Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Harrassment on this list

[nipponmail]

I would like to be unsubscribed from the "NYLXS" list, and the 
gnu-misc-discuss list if it's being sent there too.


I'm on the list to see what RMS has to say, once in awhile.

I'm not on this list to see a do-nothing guy foment all day and night 
filling up my inbox. Ruben: If you want to sue, sue. You're a Jew, you 
know lots of lawyers. Stop fomenting and keveching and just file your 
suit.



On 2020-02-23 20:46, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

Andreas Enge  skribis:


The reason I have been insisting is that inaction towards this kind of
behaviour kills communication in the GNU project - if victims of 
verbal

abuse are expected to change their opinions to stop the name calling,
or are invited to be less susceptible, they will eventually just 
leave,
and their example will prevent others from joining. And as has been 
amply
demonstrated, just brandishing guidelines without options for 
sanctions

does not solve the problem.


I very much agree, thanks for explaining it this clearly.

Ludo’.
___
Hangout mailing list
hang...@nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

[Ruben Safir]

On 2/21/20 3:07 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I don’t think so, but I’d rather emphasize “symbiosis” with some
> projects than disagreements with others.


That is too bad because the goal of GNU is to seperate GNU from other
projects that don't maining the Four Freedoms

Ruben

-- 
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002

http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

[Ruben Safir]

On 2/20/20 3:55 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Our concern is that at some point GNU may be just completely unknown
> to free software enthousiasts.


Don't worry about that.  It is not your concern an a package maintainer
and it's not even a remote possiblity.



-- 
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002

http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www.brooklyn-living.com

Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013

Re: Harrassment on this list

[DJ Delorie]

Alexandre François Garreau  writes:
> Yet expressing it directly, without filter, it has already been 
> said, is unkind.

I agree, and I think this is a key point to understand.  The FSF has
stated that it will accept work from anyone regardless of what they
BELIEVE.  Kindness is about what people SAY.  I don't think there's a
conflict there.

You can believe in something and choose not to talk about it if you know
the audience would react poorly to what you say or how you say it, that
is kindness.  Choosing to say something that would hurt someone else is
unkind, even if you belive it is true.  It's not about what you believe,
it's about how you choose to talk about that belief.  Communication
happens best when both sides choose carefully how they communicate.

I have never heard the FSF say "we'll accept patches from anyone, no
matter how they behave on our mailing lists".

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Mike Gerwitz]

Mark:

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 11:36:16 -0700, Mark Galassi wrote:
> I wrote to endorse the GNU social contract and received an email which
> made me feel insulted and intimidated (this one said "F*** you", so not
> much risk of misinterpreting the language).  I also got a sequence of
> replied from people telling me I was wrong to do so.  These seem to be
> canned replies that are sent to other people who endorse it.  They did
> not make me feel as intimidated, but it still seems like a strange
> campaign.

Firstly: I'm sorry that you are receiving those messages.  People should
not feel harassed in that way when communicating on GNU lists.

Unfortunately, though, as Alfred has mentioned, there's nothing we can
do to prevent people from contacting you privately.  But if you do
receive a message privately which has also been CC'd to this list, and
find that it does not appear in the list archives, then you at least
know that the moderators have attempted to mitigate some of the damage
by preventing it from reaching the list.

We've had a few people in particular that have been especially
problematic, and one person in particular that has many different
aliases and has even gone so far as to create a separate list that the
person has forcefully subscribed people to.  I condemn this
behavior.  But there's little we can do to stop it.

> I wrote the following to the list last week but it got rejected by
> moderation for being "off topic".  Since this list seems to have a lot
> of traffic which is a soul-search on how we should interact, I think it
> must have been rejected by mistake by an overworked moderator, which is
> understandable.

I appreciate your perspective.  Considering that I see no problem with
this message, I'll assume that your interpretation is correct. 

> I don't see clear information about moderation, and don't know right now
> how to write to the moderators directly (the page
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss doesn't give
> moderator addresses).

I'm the publicly listed owner of the list.  While I don't frequently
moderate, please feel free to get in touch with me directly.  I've been
more active the past few days, but even when I'm not, I'll see direct
messages to me.

> I would suggest that the moderators of this list set something up to
> avoid the trolling.  Even if they block such a response to the whole
> list, it still goes directly to the person posting.  Some weird other
> addresses were also added.

We're doing the best we can, but only so much is within our
means.  Certain people have caused us a substantial moderation burden.

> I won't post the person's name here, but moderators: if you want I can
> share the details with you directly.  Email me directly if you would
> like to work on this and need my help.

Feel free to forward me any details and we can see if it's anything
we're not already aware of.

Happy hacking.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 08:50:44 -0800, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
> On 2020-02-22 19:38, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 20:48:43 +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 10:26:22AM -0800, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)
>>> wrote:
 On 2020-02-22 01:22, Andreas Enge wrote:
 > And another ad-hominem attack. Can you substantiate the claim of us
 > being
 > powermongers?

 https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct
 "Enforcement", "Ban", "Correction", "Warning" 
 You are sick.
>>>
>>> Could I kindly ask for this person to be put on moderation? I find it
>>> difficult to interpret the last statement as anything but a gratuitous
>>> insult
>>> (following a message that was not even directed at them). Notice that
>>> there
>>> is a pattern of overly aggressive messages by Kaz Kylheku.
>>
>> I think we can handle this without having to resort to blocking a
>> person's messages.
>>
>> Kaz, please avoid use of subjective terms like "powermonger" and focus
>
> Everything you see here has passed moderation.
>
> If you don't think I should be able to include quotes of someone
> else's text that contains "powermonger", take it up with the moderator.

I'm very sorry---I meant to reply to the "you are sick".  I was
considering multiple moderation messages at once and they somehow got
mixed.

I am one of the moderators on this list.

>>   https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html
>
> I think that is useful for communication within projects themselves.
> I don't think that should be blindly followed in a self-defeating way
> by remaining meek when the project is under attack.

The guidelines do not say "be kind unless ...".

-- 
Mike Gerwitz


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Harrassment on this list

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 21:21:18 +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
> The reason I have been insisting is that inaction towards this kind of
> behaviour kills communication in the GNU project - if victims of verbal
> abuse are expected to change their opinions to stop the name calling,
> or are invited to be less susceptible, they will eventually just leave,
> and their example will prevent others from joining. And as has been amply
> demonstrated, just brandishing guidelines without options for sanctions
> does not solve the problem.

Personal attacks and unkind communication are not acceptable.  They
should be denounced and can be moderated as a last resort.

But please understand the situation that we have been put in.  The
topics discussed here are extremely controversial.  It's all too easy
for people to be offended by one-another, or to interpret one-another's
words especially harshly.

If one particular group of people is behaving more kindly than others,
then that is good---that group is acting as the better example for kind
communication.  Others acting unkindly, even if they feel as though they
are defending GNU, are in the wrong.

But coming to this list, raising an inflammatory topic, and then
demanding that moderation be used as a tool to reduce tensions is not
acceptable either.  We'll strike a balance.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 14:35:56 -0800, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
> On 2020-02-22 18:58, Amin Bandali wrote:
>> "Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> You are sick.
>>
>> I urge you to consider the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines [0] when
>> posting to GNU lists, as well as keeping this list's guidelines [1] in
>> mind when posting here.
>
> I sincerely believe that the code of conduct document published
> on the gnu.tools is the product of a sick mind.
>
> Make no mistake: this is not name-calling; I stand by it.

To approach this from a constructive perspective: rather than claiming
someone to be "sick", state your opinion of the symptoms, and debate
those.

But more importantly, and taking precedence: it's irrelevant to the
discussion.  Whether or not you believe someone to be "sick" because
they hold a particular viewpoint---which I find to be a terrible
mistake---doesn't matter to the topic at hand.  Consequently, raising it
could only be interpreted as an insult, since it can do nothing to
further a constructive debate.

So as a moderator, I'm asking that you please stop.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Harrassment on this list

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le lundi 24 février 2020, 03:26:17 CET DJ Delorie a écrit :
> Alexandre François Garreau  writes:
> > Yet expressing it directly, without filter, it has already been
> > said, is unkind.
> 
> I agree, and I think this is a key point to understand.  The FSF has

Wait why “the FSF”? until now we were only speaking about GNU, not about 
the FSF.


> stated that it will accept work from anyone regardless of what they
> BELIEVE.

This is strange as I never saw a such statement from FSF.  FSF is a 
politically non-neutral charity, it would be to be expected from its 
member (not necessarily to its donators, such as google/etc.) to uphold 
and believe in their values.  This is like charities work… and why most of 
them work by voting of their members.

> Kindness is about what people SAY.  I don't think there's a
> conflict there.

There still can be, if you are picky: because you can *believe* things 
about what you say: you can believe about the meaning you intent, about 
the meaning you understand, about the meaning you want to convey, about 
the meaning you believe is important conveying, about what is correct to 
say or not, what is kind or not, etc.

“say” is pretty much near “think”, because we think with words pretty much 
often, and we say what we think also often (otherwise we are secret (it’s 
a cultural and personality trait) or lying/hypocritical).

Yet there is “do” which is much further from what we say.  This is the 
kind of thing such obligations are about.

> You can believe in something and choose not to talk about it if you know
> the audience would react poorly to what you say or how you say it, that
> is kindness.

It is also intelligence x)

> Choosing to say something that would hurt someone else is
> unkind, even if you belive it is true.

It depends of your relationship with the person, and what you believe the 
result will be.  Personally, I will always want to know what people 
believe about me, even if it hurts.  I would be all too scared to one day 
be surprised about something people thought, or even told in my back, 
about me, all that time, and never told me, until it, one day, have 
practical consequences I wouldn’t ever had the time to act upon…

> It's not about what you
> believe, it's about how you choose to talk about that belief. 
> Communication happens best when both sides choose carefully how they
> communicate.

Good point.

> I have never heard the FSF say "we'll accept patches from anyone, no
> matter how they behave on our mailing lists".

FSF can’t accept patch, as far as I know they don’t run any software 
project… do they? maybe their website can be considered as one… but do 
they update it with patches?

Anyway from what I heard FSF’s mailing-lists are more harshely censored 
than GNU’s one.

However a patch is a better example of “do” which is further from “think” 
and even “say”… but I find shocking to propose the idea to refuse someone’s 
technical contributions over their past declarations… even if it’s 
constructive? how childish is that?! is that like a punition? or what? 
what does it have to do with? what’s the relationship?

I am to recall very well that really interesting contribution to the 
discussion from Samuel: he said sometimes someone is “toxic” in a certain 
place/circumstances, but not in others… it would be stupid not to profit 
from the ones where that person wouldn’t cause trouble! even the opposite! 
that’d make them used to work with other, to communicate properly, to feel 
the satisfaction of getting things done, efficiently (that requires proper 
communication), and maybe would learn, or at least get the incentive, to 
do that in other places where they would have got bad behavior!

Re: Harrassment on this list

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 23 février 2020, 19:50:23 CET Andreas Enge a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 01:04:45PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > A code of conduct will not sovle the issue.  Kind communication will,
> > your message like the previous poster are both unkind.
> 
> Well, stating that a person who is victim of abuse and complains about
> it sends an "unkind" message is one of the patterns of communication I
> am criticising. It confounds the victim and the aggressor. Very unkind
> indeed! How do you expect to attract people to this mailing list, or to
> the GNU project at large, in this way?

Uh this is really PoV thing: “it’s not me who started” wait really? isn’t 
it possible that each one sincerely believes that it’s the other who 
started it? is “aggressor” here a purely objective thing? I’m sure if we 
were to ask him, he could believe the situation is “rms is the victim and 
you are the aggressor”.

What he said was in answer to your messages and initiatives that offended 
him and attitude which likely looked unkind to him… we can retrace then 
that initiative to the unkind reaction people had about rms’ events in 
last months, to the unkind joint statement against him, to the unkind 
smear campaign against him, to statements he supported who (or whose 
wording) were likely to be perceived as unkind by his detractors.

Talking about attractiveness, two things: first of all homogeneity is 
generally attractive, so disagreeing publicly is not attractive, so to be 
attractive a community shouldn’t be open or democratic… because 
*democracy*, and any collective arbitrage, require *disagreeing* 
(otherwise “democracy” (possibly meaning “being civilized”, “reasonable”, 
“kindness” or other broadly subjective stuff) is just a political 
hypocrisy, a double-thinking, a newspeak)… secondly, each opinion have 
detractors and supporters, and will likely turn away detractors… your 
opinion is not any less going to turn away people disagreeing with you 
(who still exist (there are at least troll-compliant right-wing people who 
would disagree with all of us but more with some, for instance))… and then 
trying to impose a state of censorship and of impossibility to disagree 
*is* also going to turn away people… yet more invisibly…

> > If you really want to help, I suggest you ask people to follow the GNU
> > Kind Communication Guidelines, and help in creating a welcoming
> > atmosphere not by asking for people to be moderated but by encouraging
> > kindness.
> 
> So far, I have not got the impression that asking aggressive people to
> communicate kindly has had any effect (while I think I have mostly
> succeeded in communicating kindly myself); all that happens is doubling
> down on insults and aggressiveness. Do you suggest I send out numbered
> requests? "For the 76th time, please communicate kindly!" And for how
> long do you suggest to continue sending out pleas that are not heeded?

Do once, then ignore.  Like people who don’t care about free software, 
about saying “gnu/linux”, etc.: you should know that.

> What do you suggest when people obstinately refuse to communicate
> kindly? That is exactly where sanctions ultimately can solve the issue,
> so unlike your first line, I think that a code of conduct can solve
> such problems.

The CoC doesn’t do it.  The reaction to it does.  And the reaction you 
propose is censorship/moderation/whatever…

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 23 février 2020, 23:35:56 CET Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) a 
écrit :
> On 2020-02-22 18:58, Amin Bandali wrote:
> > "Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> writes:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> >> You are sick.
> > 
> > I urge you to consider the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines [0] when
> > posting to GNU lists, as well as keeping this list's guidelines [1] in
> > mind when posting here.
> 
> I sincerely believe that the code of conduct document published
> on the gnu.tools is the product of a sick mind.
> 
> Make no mistake: this is not name-calling; I stand by it.

Jean-Louis made a really good answer to you I believe.  A hinter of 
social-minded anti-psychiatry couldn’t be more appropriate here.

“sick” looks like an objective statement, while it is the product of a 
subjective judgement.  You should make you more explicit rather than to 
resort to simplistic metaphors, comparisons or links (to sickness) that 
could be badly taken, or simply wrong.

Plus you know what? I think we’re all somewhat sick, to keep researching 
freedom, in a inprisonned world ;)

Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 23 février 2020, 22:34:32 CET Ludovic Courtès a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> Eli Zaretskii  skribis:
> >> From: Ludovic Courtès 
> 
> [...]
> 

> >> The GNU Social Contract is about changing that.
> > 
> > How can you change that if the document is voluntary?
> 
> Endorsers will know what to expect from each other and people who work
> with them will have a clearer picture, too.

So it doesn’t change it.

> >> That some of us want to change the governance of GNU is not a
> >> mystery.
> >> 
> >> Our first message to maintainers¹ and the endorsement page² read:
> >>   Additionally, we think it can be a first step towards formalizing a
> >>   transparent and collective governance of the GNU Project.
> > 
> > I think you are missing the point.  You are asking people to endorse a
> > document, but it's unclear whether the document is a goal in itself or
> > a step in some direction, and if the latter, then what exactly is that
> > direction.  "We think it can be a first step" doesn't cut it: is it
> > the first step or isn't it?  If it is, then I at least would like to
> > know where you are aiming, and I'd like to see it written clearly and
> > unequivocally on your site, including any controversy that might exist
> > about those goals (so people could consider them and make up their
> > minds).  You see, I'm somewhat picky in choosing documents which I
> > sign, and would like to understand better what kind of movement I'm
> > joining by doing so.  I expect that at least some of us here think the
> > same.
> 
> We did spend some time to make the message concise, clear, and
> to-the-point.  :-)  Let me explain it with more words:
> 
>   The goal of this document is to state the core values GNU maintainers
>   and uploaders and contributors who have endorsed it are committed to
>   uphold.  It is both an agreement among us, GNU contributors, and a
>   pledge to the broader free software community.

This doesn’t explain anything more.  This “value” is too abstractly 
expressed to retire anything concrete… could you give concrete examples, 
of what could that change? because otherwise “we” can think it as meaning 
nothing…

>   Additionally, we think it can be a first step towards formalizing a
>   transparent and collective governance of the GNU Project.
> 
> Note the “additionally” adverb here: we (the authors) think endorsing
> the document has intrinsic value for the project, regardless of one’s
> ideas on how the project should be run, but _additionally_, some of us
> think it’s a first necessary step towards collective governance.

We can also note the “we think it *can*” which is really broad and permits 
pretty much anything… is it or not? why can it? why couldn’t it? if it 
can, what will make it be it, and what not? does something necessarily 
have to happen, for a first step toward it to happen, and be qualified as 
such?

Also both “transparent” and “collective” are unclear.  As it is already 
pretty transparent (but was scarcely distributed around gnu.org, until /
gnu/gnu-structure… but you could still ask the various commities each time 
they would come to light, or rms himself… I’d doubt they would be 
reluctant to answer, from the moment they have enough time to answer 
that), and collective (it is not purely individual as rms delegate pretty 
much everything, and there are a lot of commities… which are, de facto, a 
collective thing).

So consider your vision of “collective” is not others’, and your 
consideration of “opacity” is not shared… so you should explain those… 
because until then, we absolutely don’t know what each potential 
participant to your initiative put behind these two words (and behind the 
concept of “first step”, “can be”, etc. as well).

As well as what these “intrisic value” are for… just to be beautiful? I 
find /philosophy/ already pretty beautiful, and the mere fact of 
*individually* agreeing with it is already pretty much good… but doesn’t 
change a thing (until you participate in one of the aforementioned 
commities… but that’s obvious)

> I hope that better answers your questions.

A little, but it way increase your likehood not to be frank and clear 
about what you want concretely :/

Sometimes we believe we are clear while stating things largely and 
unprecisely, because it feels obvious to us, because we forgot how do 
think people who think very differently from us… but then we *are* being 
unclear, and giving examples helps explaining what feels obvious, but 
actually isn’t.

> > Moreover, being involved in a campaign to diminish and unseat the
> > current leadership for reasons that are controversial at best puts you
> > at a disadvantage, because there could be a reasonable assumption that
> > this document is part of that campaign, and if that is so, then people
> > might decide they don't want any part in that.  If the document is not
> > part of that campaign, then onus is on you to convince us that it
> > isn't, and the best way of doing that is 

Re: lese majeste

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 23 février 2020, 22:01:42 CET Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) a 
écrit :
> Why should anyone be kind and meek in the face of fascists?

Because it weakens your point.  Especially on a written medium.

> That's not what our forefathers did.

Not on mailing-lists.  World change.

> That e-mail was approved for list redistribution by the moderator in
> spite of using "we". You might be able to convince the moderator that
> it had been a lapse in judgment,

It’s a general “we”, like a “one”.

> If Bob wants to persuade Alice that some situation is detrimental, he
> must present that color, not the raw facts that Alice already knows.

raw facts are hard or rare.  color are ubiquitous.

Re: Harrassment on this list

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 23 février 2020, 21:21:18 CET Andreas Enge a écrit :
> Well, I will let it drop - I am quite optimistic that personally I will
> survive to insults by random strangers on the Internet.
> 
> The reason I have been insisting is that inaction towards this kind of
> behaviour kills communication in the GNU project - if victims of verbal
> abuse are expected to change their opinions to stop the name calling,
> or are invited to be less susceptible, they will eventually just leave,

This is a pattern I dislike: “okay this doesn’t work for me but it’d work 
for other so beware!”.

The most often I hear this, it’s from people saying “of course I work for 
free most of the time but *nobody else would ever* do that, so we should 
never expect for it to happen!”.

This is a bad pattern as you dismiss the fact you have no tangible direct 
proof of what you assume, but you want to lead to concrete reaction 
netherless…

I mean, when someone resorts to insults… they’re not to be taken as much 
seriously as before, are they?  So it is reasonable to then more easily 
ignore them, right?

Re: Endorsing a GNU social contract

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 23 février 2020, 21:10:01 CET Tobias Geerinckx-Rice a écrit :
> As lowly co-consp^Wmaintainer of GNU Guix I endorse version 1.0

x'D

Sincerely, genuine irony/auto-derision can be amusing, even when 
disagreeing :')

I wish more people had the cleverness of showing empathy in these debates 
by exercing auto-derision :) this is a really good exercise to put you in 
others’ mind, and can lead to easier understanding…

…just as bitting a pen, whilst it doesn’t really make you smile, can make 
you less sad… but better :)

Re: Harrassment on this list

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 23 février 2020, 20:13:51 CET Andreas Enge a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 02:04:29PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > If you feel so much angered by an email, try to see past the points
> > that you get angry about and try to find what the other party is
> > trying to communicate.
> 
> So what do you think that someone tries to communicate with the
> statement "You are sick"?

Also, in the originating mail, there is more substance around/before that 
statement, than inside it.

Re: Harrassment on this list

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 23 février 2020, 20:18:59 CET Andreas Enge a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 09:11:46PM +0200, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> > For what it's worth, I believe you have failed to be kind in several
> > occasions; from a quick sample of three of your messages I found one
> > which was dubious and one definitely less than kind ("bickering"
> 
> Indeed I give you this, not kind. You will also find a few instances of
> sarcasm here and there.
> 
> > "you are simply wrong"
> 
> Whereas pointing out factual errors is not a question of kindness,
> I would say.

Given the state of the discussion, I am to believe each time a party 
demonstrates unkindess, this very same party is deeply convinced to only 
state bare facts.

So two things: bare facts can be subjective (maybe you’re wrong), and bare 
facts can be worded unkindly, or unprecautionously.

For instance, someone could feel hatred… and that would be a fact, and not 
even a willing decision (we don’t usually “choose” to feel a certain 
emotion)!  Yet expressing it directly, without filter, it has already been 
said, is unkind.

Emotions are natural, and all or them are useful…  at least likely for 
treating with physical aggressions, in the example of anger and hatred… 
but are they useful on a written and cooperative communication medium such 
as a mailing-list? I’m doubt of that…

Re: Harrassment on this list

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 23 février 2020, 20:13:51 CET Andreas Enge a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 02:04:29PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > If you feel so much angered by an email, try to see past the points
> > that you get angry about and try to find what the other party is
> > trying to communicate.
> 
> So what do you think that someone tries to communicate with the
> statement "You are sick"?

They are trying to communicate several things, among which: unability to 
understand you as acting rationally (which means not all points and 
reasoning behind your actions is clear)… and anger, as last time someone 
tried to frame that as something else, they got corrected, so I guess the 
emotional content is considered important as well…

But “you are sick” is unkind communication indeed, don’t feel not 
listened, you are understood on this point.

Re: Endorsing the GNU social contract

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-23 01:34, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

Per the request offered by email, I am offering my support for the GNU
social contract.

I, maintainer of package LilyPond, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU
Social Contract, available at 
https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract.


Did you read it carefully?

Also, do you endorse this one:  
https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct

Re: ru...@mrbrklyn.com: Please remove me from your hang...@nylxs.com or vill...@mrbrklyn.com mailing lists

[Taylan Kammer]

On 23.02.2020 19:35, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
Apparently I've been subscribed to a mailing list -- 
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/options/hangout -- without my 
permission or consent. I wish to be removed from that mailing list and 
any mailing list copies being relayed to me by any subscriber to that list.


I have been able to reach 
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/options/hangout but it seems that I 
cannot unsubscribe even though I've asked nicely on this list 
(gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org) to not receive these "hangout" posts. It 
looks as though the messages to me are being sent to 
vill...@mrbrklyn.com and redelivered to me.


I don't know what the exact arrangement of message delivery is but I 
want it to stop and it appears as though you, hangout-ow...@nylxs.com 
(listed as the owner of this "hangout" mailing list) continue to keep 
these messages which I don't want coming to me. You are clearly in 
control of this "hangout" mailing list and I've made it clear twice now 
that I want no part of that mailing list.


I've had the same problem.  No idea what he's trying to achieve... 
Anyhow, you can make the ML mail you your password and then use it to 
unsubscribe.  That will put an end to the annoying [Hangout - NYLXS] 
mails consisting of broken up threads and a good amount of spam.


- Taylan

Endorsing a GNU social contract

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

As lowly co-consp^Wmaintainer of GNU Guix I endorse version 1.0 of 
the GNU Social Contract as proposed here[0].


Thanks to the members of this list for changing my mind on the 
matter.


Kind regards,

T G-R

[0]: 
https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-wiki/tree/pages/gnu/social-contract.txt?id=442408da9c6fa6a8299ceb46a634f880fc57b51d


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-22 18:58, Amin Bandali wrote:

"Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> writes:

[...]


You are sick.


I urge you to consider the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines [0] when
posting to GNU lists, as well as keeping this list's guidelines [1] in
mind when posting here.


I sincerely believe that the code of conduct document published
on the gnu.tools is the product of a sick mind.

Make no mistake: this is not name-calling; I stand by it.

Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > That's just the tip of a very large iceberg.  I know it, you know it,
   > and every GNU maintainer knows it.  When we get appointed, we receive
   > a 1000-word message from RMS with some quite non-trivial instructions,
   > including, but not limited to, a pointer to maintain.texi as the place
   > to find specific policies and guidelines that are mandatory to follow.
   > That is what I alluded to when I said "maintaining a GNU project
   > according to the guidelines".  I don't know how things are on your
   > plate, but for me following those guidelines takes most of my free
   > time, and requires some non-trivial efforts.

   Of course, but these are mostly technicalities.  Richard’s point here is
   that we’re expected to do nothing beyond following those policies, and
   even the guidelines can be sidestepped.

That isn't at all RMS's point, you know that quite well.  It has
always been encouraged to go further supporting the GNU project, but
that is quite different than forcing people to hold those values.

   >> The GNU Social Contract is about changing that. 
   >
   > How can you change that if the document is voluntary?

   Endorsers will know what to expect from each other and people who work
   with them will have a clearer picture, too.

That is already documented in the various documents that we as GNU
maintainers agree to when we are apointed.

 The goal of this document is to state the core values GNU maintainers
 and uploaders and contributors who have endorsed it are committed to
 uphold.  It is both an agreement among us, GNU contributors, and a
 pledge to the broader free software community.

The GNU project doesn't force anyone to adher to a specific set of
values, so it isn't really your place to decide what those values are
for GNU maintainers.

   If you and I both state our commitment to upholding that set of values,
   then we have something in common that we can build on.  We know we’re on
   the same page.

The commitment is to work on the GNU system.  Not to share the same
set of values -- the GNU project encourages anyone to join, not just
people who agree with each other.

Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Eli Zaretskii  skribis:

>> From: Ludovic Courtès 

[...]

>> Quoth RMS¹:
>> 
>>   GNU package maintainers have committed to do work to maintain and add
>>   to the GNU system, but not anything beyond that.  We have never
>>   pressed contributors to endorse the GNU Project philosophy, or any
>>   other philosophical views, because people are welcome to contribute to
>>   GNU regardless of their views.
>
> That's just the tip of a very large iceberg.  I know it, you know it,
> and every GNU maintainer knows it.  When we get appointed, we receive
> a 1000-word message from RMS with some quite non-trivial instructions,
> including, but not limited to, a pointer to maintain.texi as the place
> to find specific policies and guidelines that are mandatory to follow.
> That is what I alluded to when I said "maintaining a GNU project
> according to the guidelines".  I don't know how things are on your
> plate, but for me following those guidelines takes most of my free
> time, and requires some non-trivial efforts.

Of course, but these are mostly technicalities.  Richard’s point here is
that we’re expected to do nothing beyond following those policies, and
even the guidelines can be sidestepped.

>> The GNU Social Contract is about changing that. 
>
> How can you change that if the document is voluntary?

Endorsers will know what to expect from each other and people who work
with them will have a clearer picture, too.

>> That some of us want to change the governance of GNU is not a mystery.
>> Our first message to maintainers¹ and the endorsement page² read:
>> 
>>   Additionally, we think it can be a first step towards formalizing a
>>   transparent and collective governance of the GNU Project.
>
> I think you are missing the point.  You are asking people to endorse a
> document, but it's unclear whether the document is a goal in itself or
> a step in some direction, and if the latter, then what exactly is that
> direction.  "We think it can be a first step" doesn't cut it: is it
> the first step or isn't it?  If it is, then I at least would like to
> know where you are aiming, and I'd like to see it written clearly and
> unequivocally on your site, including any controversy that might exist
> about those goals (so people could consider them and make up their
> minds).  You see, I'm somewhat picky in choosing documents which I
> sign, and would like to understand better what kind of movement I'm
> joining by doing so.  I expect that at least some of us here think the
> same.

We did spend some time to make the message concise, clear, and
to-the-point.  :-)  Let me explain it with more words:

  The goal of this document is to state the core values GNU maintainers
  and uploaders and contributors who have endorsed it are committed to
  uphold.  It is both an agreement among us, GNU contributors, and a
  pledge to the broader free software community.

This paragraph is telling about the intrinsic value of endorsing the
document: it defines the commitments of those who endorse it.

  Additionally, we think it can be a first step towards formalizing a
  transparent and collective governance of the GNU Project.

Note the “additionally” adverb here: we (the authors) think endorsing
the document has intrinsic value for the project, regardless of one’s
ideas on how the project should be run, but _additionally_, some of us
think it’s a first necessary step towards collective governance.

I hope that better answers your questions.

> Moreover, being involved in a campaign to diminish and unseat the
> current leadership for reasons that are controversial at best puts you
> at a disadvantage, because there could be a reasonable assumption that
> this document is part of that campaign, and if that is so, then people
> might decide they don't want any part in that.  If the document is not
> part of that campaign, then onus is on you to convince us that it
> isn't, and the best way of doing that is honestly and clearly mention
> the issues and controversies on your site.  Keeping silence about that
> just makes people wonder and ask questions, and is unfair towards your
> audience, since it might trick some of them to make decisions they
> will later regret.

I do see that some people do not judge the document for what it actually
says, and I think it’s a pity.

Over the last decade I have, again, not been silent about a desire to
work towards a collectively-run GNU.  But I’ve also done a lot for GNU
in that time, and I don’t think it’s useful to view every single action
of mine as “part of that campaign”.

>> Now, I do think there is value in having maintainers endorse the Social
>> Contract, regardless of the governance model one is aiming for: it can
>> improve cohesion and allow for more delegation of responsibilities.
>
> Details, please: what cohesion are we talking about, how it will
> depend on whether I did or didn't endorse the document, and which
> responsibilities you expect to be able to delegate to those 

Re: lese majeste

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-23 00:32, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:

John Darrington writes:

Hello John,

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 07:14:44PM +0100, Alexandre Fran?ois Garreau 
wrote:

Le samedi 22 f??vrier 2020, 18:41:48 CET Ludovic Court??s a ??crit :

> PS: It???s telling that yet another insulting message passed moderation!

Wait it was criticizing but where were the insults?



Now we see


Could you please use thet word "I" when speaking for yourself, as you 
do

here?  Using this sort of language is unnecessarily intimidating, and
certainly not kind.


Why should anyone be kind and meek in the face of fascists?

That's not what our forefathers did.


When making the cross-over from facts to interpretation of those facts,
what you or I see is the inside of our heads.  That can colour facts to
be good, or it can colour facts to be bad, depending on what we believe
and the mindset or attitude we have at the time.


That e-mail was approved for list redistribution by the moderator in
spite of using "we". You might be able to convince the moderator that
it had been a lapse in judgment,

Coloring the facts with interpretation is Jon Darrington's privilege,
in an e-mail that bears a "From: Jon Darrington" header.

Coloring facts is representative of what happens in western 
civilization's

courtrooms, parliament houses, political campaigns, newsrooms, as well
as textbooks and classrooms.

Coloring the facts with interpretation is necessary for persuasion.

If Bob wants to persuade Alice that some situation is detrimental, he
must present that color, not the raw facts that Alice already knows.

Re: Harrassment on this list

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >So what do you think that someone tries to communicate with the 
statement
   >"You are sick"?
   > Ignore the statement, or see past it -- be the better person.

   Okay, so if I understand correctly, you are telling me to be less 
susceptible.

No, I'm asking you to help improve the situation by helping to lead by
example.  Like you I too have been getting quite interesting and
creative emails yet I persist in the hope of everyone joining our
cause, even those who disagree. 

I'd rather have everyone work on the GNU project than making it an
echo chamber of voices that never disagree -- with that it means one
has to accept disagreements and that sometimes people loose their
cool.

Re: Harrassment on this list

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andreas Enge  skribis:

> The reason I have been insisting is that inaction towards this kind of
> behaviour kills communication in the GNU project - if victims of verbal
> abuse are expected to change their opinions to stop the name calling,
> or are invited to be less susceptible, they will eventually just leave,
> and their example will prevent others from joining. And as has been amply
> demonstrated, just brandishing guidelines without options for sanctions
> does not solve the problem.

I very much agree, thanks for explaining it this clearly.

Ludo’.

Re: Endorsing the GNU social contract

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hey Han-Wen,

Han-Wen Nienhuys  skribis:

> Per the request offered by email, I am offering my support for the GNU
> social contract.
>
> I, maintainer of package LilyPond, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU
> Social Contract, available at https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract.

Noted, thank you!

Ludo’.

Re: Harrassment on this list

[Andreas Enge]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 02:37:35PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>So what do you think that someone tries to communicate with the statement
>"You are sick"?
> Ignore the statement, or see past it -- be the better person.

Okay, so if I understand correctly, you are telling me to be less susceptible.

Well, I will let it drop - I am quite optimistic that personally I will
survive to insults by random strangers on the Internet.

The reason I have been insisting is that inaction towards this kind of
behaviour kills communication in the GNU project - if victims of verbal
abuse are expected to change their opinions to stop the name calling,
or are invited to be less susceptible, they will eventually just leave,
and their example will prevent others from joining. And as has been amply
demonstrated, just brandishing guidelines without options for sanctions
does not solve the problem.

My point is made, I presume.

Andreas

Re: Endorsing a GNU social contract

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice  skribis:

> As lowly co-consp^Wmaintainer of GNU Guix I endorse version 1.0 of the
> GNU Social Contract as proposed here[0].

Noted, thank you Tobias!

Ludo’.

Re: Harrassment on this list

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > If you feel so much angered by an email, try to see past the points
   > that you get angry about and try to find what the other party is
   > trying to communicate.

   So what do you think that someone tries to communicate with the statement
   "You are sick"?

Ignore the statement, or see past it -- be the better person.

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Here it is with my suggestion for the moderators.  

Thank you.  Moderators cannot do anything when someones CCs you
directly, none of the messages you mentioned went through to this list
that I can see (you can see the public archive at
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/).  So this means
that moderation has been successful, but the way email works there is
little to nothing one can do when one is CCed...

   I also now realize that part of the response had to do with the
   bizarre "hangout" mailing list that was created to get some
   postings to many people on this list without going through this
   list.

Alas moderators are not in control of what other people do on non-GNU
mailing lists, like mass subscribing or mailing people against their
will.  :-(

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Manor farm is the poorly run farm by the evil Mr. Jones in Animal Farm
by George Orwell.

ru...@mrbrklyn.com: Please remove me from your hang...@nylxs.com or vill...@mrbrklyn.com mailing lists

[J.B. Nicholson]

Apparently I've been subscribed to a mailing list -- 
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/options/hangout -- without my permission or 
consent. I wish to be removed from that mailing list and any mailing list copies 
being relayed to me by any subscriber to that list.


I have been able to reach http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/options/hangout but it 
seems that I cannot unsubscribe even though I've asked nicely on this list 
(gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org) to not receive these "hangout" posts. It looks as though 
the messages to me are being sent to vill...@mrbrklyn.com and redelivered to me.


I don't know what the exact arrangement of message delivery is but I want it to stop 
and it appears as though you, hangout-ow...@nylxs.com (listed as the owner of this 
"hangout" mailing list) continue to keep these messages which I don't want coming to 
me. You are clearly in control of this "hangout" mailing list and I've made it clear 
twice now that I want no part of that mailing list.

feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Mark Galassi]

Dear GNU maintainers,

I wrote to endorse the GNU social contract and received an email which
made me feel insulted and intimidated (this one said "F*** you", so not
much risk of misinterpreting the language).  I also got a sequence of
replied from people telling me I was wrong to do so.  These seem to be
canned replies that are sent to other people who endorse it.  They did
not make me feel as intimidated, but it still seems like a strange
campaign.

I wrote the following to the list last week but it got rejected by
moderation for being "off topic".  Since this list seems to have a lot
of traffic which is a soul-search on how we should interact, I think it
must have been rejected by mistake by an overworked moderator, which is
understandable.

Here it is with my suggestion for the moderators.  I also now realize
that part of the response had to do with the bizarre "hangout" mailing
list that was created to get some postings to many people on this list
without going through this list.

= = =

A while ago there was a discussion of moderation on this mailing list,
but I lost track of what was happening.

A person responded to my endorsement of the social contract (which I had
misspelled as social construct - ooops).  This person wrote back to me
and the list saying:

> F*** you and your illconceived campaign to destroy GNU


> And f*** that mailing list run by a theif and a bully

[they had the full swear word in there; I replaced part of it with *s so
that we don't vent it too much and end up in search results for hostility]

I don't see clear information about moderation, and don't know right now
how to write to the moderators directly (the page
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss doesn't give
moderator addresses).

I feel that this mailing list has people who get really hostile and
insult people like me who have dedicated their lives to being GNU
contributors (in my case since 1985).

I will not get turned off of the good work for GNU by this specific
insult targeted at me, but I can see that in the future I might get
dispirited, and I know new people who have decided to not get in to the
internals like this.

I would like to remind everyone that Richard has said quite clearly that
everyone who contributes to GNU should be treated as acting in good
faith.

I would suggest that the moderators of this list set something up to
avoid the trolling.  Even if they block such a response to the whole
list, it still goes directly to the person posting.  Some weird other
addresses were also added.

I won't post the person's name here, but moderators: if you want I can
share the details with you directly.  Email me directly if you would
like to work on this and need my help.

I would like to point out something rather nice that happened on the
gnu-community-private list (I'm just quoting a snippet, and I replaced
the person's name since that is a private list).  Clearly this poster
had a disagreement with others and questioned their good faith, but then
realized that s/he should not have, and wrote a very nice email.

The snippet:

aPoster> It was wrong for me to ask people to leave this community. I
aPoster> apologize, and take back my above suggestion.

(my reply below: )

aPoster, it is nice to see that you have the character to post this kind of
correction.

I hope that when people back off from a hurried possibly hostile
statement (although this one was much milder than a lot of what we see
on this list) they will always know that the silent majority praises it.

The first thing I did when I saw aPoster's adjustment was to go and
re-read all of their previous emails to make sure that I had paid
attention to their points.

Re: Harrassment on this list

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Andreas Enge, 23/02/20 20:50:

So far, I have not got the impression that asking aggressive people to
communicate kindly has had any effect (while I think I have mostly succeeded
in communicating kindly myself)


For what it's worth, I believe you have failed to be kind in several 
occasions; from a quick sample of three of your messages I found one 
which was dubious and one definitely less than kind ("bickering", "you 
are simply wrong").


Maybe nobody told you because they know that nobody is perfect.

Federico

Re: Harrassment on this list

[Andreas Enge]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 09:11:46PM +0200, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> For what it's worth, I believe you have failed to be kind in several
> occasions; from a quick sample of three of your messages I found one which
> was dubious and one definitely less than kind ("bickering"

Indeed I give you this, not kind. You will also find a few instances of
sarcasm here and there.

> "you are simply wrong"

Whereas pointing out factual errors is not a question of kindness,
I would say.

Andreas

Re: Harrassment on this list

[Andreas Enge]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 02:04:29PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> If you feel so much angered by an email, try to see past the points
> that you get angry about and try to find what the other party is
> trying to communicate.

So what do you think that someone tries to communicate with the statement
"You are sick"?

Andreas

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Jean Louis]

* Alfred M. Szmidt  [2020-02-23 21:05]:
> Hi Alex!
> 
> If you have time and interest, the GNU project is looking for new
> maintainers for several projects.  See our take action page:
> https://www.gnu.org/server/takeaction.en.html
> 
> Contrary to the members of Manor farm, we welcome anyone and will not
> dismiss your opinion just because you are not a GNU maintainer.  This
> list is for anyone interested in discussing anything related to the
> GNU project, even disagreements with the GNU project.

Do you mean with the Manor Farm, like "In addition to having both
lower and upper halls, many French manor houses also had partly
fortified gateways, watchtowers, and enclosing walls that were fitted
with arrow or gun loops for added protection. Some larger 16th-century
manors, such as the Château de Kerjean in Finistère, Brittany, were
even outfitted with ditches and fore-works that included gun platforms
for cannons. These defensive arrangements allowed maisons-fortes, and
rural manors to be safe from a coup de main perpetrated by an armed
band as there was so many during the troubled times of the Hundred
Years War and the wars of the Holy League; but it was difficult for
them to resist a siege undertaken by a regular army equipped with
(siege) engines.[6" ?

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manor_house#France

I am trying to understand the term and it is entertaining, yet I may
be mistaken.

Jean

Re: Harrassment on this list

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

If you feel so much angered by an email, try to see past the points
that you get angry about and try to find what the other party is
trying to communicate.  It is much better to try and steer the
discussion in to a constructive direction, than trying to moderate
what people can or cannot say -- that is an extreme solution to a
easily solvable problem but one that takes a bit more effort from all
of us.

Moderation is the last resort, and one that is not taken lightly since
it is a ethically and morally slippery slope.  

Harrassment on this list

[Andreas Enge]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 01:04:45PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> A code of conduct will not sovle the issue.  Kind communication will,
> your message like the previous poster are both unkind.  

Well, stating that a person who is victim of abuse and complains about it
sends an "unkind" message is one of the patterns of communication I am
criticising. It confounds the victim and the aggressor. Very unkind indeed!
How do you expect to attract people to this mailing list, or to the GNU
project at large, in this way?

> If you really want to help, I suggest you ask people to follow the GNU
> Kind Communication Guidelines, and help in creating a welcoming
> atmosphere not by asking for people to be moderated but by encouraging
> kindness.

So far, I have not got the impression that asking aggressive people to
communicate kindly has had any effect (while I think I have mostly succeeded
in communicating kindly myself); all that happens is doubling down on insults
and aggressiveness. Do you suggest I send out numbered requests?
"For the 76th time, please communicate kindly!" And for how long do you
suggest to continue sending out pleas that are not heeded?

What do you suggest when people obstinately refuse to communicate kindly?
That is exactly where sanctions ultimately can solve the issue, so unlike
your first line, I think that a code of conduct can solve such problems.
In any case, we observe on this list that appeals to kindness do not
solve the issue. So maybe it is time to try something else.

Andreas

Re: Endorsing the GNU social contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Thank you for showing your support for the GNU project.  But this is
not a document by the GNU project, as a GNU maintainer you are not
required to endorse or even support the GNU philosophy or free
software movement since we wish to welcome anyone and everyone if they
wish to contribute to the GNU system.

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Jean Louis, 22/02/20 23:52:

Now imagine the freedom for North Korean leaders to run the GNU
software to launch nuclear rockets towards Boston, USA. Would you be
in agreement on it?


Let's use a more concrete example (because it's actionable, unlike 
fictional lawsuits in North Korea): are General Atomics or Lockheed 
Martin free to use GNU software within their weapons? Are we in 
agreement with it, even if they're used to conduct extrajudicial 
killings abroad or to kill civilians?


And the answer is: yes of course I agree they can use GNU software, 
especially if they publish all the software used on their drones and war 
planes under GPL. Is this an embarrassing ethical conclusion? Not at 
all: if the software were under GPL, it would be more transparent about 
what kind of ethical decisions it makes. That would empower democratic 
processes to decide whether such weapons should be used or not. (It's 
not democratic for the GNU hackers to decide whether a state should wage 
war on another, even if it's tempting.)


Federico

Re: lese majeste

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

John Darrington writes:

Hello John,

> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 07:14:44PM +0100, Alexandre Fran?ois Garreau wrote:
>> Le samedi 22 f??vrier 2020, 18:41:48 CET Ludovic Court??s a ??crit :
>> 
>> > PS: It???s telling that yet another insulting message passed moderation!
>> 
>> Wait it was criticizing but where were the insults?
>> 
>
> Now we see

Could you please use thet word "I" when speaking for yourself, as you do
here?  Using this sort of language is unnecessarily intimidating, and
certainly not kind.

When making the cross-over from facts to interpretation of those facts,
what you or I see is the inside of our heads.  That can colour facts to
be good, or it can colour facts to be bad, depending on what we believe
and the mindset or attitude we have at the time.

When assuming bad faith, like you are doing here

> where we're heading if we're not vigilant:

("vigilant" is a mind set that projects your fears onto the world)
then what follows are thoughts that an afraid mind will create:
regardless of the observation made before.

> 1.
> 2.
> 3.

Look, I can imagine a dreadful future...and I know who started it...

There is no "us" and "them" in GNU; that idea was injected by others.
We all do what we can to contribute and we all make mistakes.  But that
should not be a problem, because we have eachother.

Greetings,
janneke

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen  | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com

Endorsing the GNU social contract

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

Per the request offered by email, I am offering my support for the GNU
social contract.

I, maintainer of package LilyPond, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU
Social Contract, available at https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract.

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

some gnu maintainers more equal than others?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

So I'm a GNU maintainer, I've asked now repeatedly that those wanting
to voice their non-GNU document at least have the courtesy to mention
that the GNU project isn't requiring nor will require anyone to pledge
their allegiance to anything particular.  This has been answered with
a false statement, and then resounding silence.

They happily elect to accept non-GNU maintainers to support their
document, but are quick to dismiss other GNU hackers and users when
they have a opinion that differs from them.

Of course, they can host or claim anything they wish, but it is all
quite hard to take Manor farm seriously when they claim that this is a
document by and for GNU maintainers, and they activley refuse to show
the opinons of those they claim to represent.

Are some GNUs more equal than others at Manor Farm...

Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   These are good questions and my apologies we didn't make this more
   clear. The GNU Social Contract is important because it defines what the
   GNU project stands for. It is a mission statement. 

This is not true, the non-GNU anti-social edict doesn't define
anything what the GNU project stands for, seeing that it isn't a GNU
document to begin with.  What the GNU project stands for can be read
at www.gnu.org, or more to the point

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.htm

Get it while it is still hot!

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Hi Alex!

If you have time and interest, the GNU project is looking for new
maintainers for several projects.  See our take action page:
https://www.gnu.org/server/takeaction.en.html

Contrary to the members of Manor farm, we welcome anyone and will not
dismiss your opinion just because you are not a GNU maintainer.  This
list is for anyone interested in discussing anything related to the
GNU project, even disagreements with the GNU project.

Re: lese majeste

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Just because you feel it is an insult doesn't mean that moderation is
the right solution.  The GNU project doesn't take easy solutions which
lead to slipery and vauge arguments like this where "insult" is enough
to get someone silenced.

If you really want to help, I suggest you ask people to follow the GNU
Kind Communication Guidelines, and help in creating a welcoming
atmosphere not by asking for people to be moderated but by encouraging
kindness.

[r...@gnu.org: Structure and Administration of the GNU Project]

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

This might be interest for anyone wondering how the GNU project works.
I've attached the text version of the the Structure and Administration
of the GNU Project document as well (version 1.0.1).

--- Begin Message ---
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

People know that each GNU package has one or more maintainers
appointed by the GNU Project.  People mostly don't know about the
committees that carry out most of the administration of the project.
We have now published a complete description of the administrative
structure of the GNU Project.

https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.html

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)



-- 
If you have a working or partly working program that you'd like
to offer to the GNU project as a GNU package,
see https://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html.--- End Message ---

===File ~/gnu-structure.org=
#+title:The Structure and Administration of the GNU Project
#+options:  author:nil html-postamble:nil num:nil timestamp:nil toc:nil
#+options:  -:nil ':t
#+startup:  showall
#+macro:mdash @@html:@@

#+begin_export html
by Brandon Invergo and Richard Stallman

Version 1.0.1
#+end_export

#+begin_announcement
An [[https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.org][Org version]] of this document 
is also available.
#+end_announcement

#+begin_comment
  Canonical version: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.html

  Copyright © 2020 Brandon Invergo and Richard Stallman
  Released under Creative Commons Attribution Noderivatives Licenses 4.0
#+end_comment

#+begin_export html

#+end_export

The GNU Project develops and maintains the 
[[https://www.gnu.org/gnu/about-gnu.html][GNU operating system]].
Through this work, and other related activities, the GNU Project
advocates and promotes 
[[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html][software freedom]], the core 
philosophy of the
free software movement.

An operating system consists of many software components that together
make a computer do useful jobs.  It includes code for low-level
functionality, such as the kernel and drivers, plus system libraries,
as well as the programs (utilities, tools, applications, and games)
that users explicitly run.  The GNU operating system comprises
software across this entire spectrum.  Many of the programs are
specifically developed and released by the GNU Project; these are
termed "GNU packages".  The GNU system also includes components that
are [[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html][free programs]] released 
by other developers, outside of the GNU
Project.

Just as the programs composing an operating system must work together
coherently, the GNU Project must operate coherently.  Most of the work
consists of developing specific programs, but these programs are not
independent projects; they must fit well together to constitute the
GNU system we wish for.  Therefore, over the course of decades, we
have developed structure for the project.  None of it is new, but this
is the first time we have documented all of it in one place.

The Free Software Foundation provides many kinds of support
(facilities, services) to the GNU Project.  How that works is outside
the scope of this document.

* Software Development Structure
:PROPERTIES:
:CUSTOM_ID: software-development-structure
:END:

Most of the GNU Project's activity consists of development of software
packages.  Here is how GNU software development is structured.

** The Chief GNUisance
:PROPERTIES:
:CUSTOM_ID: chief-gnuisance
:END:

The GNU Project is led by the Chief GNUisance, Richard Stallman, the
founder of the project.  The Chief GNUisance is responsible in
principle for all significant decisions, including the overall
philosophy and standards, and directs the project in carrying them
out.  The Chief GNUisance dubs software packages as GNU packages, or
decommission one when necessary, and appoints their maintainers.

In practice, the Chief GNUisance delegates many of these decisions and
most of the tasks to others, and only rarely intervenes in the
specifics of development of a GNU package{{{mdash}}}and usually that
is with a suggestion.

** Assistant GNUisances
:PROPERTIES:
:CUSTOM_ID: assistant-gnuisances
:END:

This team, residing at [[mailto:maintain...@gnu.org][maintain...@gnu.org]], is 
available as a first
point-of-contact for maintainers of GNU Software.  They keep track of
development activity across the entire project, ensuring timely
releases, checking that the maintainers follow GNU's 
[[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy][philosophy]] and
guidelines, and resolving any conflicts that might arise.  They also
handle cases when a maintainer steps down or when a new volunteer

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

A code of conduct will not sovle the issue.  Kind communication will,
your message like the previous poster are both unkind.  

I suggest that you in the future send moderation requests to the
administrators of the list, and not here.  That reduces any kind of
friction on this list.

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-22 19:38, Mike Gerwitz wrote:

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 20:48:43 +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 10:26:22AM -0800, Kaz Kylheku 
(gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:

On 2020-02-22 01:22, Andreas Enge wrote:
> And another ad-hominem attack. Can you substantiate the claim of us
> being
> powermongers?

https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct
"Enforcement", "Ban", "Correction", "Warning" 
You are sick.


Could I kindly ask for this person to be put on moderation? I find it
difficult to interpret the last statement as anything but a gratuitous 
insult
(following a message that was not even directed at them). Notice that 
there

is a pattern of overly aggressive messages by Kaz Kylheku.


I think we can handle this without having to resort to blocking a
person's messages.

Kaz, please avoid use of subjective terms like "powermonger" and focus


Everything you see here has passed moderation.

If you don't think I should be able to include quotes of someone
else's text that contains "powermonger", take it up with the moderator.


  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html


I think that is useful for communication within projects themselves.
I don't think that should be blindly followed in a self-defeating way
by remaining meek when the project is under attack.

Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ludovic Courtès 
> Cc: Mark Wielaard ,  gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 22:04:36 +0100
> 
> > I always thought that maintaining a GNU project according to the
> > guidelines I was communicated when I was appointed _is_ upholding GNU
> > values, that it's all there is in upholding them, as applied to my job
> > as the maintainer.  But you seem to be saying there's something else
> > there?  What is that?
> 
> Quoth RMS¹:
> 
>   GNU package maintainers have committed to do work to maintain and add
>   to the GNU system, but not anything beyond that.  We have never
>   pressed contributors to endorse the GNU Project philosophy, or any
>   other philosophical views, because people are welcome to contribute to
>   GNU regardless of their views.

That's just the tip of a very large iceberg.  I know it, you know it,
and every GNU maintainer knows it.  When we get appointed, we receive
a 1000-word message from RMS with some quite non-trivial instructions,
including, but not limited to, a pointer to maintain.texi as the place
to find specific policies and guidelines that are mandatory to follow.
That is what I alluded to when I said "maintaining a GNU project
according to the guidelines".  I don't know how things are on your
plate, but for me following those guidelines takes most of my free
time, and requires some non-trivial efforts.

> The GNU Social Contract is about changing that. 

How can you change that if the document is voluntary?  That's exactly
the essence of my questions, and I don't see any answers in what you
wrote.

> > The fact is that those same people who wrote the document
> 
> The document was drafted on this list, with a call for an additional
> feedback period.  You could have been one of those people, and you can
> become one for a future version.  The goal has always been to have as
> many maintainers as possible on board.
> 
> > and promote it are those who are promoting the ideas of changing the
> > leadership and the governance model.  You cannot work around of that.
> > It is IMO better to present these issues honestly and a objectively as
> > possible than to try to sweep them under the carpet.  It might make
> > the discussions more open and the sides more trustworthy towards one
> > another.
> 
> That some of us want to change the governance of GNU is not a mystery.
> Our first message to maintainers¹ and the endorsement page² read:
> 
>   Additionally, we think it can be a first step towards formalizing a
>   transparent and collective governance of the GNU Project.

I think you are missing the point.  You are asking people to endorse a
document, but it's unclear whether the document is a goal in itself or
a step in some direction, and if the latter, then what exactly is that
direction.  "We think it can be a first step" doesn't cut it: is it
the first step or isn't it?  If it is, then I at least would like to
know where you are aiming, and I'd like to see it written clearly and
unequivocally on your site, including any controversy that might exist
about those goals (so people could consider them and make up their
minds).  You see, I'm somewhat picky in choosing documents which I
sign, and would like to understand better what kind of movement I'm
joining by doing so.  I expect that at least some of us here think the
same.

Moreover, being involved in a campaign to diminish and unseat the
current leadership for reasons that are controversial at best puts you
at a disadvantage, because there could be a reasonable assumption that
this document is part of that campaign, and if that is so, then people
might decide they don't want any part in that.  If the document is not
part of that campaign, then onus is on you to convince us that it
isn't, and the best way of doing that is honestly and clearly mention
the issues and controversies on your site.  Keeping silence about that
just makes people wonder and ask questions, and is unfair towards your
audience, since it might trick some of them to make decisions they
will later regret.

> Now, I do think there is value in having maintainers endorse the Social
> Contract, regardless of the governance model one is aiming for: it can
> improve cohesion and allow for more delegation of responsibilities.

Details, please: what cohesion are we talking about, how it will
depend on whether I did or didn't endorse the document, and which
responsibilities you expect to be able to delegate to those who
endorse it.

Re: lese majeste

[Andreas Enge]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 02:19:57AM -0500, John Darrington wrote:
> Now we see where we're heading if we're not vigilant:
> 1.  A code of conduct which outlaws insulting messages.
> 2.  An influential minority providing "governence".
> 3.  The "governence" deciding what is and isn't "insulting" ...

Well, there is of course some subjectivity in what constitutes an insult
and what does not. But quite often, it is frankly not debatable. You are
not claiming that the "you are sick" I complained about is anything but
an insult? Mike pointed out a few other messages with clear insults in them.

This creates a terrible atmosphere, in which people think twice before they
post on the list and put themselves out to abuse and harrassment. In the end,
only the abusers and a few people of good faith with exceptionally thick skin
remain in the discussion; that is definitely not a desirable situation.

Andreas

Re: Endorsing the GNU social contract

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Han-Wen,

On Sun, 2020-02-23 at 10:34 +0100, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> I, maintainer of package LilyPond, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU
> Social Contract, available at 
> https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract.

Thanks for your support. You have been added to


Cheers,

Mark