shunned by all right-thinking people and taints everything he touches
> > is ... just unbelievably disconnected from reality. Bizarre
> > neo-Puritan virtue signaling of no help to anyone.
> >
> > If I needed more evidence that many Americans lead pampered,
> > cossetted, hyper-insulated lives that require them to make up their
> > own drama, this whole flap would be it.
> >
> >
> Im glad there are people like you on the project Eric, because you
> express
> exactly what a lot of people see - even if a minority of people chose to
> ignore it,
>
> To a lot of "non americans", the events on here appear as nothing more
> than
> a power grab by a small minority of developers, abusing their position
> and
> american corporate ideologies to enact change, ignoring any one who
> dares
> question or disagree unless they fit into a clique they have built (and
> want to maintain by ostracizing people they deem unworthy),
> brandishing them jerks, trolls, toxic and other childish names. Im glad
> there are a few devs that can see this, but it feels like they are
> stepping
> on egg shells (despite the rhetoric about how well the people in said
> clique can communicate on technical matters).
A lot of Americans see it too, just many are petrified of speaking out
against this new illiberal orthodoxy.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: A proposal for management of change
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 7:37 AM BST, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
> From the discussion, it seems that there is concern about some of the
> the technical directions imposed on gcc by the FSF. If we want to
> resolve the current crisis without causing a fatal split within the
> gcc community, we need a way at least to address those.
>
> Therefore, a proposal for a procedure for setting guidelines which
> may also deviate from the ones
>
> If such a deviation is deemed necessary by somebody, it is handed
> to the steering comittee, which puts it to the gcc mailing list
> as an officlal RFC. Going through the steering committee is a
> step for weeding out suggestions which are obviously frivolous
> or trivial.
>
> If, after discussion and possible modification, there is unanimous
> or near-unanimous consent, the RFC is approved or rejected. If
> there is significant division, it is put to a vote. Everybody who
> is listed in the MAINTAINERS file gets a vote, and the majority
> vote is binding if there is a majority of at least n votes (with
> n to be discussed).
>
> The steering committee then documents the new guideline.
>
> The whole thing should be restricted to technical matters, and
> I would envision this only happening rarely, like once or twice
> a year.
>
> Why this rather bureaucratic procedure? Because it gives a clear
> and documented mandate for a change, if it is supported by the
> majority of the developers. If anybody (like the FSF) takes
> exception to the change, it would be something to go up against.
>
> Comments?
This seems like a very sensible proposal.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 4:19 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:02 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > > We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to
> > > succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many
> > > are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have
> > > to short-stop unwelcome advances, where you are required to deal with
> > > "men with poor social skills." Or you can choose to spend your time
> > > on the project where people treat you with respect. Which one do you
> > > choose?
> >
> > The one where technical excellence is prioritized over social skills,
> > personally. If I have a choice between partaking in a project where I
> > have to walk on eggshells for fear of people coming with torches and
> > pitchforks to expel me because I was a bit too harsh in my critique or
> > posted an opinion on my personal blog which wasn't something they
> > agreed with, or a project where some of the other people are people I
> > wouldn't share a beer with but the technical standard is high and free
> > expression is generally valued, I would choose the latter.
>
> Those are not the only two possible ways that a project can work.
>
> Also, you seem to be making the implicit assumption that there is some
> sort of trade off between technical excellence and social skills.
> That is false. They are independent axes.
I shouldn't really use the term 'social skills' when what I really mean is
conformance to a specific set of cultural norms. I don't necessarily think
that social skills are quantifiable in the way that i.e. writing performant
and secure code is. Someone could be highly compliant with social norms in
their own culture, in their first language, without necessarily being as
conformant with foreign cultural norms in a second language, for example.
I agree with you that a project which creates a hostile atmosphere to women
would drive people away, not just women but men with a sense of decency. I
would not want to be a part of such a project. I would differ from you on
whether RMS has created such a thing given his seemingly limited
interactions with the project spaces. If I am wrong, and he has been here
harassing women, or on other project-related spaces, I am very willing to
admit I'm wrong.
On the other hand, I also think that a project which goes too far in
policing speech, especially speech unrelated to the project, will drive away
talented people who are more than willing to comply with the project's norms
within the project's spaces. Trying to enforce the 'California cultural
standard' on not only someone's interactions with the project but their
entire life (which may be lived in a very different cultural setting) seems
very invasive and culturally exclusionary.
I'd be interested to know where you draw the line as to what behavior is
related to the project, or if you don't draw a line, why volunteers in China,
Russia, Poland etc should be expected to accept an entire political doctrine
over their life to contribute to a compiler toolchain.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 3:47 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
> This is about work. There are social aspects to free software, but
> it's not fundamentally a social activity. It's about getting
> something done, and for many people it's their job. For the sake of
> argument, I'm going to temporarily set aside all consideration of how
> people should behave in a professional setting, not because it doesn't
> matter, but just to try to clarify matters. Let's just think about
> the project.
>
> We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to
> succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many
> are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have
> to short-stop unwelcome advances, where you are required to deal with
> "men with poor social skills." Or you can choose to spend your time
> on the project where people treat you with respect. Which one do you
> choose?
The one where technical excellence is prioritized over social skills,
personally. If I have a choice between partaking in a project where I
have to walk on eggshells for fear of people coming with torches and
pitchforks to expel me because I was a bit too harsh in my critique or
posted an opinion on my personal blog which wasn't something they
agreed with, or a project where some of the other people are people I
wouldn't share a beer with but the technical standard is high and free
expression is generally valued, I would choose the latter.
This comes down to culture. I did not grow up in a culture where I was
taught that other people need to wrap me in cotton wool. I grew up in a
culture where arguments were judged on merit and generally as people we
accepted other peoples' rights to hold shitty opinions. For many of us,
the latter is more comfortable.
> Or perhaps you have a job that requires you to work on free software.
> Now, if you work on a project where the people act like RMS, you are
> being forced by your employer to work in a space where you face
> unwelcome advances and men who have "trouble recognizing boundaries."
> That's textbook hostile environment, and a set up for you to sue your
> employer. So your employer will never ask anyone to work on a project
> where people act like that--at least, they won't do it more than once.
I have never seen RMS act like that in a technical setting though, and
if he did, I think that would be a valid reason to remove him from the
mailing list and demand that GNU chooses someone else to represent
itself when communicating with GCC.
> In other words, having people who act in the way that you describe RMS
> as acting is actively harmful for a free software project, because it
> will discourage people from working on it.
>
> (Entirely separately, I don't get the slant of your whole e-mail. You
> can put up with RMS despite the boorish behavior you describe. Great.
> You're a saint. Why do you expect everyone else to be a saint? I
> don't meet with people who act like that, not more than once. Life is
> too short. I'll work with them if I must, but not if I don't have
> to.)
I don't think anyone needs to be a saint, but we do need to be able to
collaborate with people from different cultural, political, and personal
backgrounds to our own. Enforcing a social code which is exclusive to
the coasts of the United States on a global community seems to me to be
even more exclusionary than allowing people with poor social skills.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 1:16 AM BST, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
>
> > Right now, the ultimate oversight of GCC sits with GNU &
> > FSF -- both institutions with a mandate to represent the ecosystem based
> > on level of membership and time spent fighting for free software.
>
> I think the oversight of glibc by development working through discussion
> seeking consensus, and rejecting any attempt to override such consensus
> "from above", is much more effective than any attempt GNU or FSF makes
> at
> oversight. An umbrella organization for the toolchain should not act as
> an "above" that can override the community at all; it should provide
> services to the toolchain (e.g. legal support) as needed.
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> jos...@codesourcery.com
The way I see it, the developers represent the interests of the developers,
and FSF/GNU represent the interests of the users. The users should always
have some level of representation in any steering discussion, especially
for a project like GCC where any poor decision could have a negative effect
on so many other free software projects.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:52 AM BST, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Christopher Dimech via Gcc :
> > The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When people
> > at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use it,
> > and maybe distribute it themselves or encourage other people to distribute
> > it for them, we did not criticise them for not being non-profit virtuous
> > enough, or said "we are suspicious of you", let alone threatening them.
>
> Actually, some of us did *exactly* those things late in the last
> century.
>
> One of the challenges I faced in my early famous years was persuading
> the hacker culture as a whole to treat the profit-centered parts of the
> economy as allies rather than enemies.
>
> I won't say that a *majority* of us were resistent to this, but I
> did have to work hard on the problem for a while, between 1997
> and about 2003.
ESR,
My criticism has nothing to do with profit and everything to do with
accountability. GCC is a project which is used by almost everyone in the
ecosystem, and whose future direction is important to almost everyone in
the ecosystem. Right now, the ultimate oversight of GCC sits with GNU &
FSF -- both institutions with a mandate to represent the ecosystem based
on level of membership and time spent fighting for free software.
GCC forking away from those institutions removes that oversight, and
unless something which is equally or more representative is brought in to
replace that oversight role, I find it difficult to believe that this
doesn't represent a huge step backwards in terms of who ultimately has
an input into the future direction of GCC. It should be, at the very
minimum, challenging for representatives of Google, Red Hat and other
corporations to convince anyone -- after wrestling the project away from
GCC -- that their interests are not at odds with GCC users'.
I would say *exactly* the same thing if you replaced Google/Red Hat with
nonprofits which have less trust in free software than GNU/FSF.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:52 AM BST, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 2021, at 7:44 PM, Frosku wrote:
> >
> > On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:36 AM BST, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >>
> >> The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When
> >> people
> >> at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use
> >> it,
> >> and maybe distribute it themselves or encourage other people to
> >> distribute
> >> it for them, we did not criticise them for not being non-profit virtuous
> >> enough, or said "we are suspicious of you", let alone threatening them.
> >>
> >
> > There is a colossal difference between commercial use and commercial
> > entities buying control of projects currently governed by entities
> > which are answerable to the grassroots (GNU) and then toppling that
> > governance structure in favor of one which is only answerable to
> > boardrooms in Silicon Valley and Seattle WA.
>
> There are, or would be if that were a real issue. It's not something
> that is feasible with GPL licensed code, whether the copyright is held
> by the FSF as it is for GCC, or by all the authors as for Linux.
>
> paul
Paul,
Short of maintaining the FSF branch of the fork, I don't see a way to
keep the project's direction accountable to end users.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:36 AM BST, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When
> people
> at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use
> it,
> and maybe distribute it themselves or encourage other people to
> distribute
> it for them, we did not criticise them for not being non-profit virtuous
> enough, or said "we are suspicious of you", let alone threatening them.
>
There is a colossal difference between commercial use and commercial
entities buying control of projects currently governed by entities
which are answerable to the grassroots (GNU) and then toppling that
governance structure in favor of one which is only answerable to
boardrooms in Silicon Valley and Seattle WA.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 9:51 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:26 PM Chris Punches via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is
> > employed by one of the same 5 companies and "really isn't doing it on
> > behalf of my company I swear".
> >
> > Why is it almost exclusively that specific crowd saying it here, then?
>
> For better or for worse, since the early '90s the majority of people
> who do serious work on GCC have been hired by companies that want to
> do serious work on GCC. After all, it's a win-win: the company gets
> work done, the GCC programmer gets well paid. The effect is that most
> of the major GCC contributors work for a relatively small number of
> companies. There are of course many exceptions, but that is the
> general rule.
>
> Ian
In my view, if people employed by a small number of American companies
succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is representative of
the free software grassroots community, this is not a win-win. This is
powerful US corporations removing something our community created from
our community's oversight and moving it into a space where it's governed
by representatives of Silicon Valley rather than a membership-based non
profit.
Whilst everyone's contributions to the software should be welcomed, I
don't think you'll find many FSF members celebrating the impact of paid
Corporate engineers on GCC if this sorry state of affairs comes to be.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 3:40 PM BST, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> I intended the weaker observation that driving away a large number of
> smart autistic assholes (and non-assholes with poor social skills)
> is not necessarily a good trade for the people the project might
> recruit by being "more welcoming".
>
> Possibly that *would* be a good trade. I have decades of experience
> that makes me doubt this. I think the claim needs to be examined
> skeptically, not just uncritically accepted because we value being
> "nice".
I'm not even sure that this only applies to autists, over the years
I've had various interactions where I've thought someone was being
an asshole but it turned out English wasn't their first language and
they just lacked the depth of vocabulary to express a point politely.
There are also huge disparities in what cultures deem to be polite vs
impolite (high context vs low context cultures, cultural sensitivities
to particular phrases or concepts, etc). I remain unconvinced that
trying to define 'jerks' by a narrow-minded west coast American ideal
and enforce that on a global community is not, itself, jerkish.
More often than not, strict speech codes just encourage people to
assume bad faith of each other, and to tone police each other instead
of engaging in substantive debate on the issues. I also cannot remember
ever seeing one enforced equally against everyone, rather than become
a tool of an entrenched majority culture against a minority culture.
I have yet to see a project where a strict speech code has improved the
dialectic, rather than degraded it.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 12:36 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> (And I'm still not sure why you think he would "probably be
> moderating.")
>
> Ian
In my experience, those people who seek code of conducts generally envision
themselves as the enforcers, not the parties upon which they should be enforced.
If you're telling me that it's unlikely, that makes me feel better.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 12:19 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:41 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > I think, in general, it's fine to leave this decision to moderators. It's
> > just a little disconcerting when one of the people who would probably be
> > moderating is saying that he could have shut down the discussion if he
> > could only ban jerks, as if to imply that everyone who dares to disagree
> > with his position is a jerk worthy of a ban.
>
> I haven't seen anybody say that, so I'm not sure who you are talking
> about. In any case, what makes you say that that person, whoever they
> are, would probably be a moderator? And why do you infer that that
> person believes that everybody who "dares to disagree with his
> position" is a jerk? Did they say so? Or are you making the same
> mistake that you are attributing to this person: equating disagreement
> over ideas with disagreement about appropriate behavior?
>
> Ian
This was the quote:
> The choice to /not/ have a policy for ejecting jerks has serious costs.
> One of those costs is the kind of rancorous dispute that has been
> burning like a brushfire on this list the last few weeks.
My read is that this is suggestions that if the 'jerks' were simply
removed from the discussion, there would be no dispute. The only way this
would be true is if all the jerks were on a single side of it, and I make
the assumption that the individual I'm quoting wasn't suggesting that he
himself be banned.
Perhaps you can suggest a more charitable read. Ambiguity is the enemy of
good discussion in text, after all.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 9:49 PM BST, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
>
> My answer is "it depends". More precisely, in the past I would have
> favored those who decline because the environment is unpleasant -- with
> the implied assumption being that their objections are reasonable. Given
> the emergency of cancel culture, that assumption is no longer
> automatically valid.
>
> This is why I asked the question "who decides?" Given a disagreement in
> which the proposed remedy is to ostracise a participant, it is necessary
> to inquire for what reason this should be done (and, perhaps, who is
> pushing for it to be done). My suggestion is that this judgment can be
> made by the community (via secret ballot), unless it is decided to
> delegate that power to a smaller body, considered as trustees, or
> whatever you choose to call them.
>
> paul
I think, in general, it's fine to leave this decision to moderators. It's
just a little disconcerting when one of the people who would probably be
moderating is saying that he could have shut down the discussion if he
could only ban jerks, as if to imply that everyone who dares to disagree
with his position is a jerk worthy of a ban.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 12:18 PM BST, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
> > The choice to /not/ have a policy for ejecting jerks has serious costs.
> > One of those costs is the kind of rancorous dispute that has been
> > burning like a brushfire on this list the last few weeks.
>
> Although I agree with the sentiment, there's a real risk that if we
> were heading in that direction, we'd be replacing part of that
> rancorous dispute with another rancorous dispute, this time about
> whether to eject people.
And after that, an ongoing rancorous debate about who to eject, which
was ESR's premise: a project which decides its purpose is to separate
from wrongthinkers is naturally going to waste a lot of valuable time
and effort arguing about what counts as wrongthink. Time and effort
which could better be spent developing free software.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 3:57 PM BST, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 15:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 15:39, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > On 14.04.21 15:18, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > > > A strong norm about off-list behavior and politics being
> > > > out of bounds here is also helpful.
> > >
> > > That would have banned the whole discussion about the potential
> > > fork from the start.
> >
> > No, because once again, I raised the topic of a fork because I do not
> > feel that association with GNU or FSF benefits the GCC project. I did
> > not say "we have to cancel them because I don't like their politics"
> > (as it happens, I do like their politics, which is why I've spent two
> > decades writing copyleft code for GCC, I just think they have failed
> > to evolve and are sadly irrelevant today).
>
> And "the leader of the project had some good ideas but has terrible
> leadership skills" is also not political. It's a valid criticism of a
> project that we are nominally supposed to be part of.
>
> I don't have more "technical" reason because GNU isn't a "technical"
> project, it's a political/philosophical one. The FSF even more so.
>
> And I don't need anybody's consensus to create a fork. Somebody
> doesn't understand how free software works.
Nobody said that you need a consensus to create a fork. The intent of
making a proposal to a community mailing list, however, is generally to
persuade and/or measure public opinion (i.e. gather consensus). In this
case, creating a fork risks splitting the community and the contributors
between two projects -- maybe that's a good thing, though apparently not
for the gfortran developer who's saying it would kill his project.
If RMS's leadership has had a tangible and measurable negative effect on
GCC, that would probably have been the place to open your argument, not
with media hit pieces and a mostly-debunked letter which have nothing to
do with the project.
Turning high-level code into machine code isn't political, it's technical.
The only political aspect is free software, which unless something has
massively changed in the last few days, RMS & FSF both support.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 3:54 PM BST, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 4/14/21 10:23 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> >> The choice to have a policy for ejecting jerks has serious costs.
> >> One of those costs is the kind of rancorous dispute that has been
> >> burning like a brushfire on this list the last few weeks.
> >
> > I agree. Look at the huge ongoing debate about Section 230 in the US
> > that's been going on for at least months. This is something that seems
> > like it ought to have a simple solution, but it doesn't.
> >
>
> The choice to /not/ have a policy for ejecting jerks has serious costs.
> One of those costs is the kind of rancorous dispute that has been
> burning like a brushfire on this list the last few weeks.
>
>
> --
> Nathan Sidwell
The implication of this being what? That you would have just removed
everyone who disagreed with you from the debate for being 'jerks'? There is
a way to avoid this kind of "rancorous dispute" -- not proposing and then
doubling down on widely unpopular and technically meritless ideas.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM BST, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
> On 14.04.21 15:18, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > A strong norm about off-list behavior and politics being
> > out of bounds here is also helpful.
>
> That would have banned the whole discussion about the potential
> fork from the start.
It's quite clear from the discussion here that there is no consensus
to fork GCC. Doing so anyway is clearly against community interest
and serves only the egos of those proposing the fork. Unless there is
a *technical* reason to sever ties with the GNU project, it shouldn't
be done.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM BST, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
> On 14.04.21 15:18, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > A strong norm about off-list behavior and politics being
> > out of bounds here is also helpful.
>
> That would have banned the whole discussion about the potential
> fork from the start.
Given that the whole discussion seems to have been purposed entirely
to calculate a way for certain GCC contributors to virtue signal
their disapproval to the founder of the project's (debunked) bad
behaviors, perhaps that would have been a good thing.
Unfortunately, I think ESR's suggestion was merely that people
shouldn't be banned for off-list behavior or politics (which also
would have prevented RMS from being removed from the SC).
Perhaps the best lesson to take is that allowing a mailing list
which is supposed to be for technical discussion to be turned into
a space for virtue signalling and political gatekeeping isn't ideal.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 2:23 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote: > On Apr 10, 2021, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > > When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical > > and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved > > and contributing. > > GNU follows the general principle of the Free Software movement, that > freedom for *users* is the priority. Assigning *higher* importance to > developers' preferences is *not* a position I share. I feel like this should be even more evident when dealing with something like a compiler toolchain. GCC's user is likely to be another free software project's contributor (as is my case).
Re: GCC association with the FSF
On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 11:08 AM BST, Didier Kryn wrote: > Le 08/04/2021 à 17:00, David Brown a écrit : > > At some point, someone in the public relations > > department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the > > project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a > > misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child consents, and > > will cut off all support from the top down. The other companies will > > immediately follow. > > Here we are. The liberty of expressing opinions is too much of a > liberty. This is ironical to read in a mailing list dedicated in some to > a free software project. He's actually recanted his views about 'consensual pedophilia', which is testament to the benefits of open dialogue. By having discussions and arguing points, we can convince people that they are wrong. By shunning them, we do nothing to change their views and everything to make them believe we don't have any real arguments. As distasteful as I find such a view, I don't think that anybody should be banished for polite society for thoughtcrimes. We can judge people for their actions, but there's no evidence or even suggestion that he has ever harmed a child. > But you are wrong on a point. The bannishment or RMS isn't being > called by big companies or their customers. In the same way that Donald > Trump's accounts on social networks have been closed on request of > employees of these networks, here the employees of the same social > networks and other companies call for the bannishment of RMS. > > "My opinion, not my employer's" is probably true. If the majority of > employees call for lynching someone, the employer let them do because > s(?)he is concerned by the cash flow first, not ideology. I'm not 100% convinced by this. RMS has made some enemies in the corporate space who probably aren't too unhappy to see this division in our community over him. > I agree that the constitution of FSF, GNU, and GCC would gain to be > clarified and cleared from some childich relics, but that doesn't mean > the banishment of anyone and doesn't justify the cabal we have seen on > this list. > > Social networks, besides their likely utility, are a place where > hatred builds up pretty easily by mutual excitation because people get > the illusion they're right when they're many. This has always existed > amongst humans but social networks ease and boost this trend. This is > one good reason to keep away. > > > ... no one can > > be in doubt that [RMS's] attitudes and behaviour are not acceptable by > > modern standards and are discouraging to developers and users in the > > FOSS community. > > It is obviously wrong that "no one can". Several persons have > expressed their disagreement whith these statements. Or do you mean "no > one is allowed to"? I'm in doubt that anyone can claim to speak for the diaspora of ideas and principles that is the free software community. We have participants from all corners of the globe, all religions, all political stances. It would probably be hard to find unanimous agreement among us on anything, other than perhaps that free software is a desirable thing. > What do you mean by "modern standards"? Do you realy think there are > standards for political correctness? Is it an ISO? POSIX? IEEE? Sorry > for the easy joke. Probably you could express better what you mean (~: > > Le 10/04/2021 à 14:50, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc a écrit : > > Hello there > > > > As a long time GCC user, who is also a father to teenage children, I would > > very much prefer if a person who openly expressed opinions, and also openly > > exercised behaviours, which I consider abhorrent, was *not* associated with > > the GCC project. > > I bet you would also prefer that this person doesn't live on the > same planet as you. Sorry but this is just plain intolerance. > > The root of the cabal is there: intolerance. The arguments about > the behaviour of RMS or the mere fact that his name appears on the web > page are mostly given (conciously or not) to hide the actual mobile. Very well summarized, Didier. This is an authoritarian attempt to clamp down on freedom of thought which is unfortunately being swallowed whole by people who spend the rest of their time fighting for it. If it is not possible for us -- a global community representing not only the entire spectrum of American politics and values, but of global politics and values -- to agree to disagree, then we are doomed to failure.
