Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Harrassment on this list

[Ludovic Courtès]

Ian Lance Taylor  skribis:

> nipponm...@firemail.cc writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> As far as I can tell, I received this on the gnu-misc-discuss mailing
> list.
>
> I think it is necessary to say that I find this kind of racist
> commentary abhorrent.
>
> I hope that others feel the same way.

I feel the same, it’s terrible that such messages are tolerated.
We should stand up against that.

Ludo’.

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 

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

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello Eli,

Eli Zaretskii  skribis:

> 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.

The GNU Social Contract is about changing that. 

¹ https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00014.html

> 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.

Maintainers who’ve been following gnu-prog-discuss over the last decade
are even less surprised, I’m sure.

We can discuss the pros and cons of different governance models, but
let’s not pretend there’s an ongoing conspiracy.


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.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

¹ https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-wiki/tree/code/sc-email.txt
² https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract-endorsement

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

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Alex,

Alex Taylor  skribis:

> Recently we have been "invited" to approve a thing which is being called
> the "social contract".

I don’t think you have been invited to anything since you’re not in the
‘maintainers’ file.

I’m fine with you expressing your opinion, but please keep in mind that
it’s a discussion to be had first and foremost among GNU stakeholders.

It’s unfortunate that we’ve seen people not involved in GNU be much more
vocal than GNU hackers on this list.  It’s not been helping.

> Finally "endorsing" the text would give the rebel group a legitimacy which
> they neither have, nor deserve.  It's instructive to look at the track
> record of these renegades.   The Guile and Guix projects have both excluded
> and/or vilified people who disagree with the people in power (the same
> people who push the "social contract").

Interesting; I’ve been a co-maintainer of Guile and Guix for some years
and I haven’t seen you there.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

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

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

[Ludovic Courtès]

Dmitry Gutov  skribis:

> On 20.02.2020 15:12, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> As I see it, the point of the Social Contract you’re referring to is a
>> commitment to work hand in hand with our natural allies.  These could be
>> projects that build software the GNU system or GNU applications rely on,
>> or it could be projects fighting the same fight.
>
> To clarify: does LLVM fit either of the descriptions, in your opinion?

I don’t think so, but I’d rather emphasize “symbiosis” with some
projects than disagreements with others.

Ludo’.

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

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Dmitry,

Dmitry Gutov  skribis:

> On 20.02.2020 11:47, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> I think it’s important for GNU hackers as a group to be able to reflect
>> on the project’s procedures and discuss whether/how to improve them.
>
> So what GNU hackers who disagree with you lot on this or other
> subjects are supposed to do?

They can choose to ignore the Social Contract, or better yet, they can
let us know they do not endorse it and (ideally) why.  It’s a process.

> I don't see the opposing viewpoints reflected in your documentation
> anywhere. You have formed a subgroup, discussed your views in private,
> and are now soliciting positive feedback within the project, while
> largely ignoring negative one.

This is wrong.  See the timeline at:

  https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback

> And you're misrepresenting yourselves as a project-wide official
> initiative. "We are GNU, and here are our values".

Our first message¹ to maintainers started with:

  The authors of this message have started an effort […]

I don’t think there’s any misrepresentation.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

¹ https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-wiki/tree/code/sc-email.txt

Endorsement of the Social Contract 1.0

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

I, co-maintainer of GNU Guix, GNU Guile, the GNU Shepherd, and
GNU Guile-RPC, and a contributor to other GNU packages, endorse
version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at:

  https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract

This endorsement means that I believe in the values stated in the
document and that I’m willing to uphold them as part of my GNU
maintainer role.

I’m looking forward to more fellow maintainers judging the document on
what it actually says and taking this opportunity to express a firm
commitment to GNU and free software.

Beyond the Social Contract, I hope we GNU hackers can come together and
work on incrementally building a collaborative GNU governance.

Thanks!

Ludo’.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Dmitry Gutov  skribis:

> I figured your "collaborates with the broader free software community"
> item was about how non-GNU free software are a "good thing" still
> (e.g. LLVM has the right to exist, and we should interface with it
> properly as well), but apparently not.

As I see it, the point of the Social Contract you’re referring to is a
commitment to work hand in hand with our natural allies.  These could be
projects that build software the GNU system or GNU applications rely on,
or it could be projects fighting the same fight.

It’s not about “embracing” any free software project out there.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

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

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Alfred,

a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) skribis:

>As a GNU user, you may not know it but GNU maintainers do not currently
>agree to uphold the free software values that we care about; they merely
>agree to more specific GNU policies.
>
> It is intentional, since the GNU project doesn't want to exclude
> anyone from becoming a GNU maintainer.  So not only currently, but
> also not in the future.

You’ve made your point many times, but please, stop presenting the
current situation as something that cannot possibly ever change and,
consequently, should never be questioned.

I think it’s important for GNU hackers as a group to be able to reflect
on the project’s procedures and discuss whether/how to improve them.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

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

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Christophe,

Christophe Poncy  skribis:

> Simple user here.
>
> On 2/16/20 20:28 PM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>> Of course it is a personal choice for every one of us whether or not to
>> uphold these basic GNU values.  I know that GNU maintainers are not
>> required to adhere or uphold even any free software values and I must
>> say that was pretty shocked when I learnt that, but it makes me happy to
>> be able to make this commitment of freedom towards our users.
>
> FWIW: I do NOT need it. We have the GPL to protect that freedom. Please,
> don't take users hostage. This anti-social contract could make us lose
> it. Let’s call a cat a cat. It's a tool for you, not for us. Anyway, it
> misses the point of free software, his glory, and all that it embraces.
> It could help to produce better software by establishing the social
> domination of programmers, but in a world governed by code, we have to
> focus on the GPL. [1]

As a GNU user, you may not know it but GNU maintainers do not currently
agree to uphold the free software values that we care about; they merely
agree to more specific GNU policies.

The Social Contract is a way for interested GNU maintainers to state
their will to uphold these core values.  As we wrote before:

  The goal of the GNU Social Contract is to state the core values GNU
  maintainers 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.

You are right that the software license gives you, the user, a guarantee
that the four freedoms apply.  But there’s more to a project like GNU
than its licenses: there’s the people who make it and their vision for
the project.  I think it’s good to have a shared vision among the makers
of GNU, and a well-defined relation between them and their users.

I hope this sheds some light on the rationale!

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: Endorsement of the GNU Social Contract

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Christian,

Christian Grothoff  skribis:

> You have now, for the second time, send me a message as part of a
> mass-mailing to a list to which you added me without my consent.  This
> is spam and illegal under European law, as the data subject never
> consented to you processing the data.

The same applies to gnu-community-private, among others.

> More interestingly, repeatedly asking for me to sign your "Social
> Contract" is clearly a form of harassment in violation of your own
> "Social Contract".

I’m sorry you see it that way.  We were careful to write:

> If you think this is inaccurate, or if you no longer want to be
> contacted about this initiative, please let us know about it.

I take note that you do not want to be further contacted, should that
ever happen, which is unlikely.

We’ve known each other for some time, Christian, and I think we can
disagree without taking such a confrontational approach.

Thanks anyway for your feedback and apologies for the inconvenience.

Ludo’.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Frederic,

Mark Wielaard  skribis:

> On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 12:31 +0100, fredoma...@free.fr wrote:
>> As far as I can see, there has not been modification to the proposed
>> GNU Social Contract, and I happy to re-iterate my support to it.
>
> There were several pieces of feedback that were either not sent to the
> public list, or are still held up in moderation. We are still adding
> them all to https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback and after
> processing them all we hope to have the final 1.0 as soon as possible.
> Sorry for the delay.

We reached 1.0 yesterday a few hours after your message:

  https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract

Background on the discussions that took place at:

  https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback

You’re welcome to reiterate your support if that’s still fine with you!

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: Moderation

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Mike & Brandon,

Ludovic Courtès  skribis:

> A large part of the traffic over the last few weeks was repeated
> ad-hominem attacks, always by the same people.
>
> This is a violation of the list’s stated policy at
> <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss>.  It gives a
> poor image of the project and undoubtedly silences many.
>
> I call on to you to make it stop.  I reckon moderation is a tough and
> thankless task, and I am grateful for your work, but I think it’s in the
> project’s interest to put an end to abuse of that sort.

I didn’t get any response from you on this matter.

To make matters worse, my own posts are moderated and I’ve seen a 2- to
3-day delay before they’d reach the mailing list lately.  That makes it
hard for me to participate.

Meanwhile, all the abuse email is getting through unmoderated AFAICS
(i.e., there’s no delay between their ‘Date’ header and the time I
receive them.)

Mike, Brandon: please rectify this situation.

Thanks in advance,
Ludo’.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: GSC 1.0 endorsement

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Werner,

Werner Koch  skribis:

> I, maintainer of the packages GnuPG and Libgcrypt,
> endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract,
> available at .

ACK, thanks for your support!

Ludo’.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposals for the new GNU/FSF relationship

[Ludovic Courtès]

Dear FSF,

In response to your call for input regarding the future of the FSF/GNU
relationship, Mark Wielaard posted proposals back in December on behalf
of several GNU maintainers:

  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-12/msg00026.html

To date, we have not received any feedback.

The first of these proposals was:

> * leadership
>
> We believe GNU leadership includes the GNU maintainers who should have
> this discussion together with the FSF.  That way, the FSF can support
> the GNU Project as a whole.
>
> More generally, we think it is time for the GNU Project to collectively
> define its governance structure, in a way that includes all
> stakeholders, and that the FSF should facilitate this process.

The announcement posted on February 6th on gnu.org¹ reads:

  Alex Oliva, Henry Poole and John Sullivan (board members or officers
  of the FSF), and Richard Stallman (head of the GNU Project), have been
  meeting to develop a general framework which will serve as the
  foundation for further discussion about specific areas of cooperation.

This does not include GNU maintainers who, as stewards for their GNU
packages (and for some of them also as signatories of an agreement with
the FSF for the Working Together Fund), are part of the GNU leadership
and should be equal partners.

Could you make sure GNU maintainers can take part in these discussions?

Thanks in advance,
Ludo’.

¹ https://www.gnu.org/gnu/2020-announcement-1.html


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello Frederic,

fredomatic  skribis:

> I, Frederic Y. Bois, maintainer of package GNU MCSim, endorse version
> 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at
> .

Thank you for your message.

As stated in the email you received, we are still on a review period
until Feb. 9th, and the document may still change based on feedback.
The endorsement period for this initial version of the Social Contract
starts on Feb. 10th.  See the timeline at:

  https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-wiki/tree/code/sc-email.txt

Please share suggestions by Feb. 9th, and let us know whether you
endorse the document on Feb. 10th!

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

> You have been mislead, the website you are refering to is unaffiliated
> with the GNU project, and does not represent the GNU project.

The web site at  is managed by GNU maintainers
for use as a tool for all GNU maintainers (it has not yet been possible
to host it at gnu.org but that’s where it should be and we are working
on it).

Thanks for your feedback, Frederic!

Ludo’.

Re: about the GNU promise

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Benno,

Benno Schulenberg  skribis:

> Anyway... I've carefully read https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract
> (Last modified: 2020/01/22 11:55), and here are my comments.

Thanks for taking the time to read it and to comment it.

> Please don't call the document a Social Contract.  The first sentence says:
> "These are the core commitments of the GNU Project...".  In other words:
> these are promises.  A better title for the document would be:
>
>   The GNU Promises

I agree these are promises.  I personally find the name “Social
Contract” clear, but perhaps the context is missing: it is a reference
to Rousseau’s Social Contract¹, and the phrase has since been used
broadly to designate documents that are a collective pledge or set of
promises (an example is Debian’s Social Contract).

I think “social contract” accurately defines the document, but “GNU
Pledge” or similar would also work I guess, although it does not have
the nice effect of making it clear that it’s a social construct.

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

> The first sentence continues with: "to the broader free software community".
> Well, why only to the free-software people?  I would say: "to the world".

Yes, good point, I agree.

> The second sentence says: "The GNU Project provides a software system..."
> The word "system" is both too vague and too all-encompassing; it sounds as
> if it wants to be a single, massive block of software.  I would say that
> the GNU project "provides software packages...".  The second section then
> nicely elaborates a bit on this.

Sounds good to me.

> I'm glad to see that the numbering in the first section goes from 1 to 4.
> Please don't use the numbering from 0 to 3, as in the email, because then
> the average person reading this would think that we are nerds and inepts.

OK, makes sense to me.

> The first section ends with: "the GNU Project pays attention and responds
> to new threats to users' freedom as they arise."  I applaud an organization
> that takes it upon itself to respond to such threats, but I as an individual
> maintainer cannot and will not make any such promise.

Right, I think this is a collective pledge: this is what we members want
the project to promise.  Do you think the individual/collective
distinction needs to be clarified?

> The third section begins: "Free software extends beyond the GNU Project..."
> Huh?  Vague.  Does this want to say that there is also free software that
> is not part of the GNU project?  If yes, then say so.

Yes, that was the goal.

> It continues: "which works with companion free software projects that
> develop key components of the GNU System".  Oof...  Who are those
> "companion free software projects"?  How can such projects "that
> develop key components of the GNU System" not be part of the GNU
> project itself?  In short: what does this want to say?  Where is the
> promise here?

The goal is to acknowledge that GNU is not the only free software
provider, and that the GNU Project (socially) and the GNU System
(technically) has to work with these other free software projects.

The promise is that of working hand in hand with free software projects
that are natural allies and/or develop tools that GNU relies on.  It’s
about being a “good citizen.”

There’s been several occasions in the past where GNU drove away some of
its allies, or was perceived as failing to acknowledge the technical
importance of other free software components.  As I see it, this promise
is a way to rectify that.

WDYT?  Can you think of a way to reword it to clarify this?

> And then: "The GNU Project aims to extend the reach of free software to
> new fields."  Huh?  What new "fields"?  Again: what is the promise here?
> Is it that we intend to assimilate everything?

The idea I think is that GNU is not tied to a specific set of
application domains and includes packages of any field—compilers,
astronomy tools, math software, etc.

There probably lacks a transition from the previous sentence though.

Any wording you would suggest?

> The fourth section says: "The GNU Project wants to give everyone the
> opportunity of contributing to its efforts..."  To me this sounds as if
> the GNU project will not put any hurdles and conditions in people's way
> before they can contribute.  But in practice the GNU project requires
> that significant contributors sign a copyright assignment, and that
> translators sign a copyright disclaimer.  I think that these two things
> make the GNU project quite unwelcoming to possible contributors.  So,
> in my opinion, that sentence is rather untruthful.

Note that copyright assignment has always been optional; a number of GNU
packages do not have copyright assignment at all, but for those that do,
contributors are indeed required to sign an assignment form.

To me this is more of a policy issue and beyond the scope of this
document.

Thanks for your feedback!  I guess we’ll incorporate some of your
suggestions in the coming days. 

Re: [r...@gnu.org: What's GNU -- and what's not]

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) skribis:

> From: "Richard Stallman (Chief GNUisance)" 
> Subject: What's GNU -- and what's not
> To: r...@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:26:51 -0500 (2 days, 11 hours, 43 minutes ago)
>
> The GNU Project is sending this message to each GNU package 
> maintainer.

Thank you Alfred for forwarding this message.  I suppose it was sent to
a subset of the maintainers since I didn’t receive it.

> You may have recently received an email asking you to review a
> document titled "GNU Social Contract" and then to endorse it or reject
> it.  It does not entirely accord with the GNU Project's views.  It was
> created by some GNU participants who are trying to push changes
> on the GNU Project.
>
> The message also proposed to "define" what it means to be a "member of
> GNU", and cited a web page presented as a "wiki for GNU maintainers",
> It may have given the impression that they were doing all those things
> on behalf of the GNU Project.  That is not the case.  The document, 
> the
> wiki, and the proposed idea of "members" have no standing in the GNU
> Project, which is not considering such steps.  The use of a domain not
> affiliated with GNU reflects this fact.
>
> 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.

I feel sad to see you try to shut down discussion, Richard.

Formally endorsing a core set of values can only make GNU stronger in my
view.  It’s also a necessary step to allow some of the project’s
decision-making to be delegated to maintainers—you were the one who
pointed out that maintainers do not currently agree to uphold the
project’s values, and thus cannot be trusted, and this is precisely what
the Social Contract is fixing.

I don’t see how telling people to ignore those “GNU participants who are
trying to push changes on the GNU Project” is a contribution to the
well-being of the project.

[...]

> The wiki that they set up "for GNU maintainers" represents them, not
> the GNU Project.  People are always free to publish what they think
> the GNU Project should do, but should not presume it will be accepted
> or followed by the GNU Project.

You’re bringing up a key question: what’s GNU, and what’s not?

When you mention “the GNU Project’s views” above, whose views are these?

When you write that the “wiki […] represents them”, where “them” refers
to the loosely-defined “some GNU participants”, are you implying that
“they” are not really part of GNU?  Are you forgetting that the wiki is
open to all GNU maintainers?

More importantly, what message are you sending to fellow GNU hackers who
build GNU every day, who _are_ GNU?  That they’ll never be part of the
process to decide what’s “accepted or followed by the GNU Project”?

I fail to see a vision for the future of GNU.  What you describe is far
away from the ambition of building a cohesive GNU Project, with shared
responsibilities.  Many in GNU would like to see it happen and I will
keep working for it with all the GNU hackers who want to help shape GNU.

Thank you,
Ludo’.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Cause for bans

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi John,

John Darrington  skribis:

> After all, the reason that these proposed "social contracts", "codes of 
> conduct"
> and their ilk have caused so many people to become very angry, is because of 
> the way that they call for persons to be expelled if they disagree with 
> whoever
> is in control.

Just a note: we called for the discussion of a GNU Social Contract, not
for that of a code of conduct.  It seems entirely responsible from
people running the wiki to ensure that the wiki is not used to harass
others, and the code of conduct is a way to state these rules upfront;
but again, that really applies to work on the wiki space.

The draft of the Social Contract at
 does not mention how people
should be “expelled” if they “disagree”.  On the contrary: it’s about
building a shared understanding of what some (hopefully most!) of us
commit to as members of the Project.

We tried to make it clear in the email sent out to maintainers:

  https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-wiki/tree/code/sc-email.txt

> I think that banning such people would make us guilty of the same crimes that
> they have committed.

Please do not misrepresent this initiative.  It’s about making GNU
stronger; you may disagree with the approach, but that doesn’t make it a
“crime” in any sense of the word.

I would like us to move forward: what do you think GNU will lose or gain
as a project if its members endorse a document stating its core values?
What would you add or remove to the values currently listed in the
draft?  What other initiatives would you propose to improve cohesion?

The February 9th deadline that we set for an initial version of the
Social Contract is approaching, and I think it’s a good time to focus on
the core discussion of what GNU is to us and what our commitments are.

Thank you,
Ludo’.

Re: Feedback on the GNU Social contract and new wiki.gnu.tools.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Alfred,

a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) skribis:

> You are misusing the trust given by the GNU project by harvesting
> member information and using it for non-GNU purposes.  Nobody gave you
> the right to use that information, in any shape or form.

We didn’t harvest anything.  I think it’s reasonable for GNU maintainers
get in touch one another, and that’s unfortunately the only to do that
reliably AFAIK.

> The social contract you suggest has also been rejected, simply because
> we do not nor will we require members to accept such a document when
> they become GNU maintainers or volunteers.

The email we sent invites all GNU maintainers to weigh in to get to a
version of the social contract that we could all identify with.

It’s about building a shared understanding of what it is we’re aiming
for as a project.  To me, that can only be beneficial to the project and
its cohesion.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: Feedback on the GNU Social contract and new wiki.gnu.tools.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Andreas,

"Andreas R."  skribis:

>> we have created a new wiki for use by GNU Maintainers.
>>
>>https://wiki.gnu.tools
>
> Since it's obviously not an official GNU wiki would it be possible to change 
> references of "the wiki for GNU Maintainers" to "a wiki for GNU maintainers"
> and add a notice to that effect?
>
> Also, using the GNU logo is needlessly confusing. Those maintainers visiting 
> already know what the wiki is for, and the general public might
> mistake it for being endorsed by the GNU project.

I understand your concern, but consider this: we are a group of GNU
maintainers setting up a service for use by GNU maintainers to work on
GNU.  In that sense, I think it’s fair to say we’re not misusing the name.

I think this should eventually become wiki.gnu.org or meta.gnu.org
because that’s where it belongs.  It hasn’t been possible yet (we asked
GNU sysadmins and the FSF), but I’m sure we’ll get there.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Moderation

[Ludovic Courtès]

Dear moderators,

A large part of the traffic over the last few weeks was repeated
ad-hominem attacks, always by the same people.

This is a violation of the list’s stated policy at
.  It gives a
poor image of the project and undoubtedly silences many.

I call on to you to make it stop.  I reckon moderation is a tough and
thankless task, and I am grateful for your work, but I think it’s in the
project’s interest to put an end to abuse of that sort.

Thanks in advance,
Ludo’.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: posts by non-members

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Brandon,

Brandon Invergo  skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> I’ve subscribed now, but I do find it a bit inconvenient; it’s also one
>> of the few public GNU mailing lists I know of (perhaps the only one)
>> where posting is now restricted to members.
>
> Ok upon further thought I'm convinced that the list-members-only rule
> wasn't a good one due to the other ways people are accessing the list
> that I hadn't considered.  So, nevermind, back to the way things were.
> Sorry for any inconvenience it may have caused.

Neat, thank you!

Ludo’.

Re: posts by non-members

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi again,

Brandon Invergo  skribis:

> On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 13:53 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> 
>> In general it is somewhat inconvenient if you can only post to the
>> list from the address with which you are subscribed. 
>
> In practice, with only one or two exceptions from what I have seen so far, 
> this
> would only affect people whose messages tend to be rejected for content 
> anyway.
>
> If anyone is particularly inconvenienced by this change and they genuinely
> intend to contribute to the discussion, they are welcome to get in touch.  I 
> can
> either make a (mental) exception or we can find an alternative solution for
> them.  For example, you can change your account settings in Mailman not to 
> send
> messages to your "sending only" account.

As you’ve probably seen in your moderator queue :-), I’m a former
non-member: I used to read via Gmane.org, and thus posting as a
non-member.  Some of my previous messages are lost in limbo, it seems.

I’ve subscribed now, but I do find it a bit inconvenient; it’s also one
of the few public GNU mailing lists I know of (perhaps the only one)
where posting is now restricted to members.

No big deal, but I thought I’d mention my use case.

Ludo’.

Re: A summary of some open discussions

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Brandon,

Brandon Invergo  skribis:

> Mark Wielaard writes:
>
>>> There is no such thing as a FSF steward, GNU maintainers are appointed
>>> by RMS/GAC.  The FSF has no say in the topic.  You've keept
>>> misrepresenting this over and over again.
>>
>> This is just a legal technicallity. The FSF has oversight
>> responsibility over the GNU project. That means that the FSF needs to
>> determine that GNU maintainers operate in a manner consistent with
>> FSF's exempt purposes, have the needed expertise and that their
>> activities can be monitored by the FSF board. So GNU Maintainers and
>> Steering committees are technically appointed by the FSF (previously
>> RMS when he was FSF president and board member) as stewards of GNU
>> packages. Basically GNU maintainers serve at the pleasure of the FSF.
>
> This is absolutely false.
>
> As a member of the package evaluation team and as an Assistant
> GNUissance (maintain...@gnu.org), I have personally been involved in
> many appointments of new maintainers at every step of the process, from
> first contact with GNU through to post-appointment bureaucracy and
> occasional check-ins.  I also have the authority to appoint new
> maintainers of existing packages myself (only Richard can appoint
> maintainers of new packages).  In fact, I personally appointed some new
> co-maintainers of Guix back in September, two weeks *after* Richard
> resigned as president of the FSF, which Ludovic can confirm.

Yes, I confirm this.

> I can categorically say that the FSF is not involved whatsoever in the
> appointment of new maintainers.

That’s also my understanding.

> Please do not spread misinformation about the GNU project.

Please assume good faith.  The lesson here is that if long-time
contributors or maintainers do not know for sure how this all works,
perhaps we should see whether/how we can better document it.

As a side note: I think authority is not something one should take for
granted.  We’re a group of volunteers, and each one of us has just as
much authority as the others consent to give them.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

"Andreas R."  skribis:

> This writing, "GNU - Principles and Guidelines", is based on Andreas Elke's 
> preliminary version 
> (draft posted on 1 Nov 2019) of a general and concise document that states 
> some guidelines ("GNU Social Contract") 
> which came with a request for feedback. 

(I think you’re referring to Andreas Enge.  The latest version can be
found at
,
for lack of a place to host it…)

> * The GNU Project and the free software community
>
> The GNU project stakeholders are all users of the GNU system as represented 
> by the FSF. As such, an 
> FSF-sponsored maintainer for the GNU system as a whole (the Chief GNUisance) 
> will ensure the GNU Project 
> adheres to FSF guidelines pertaining to the GNU project in particular and 
> software freedom in general.

Two comments:

  • Users of GNU matter, but they are not, to me, “stakeholders” in the
same sense as people who dedicate much of their time building GNU
(webmasters, sysadmins, developers, maintainers, etc.).

We envisioned the social contract as a connection among all these
stakeholders and as a pledge to people outside the project,
including users.

  • The idea of having a single person responsible for the whole project
goes squarely against what we (people working on this social
contract) have been defending over the last months: collective
decision making in GNU.

The FSF certainly has a role to play, but that role should be to
facilitate discussions about the project’s governance as we recently
wrote to fsf-and-...@fsf.org.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

"Andreas R."  skribis:

> This writing, "GNU - Principles and Guidelines", is based on Andreas Elke's 
> preliminary version 
> (draft posted on 1 Nov 2019) of a general and concise document that states 
> some guidelines ("GNU Social Contract") 
> which came with a request for feedback. 

(I think you’re referring to Andreas Enge.  The latest version can be
found at
,
for lack of a place to host it…)

> * The GNU Project and the free software community
>
> The GNU project stakeholders are all users of the GNU system as represented 
> by the FSF. As such, an 
> FSF-sponsored maintainer for the GNU system as a whole (the Chief GNUisance) 
> will ensure the GNU Project 
> adheres to FSF guidelines pertaining to the GNU project in particular and 
> software freedom in general.

Two comments:

  • Users of GNU matter, but they are not, to me, “stakeholders” in the
same sense as people who dedicate much of their time building GNU
(webmasters, sysadmins, developers, maintainers, etc.).

We envisioned the social contract as a connection among all these
stakeholders and as a pledge to people outside the project,
including users.

  • The idea of having a single person responsible for the whole project
goes squarely against what we (people working on this social
contract) have been defending over the last months: collective
decision making in GNU.

The FSF certainly has a role to play, but that role should be to
facilitate discussions about the project’s governance as we recently
wrote to fsf-and-...@fsf.org.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

Mark Wielaard  skribis:

> Yes, I believe we are nitpicking at this point. And we do seem to
> agree. But if we are nitpicking anyway, then I would keep it short and
> to the point. Shorter is better:
>
>   The GNU Project adopts policies that encourage and enable developers
>   to actively defend user freedom.  These policies include using
>   /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users’ freedoms cannot
>   be stripped off, when appropriate.

Sure, LGTM!

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Mark,

Mark Wielaard  skribis:

> (It looks like your message never made it to the list, so quoting a bit
> more extensively to make sure everything you wrote is also in this
> message.)

Oh, weird.

> On Fri, 2019-12-20 at 12:28 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Mark Wielaard  skribis:
>> > I agree. But it feels like we can describe this more concise
>> > without
>> > having the explain the exact policy we are following. For example
>> > could we just state here: "The GNU Project prefers to distribute
>> > software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users'
>> > freedoms cannot be strip off."?
>> 
>> I think such a document has to be self-contained, and that’s why I think
>> it’s good to concisely define copyleft and its intent here.
>> 
>> Outsiders reading the document may not know what “copyleft” means; yet
>> we want them to have a good grasp of what we’re trying to achieve.
>> 
>> WDYT?
>
> Agreed. But I think I didn't explain very well what my concrete
> suggestion was. So this is what I am actually suggesting:
>
> Replace this text:
>
>Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the
>advancement of free software, all software written by the GNU
>Project is distributed under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure
>that developers cannot strip off users' freedom from GNU software.
>
>With this:
>
>The GNU Project prefers policies that encourage and enable
>developers to actively defend users' Freedom. Which includes
>distributing GNU software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to
>ensure that users' freedoms cannot be strip off.

OK.  (with s/Which/This/)

>This leaves off when/how we precisely define these policies (when not
>to use copyleft, or LGPL or some exception, and when to require
>copyright assignment/bundling or not). But does make clear that the
>first priority is defending user freedom.

I see, especially in light of your other comments about copyright
holders.

It seems to me that the wording you propose somewhat softens the
preference for copyleft, though.  How about:

  The GNU Project adopts policies that encourage and enable developers
  to actively defend user freedom.  These policies include distributing
  GNU software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users’
  freedoms cannot be stripped off, unless the GNU Project deems that a
  different choice furthers the advancement of user freedom.

Anyway, I guess we’re really nitpicking at this point, overall we’re
saying the same thing!

>> I’m aware of this, but it is a policy for copyright assignment to the
>> FSF; it’s not a policy to avoid copyright “held by corporations”.  The
>> motivation stated in why-assign.html is that assignment allows the FSF
>> “to enforce the GPL most effectively” and doesn’t mention corporations.
>
> Right, but the point is to be able to enforce defending user freedoms
> effectively. And leaving copyrights with corporations instead of the
> actual developers or the FSF makes it so we cannot effectively do that.

Yes.

>> Regarding the pros and cons of copyright assignment, we could discuss at
>> length.  :-)  However, regardless of what we think of copyright
>> assignment, I believe the social contract should be positioned at a
>> higher level.  IOW, I view copyright assignment as a policy issue, and
>> not as a defining principle.  (Note that currently copyright assignment
>> is not mandated for new packages, and in practice only a fraction of GNU
>> packages require it.)
>
> I believe using a copyleft license (and which one), and having a
> strategy to effectively use it to defend user freedom are both policy
> issues. The defining principle is that we favor policies (using
> copyleft licensing) and strategies (keep copyright with the active
> developer/FSF that will enforce copyleft) that maximize user freedom.

Right, that clarifies to me the purpose of the rewording above.

Thank you!

Ludo’.

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Mark!

Mark Wielaard  skribis:

> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 03:33:20PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

[...]

>> I think copyleft is a “salient feature” of GNU, compared to many other
>> free software projects, and indeed, GNU has its own licenses for that
>> purpose.  So to me, copyleft has its place in the social contract,
>> rather than in a separate policy.  We still need to leave room for the
>> rare exceptions (Speex, ncurses), but there should be a clear stance in
>> favor of copyleft licenses IMO.
>> 
>> WDYT?
>
> I agree. But it feels like we can describe this more concise without
> having the explain the exact policy we are following. For example
> could we just state here: "The GNU Project prefers to distribute
> software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users'
> freedoms cannot be strip off."?

I think such a document has to be self-contained, and that’s why I think
it’s good to concisely define copyleft and its intent here.

Outsiders reading the document may not know what “copyleft” means; yet
we want them to have a good grasp of what we’re trying to achieve.

WDYT?

>> > What are other policies that would/should follow from the social
>> > issues? Or should maybe be in the contract itself?
>> >
>> > For example one core policy seems to be that we prefer the copyright to
>> > be held individuals or the FSF (instead of being held by corporations)
>> > so that the user freedoms are actually upheld when copyleft is used.
>> 
>> I don’t think there’s such a policy right now, is there?
>
> There certainly is for various (older?) GNU projects. At least all
> that I contribute to have such a policy. It is explained here:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
> And the FSF itself has a larger explanation here:
> https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2014/spring/copyright-assignment-at-the-fsf

I’m aware of this, but it is a policy for copyright assignment to the
FSF; it’s not a policy to avoid copyright “held by corporations”.  The
motivation stated in why-assign.html is that assignment allows the FSF
“to enforce the GPL most effectively” and doesn’t mention corporations.

> The reason I want to call this out is because when you don't have a
> policy to keep copyright with the actual developers or assigned to a
> foundation that comes up for user freedom you might accidentially
> loose a way to defend user freedom for GNU software.
>
> If you pretend that who holds the copyrights is no big deal then, for
> "popular" projects, you might slowly but surely see that the
> copyrights will be held by corporations employing the developers. This
> is a problem because corporations in general don't have any incentive
> to defend user freedom. They don't want to upset their partners and
> customers when they don't pass through the freedoms required by the
> license. And they will just ignore the issue. It isn't that companies
> are evil, it is just that they don't care (it isn't in their business
> interest to care). But that also means they are often more than happy
> to move the responsibility (assign the copyright) so that the issue is
> out of their hands (companies do like a level playing field).

I don’t believe “corporate takeover” is a realistic threat, at least not
in the majority of cases.  In my view, there are two situations:

  1. Projects with many stakeholders, including companies.  In those
 situations, a company may hold parts of the copyright, but it’d
 have to rewrite the whole project to really “take it over”.  That’s
 practically impossible and useless.

  2. Projects developed in-house by a company and “open sourced” (sic).
 Those projects may be free software but are, for all practical
 purposes, under the control of a single company from the start.

That’s why I don’t think corporate takeover, among all the threats to
user freedom, deserves a special mention in the social contract.

Regarding the pros and cons of copyright assignment, we could discuss at
length.  :-)  However, regardless of what we think of copyright
assignment, I believe the social contract should be positioned at a
higher level.  IOW, I view copyright assignment as a policy issue, and
not as a defining principle.  (Note that currently copyright assignment
is not mandated for new packages, and in practice only a fraction of GNU
packages require it.)

>> > Is that something that should be in the social contract? Does it
>> > follow from what is in it now? Or should we add something to make the
>> > (abstract) idea clear? (e.g. The GNU Project prefers policies that
>> > encourage and enable developers to actively defend the users'
>> > Freedom.)
>> 
>> I think it’s implicit that project policies cannot cont

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Mark,

Mark Wielaard  skribis:

> I think this is a really good starting point for getting feedback from
> other GNU maintainers, developers, stakeholders to see whether they
> would agree with this GNU mission statement. And discuss with the
> broader community whether it actually says what we want it to (what in
> it makes it real GNU and not some generic "open source" thing)?

Good point; though it wouldn’t be bad either if the social contract was
similar to that of a free software project with similar goals.

> For example I think this is one of those things:
>
>> Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the advancement
>> of free software, all software written by the GNU Project is distributed
>> under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that developers cannot strip 
>> off
>> users' freedom from GNU software.
>
> But it also looks like a "policy" issue, that shouldn't really be in
> the social contract itself. This feels more like something that should
> follow from the mission statement/social contract in the context of
> working on actual software.

I think copyleft is a “salient feature” of GNU, compared to many other
free software projects, and indeed, GNU has its own licenses for that
purpose.  So to me, copyleft has its place in the social contract,
rather than in a separate policy.  We still need to leave room for the
rare exceptions (Speex, ncurses), but there should be a clear stance in
favor of copyleft licenses IMO.

WDYT?

> What are other policies that would/should follow from the social
> issues? Or should maybe be in the contract itself?
>
> For example one core policy seems to be that we prefer the copyright to
> be held individuals or the FSF (instead of being held by corporations)
> so that the user freedoms are actually upheld when copyleft is used.

I don’t think there’s such a policy right now, is there?

> Is that something that should be in the social contract? Does it
> follow from what is in it now? Or should we add something to make the
> (abstract) idea clear? (e.g. The GNU Project prefers policies that
> encourage and enable developers to actively defend the users'
> Freedom.)

I think it’s implicit that project policies cannot contradict the
higher-level goals set forth by the social contract.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: Setting up a wiki for GNU Project volunteers?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Brandon,

Brandon Invergo  skribis:

>> Where could we host a wiki like this without causing confusion with
>> official project content?
>
> Unless that decision changes, any wiki discussed here is necessarily
> unofficial and any proposed content is in no way implicitly endorsed or
> supported by the GNU Project.

If we’re going meta, then we should start discussing what “official”
means.  And IMO, that’s the whole point: it’s time to define it.

> Personally, I've found that in most cases wikis are an inefficient means
> of active collaboration and discussion, that they accumulate outdated
> cruft too quickly for casual documentation to be anything more than
> ephemerally useful, and that they're too mutable for maintaining
> important documents.  Any best practices, advice, etc. would be better
> placed in the coding standards or maintainers documents.  Active
> collaboration of small teams does not need a project-wide wiki and can
> be more efficiently achieved by ad hoc methods.  Core documentation of
> the project should only be on the main website, and by definition it
> should not be easy to change.

I should say I very much agree with this statement, but I think Carlos
is using the term “wiki” in a broad sense: documents under version
control that can easily be published as web pages.

Like Andy writes, I assume only GNU stakeholders would have write access
to those documents, which makes it very different from the kind of wiki
you’re referring to.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

I don’t think I replied before, but this last version LGTM!
I have nothing against adding “5. Reserved for future use”.  :-)

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Andreas Enge  skribis:

> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 09:46:56PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Thanks, Andreas, for this new version!  Some comments below.
>
> They are integrated into the attached new version. For good measure,
> I have capitalised "GNU System" as you did and thrown in a few italics
> as suggested.
>
> Andreas
>
> GNU Social Contract
>
> This document states the core commitments of the GNU Project to the
> broader free software community.
>
> The purpose of the GNU Project is to provide software and systems that
> respect users' freedoms.
>
> * The GNU Project respects users' freedoms
>
> The GNU Project provides software that guarantees to users the
> /Four Essential Freedoms/, without compromise:
>   0. The freedom to run the program as they wish, for any purpose.
>   1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
>  their computing as they wish.
>   2. The freedom to redistribute copies so they can help others.
>   3. The freedom to distribute copies of their modified versions to others.
>  By doing this they can give the whole community a chance to benefit
>  from their changes.
> Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
>
> Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the advancement
> of free software, all software written by the GNU Project is distributed
> under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that developers cannot strip off
> users' freedom from GNU software.
>
> Besides upholding the Four Essential Freedoms, the GNU Project pays attention
> and responds to new threats to users' freedom as they arise.
>
>
> * The GNU Project provides a consistent system
>
> The GNU Project develops an operating system, the /GNU System/, as well as
> a set of applications.  Each software component developed by the GNU Project
> is referred to as a /GNU package/.  GNU package developers work together to
> ensure consistency across packages.  GNU packages should follow the design
> and development guidelines of the GNU Project.
>
>
> * The GNU Project collaborates with the broader free software community
>
> Free software has extended beyond the GNU Project, which works with
> companion free software projects that develop key components of the
> GNU System.  The GNU Project aims to extend the reach of free software
> to new fields.
>
>
> * The GNU Project welcomes contributions from all and everyone
>
> The GNU Project wants to give everyone the opportunity of contributing to
> its efforts on any of the many tasks that require work.  It welcomes all
> contributors, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation,
> level of experience, or any other personal characteristics.  It commits to
> providing a harassment-free experience for all contributors.

Re: Setting up a wiki for GNU Project volunteers?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

"Carlos O'Donell"  skribis:

> In researching this kind of wiki setup I have discussed the issue with
> various GNU Maintainers and the consensus seems to be that such a
> system should have the following qualities:
> - Based on a VCS e.g. git
> - Uses a supported wiki platform e.g. dokuwiki
> - With a sensible markup e.g. markdown plugin for dokuwiki
>
> What do people think about setting up a wiki?
>
> Several packages already have wikis like:
> The GNOME Project (https://wiki.gnome.org/)
> The GNU C Library wiki (https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/)
> The GNU Debugger wiki (https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/)
> The GNU Compiler Collection wiki (https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki)
>
> However, we have no good central community wiki to put document those
> things listed above.
>
> Does anyone have a strong opinion on which wiki software should be used?
>
> Selection criteria for a wiki? I'm suggesting dokuwiki + git.

No strong opinion on the software as long as it meets the criteria above
+ i18n (though for some of the use cases you give, i18n might be less
important.)

 uses ikiwiki, which I think is
backed by Git and “not bad.”  :-)  The “wiki” could also just be Org or
Markdown files automatically rendered upon push (e.g., by Emacs or
Haunt).

Anyhow, I agree that it would be nice to have a place to share documents
about discussions, practices, things like the social contract, etc.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

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

> By the way, "contract" seems like a misnomer, because a contract is
> a signed-off agreement between two parties (or more) in which they
> exchange something of value; the contract requires a contribution
> from at least two parties.

I found Andreas’ explanation of what is meant by “social contract” and
how it differs from a civil law contract to be clear.  Anyhow, note that
the term is not new and its meaning in English should be unambiguous:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

>From WordNet:

  Overview of noun social_contract

  The noun social contract has 1 sense (first 1 from tagged texts)

  1. (2) social contract -- (an implicit agreement among people that
  results in the organization of society; individual surrenders liberty
  in return for protection)

> A statement of promises to behave in some ways toward some
> group (such as a "community"), who makes no reciprocal promises and
> isn't a party to the document is rather a "pledge", or
> "solemn promise" or such.

“Pledge” is also a good word, though my understanding is that it does
not capture the social commitment that “social contract” entails.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: GNU Kind Communication Guidelines versus social contract or Codes of Conduct

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Florian,

Florian Weimer  skribis:

> You are very, very wrong.  We are trying very hard to stay within GNU,
> but the feedback we have received so far on GNU mail lists suggests
> that we are not wanted here.

There is a part of GNU that includes myself that really wants you (you
personally, as well as the projects you contribute to) to stay within GNU.

The dynamics I’ve observed over the last decade is that people who’d
like GNU to be more welcoming, more transparent, and/or community-run,
would eventually give up and silently leave.  I’ve seen brilliant people
leave, and for me, enough is enough.

We are legitimate members of the project, and we have legitimate
demands.  Let’s work together on shaping this new GNU!

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Brandon,

Brandon Invergo  skribis:

> Given that nothing has changed in how GNU is being run, it appears that
> the cart is being placed well before the horse.  However, I would be
> shocked if they didn't already expect rms not to step down and therefore
> to reject their Social Contract out-of-hand.  Given that it is
> nevertheless still being written (in public) under conditions where it
> will be rejected with almost certainty, I wouldn't be surprised if they
> are in fact counting on this to happen.  That would give another
> opportunity to publicly shame rms and the GNU project as it actually is:
> "Look at this beautiful document that rms refused to implement for GNU!
> The fact that he *disagrees* with these points shows that he is not fit
> to lead GNU anymore!".  Nevermind that the rejection is due to its utter
> superfluousness given the structure of the GNU project and is not due to
> disagreement with the contents.

I think the whole “us vs. them” discourse, plus telling that “they” have
ulterior motives, is uncalled for.  Once again, your scenario that “they”
are trying to publicly shame the GNU Project is not only insulting: it’s
implausible because “they” *are* part of GNU, and for a long time.

Some GNU hackers have been wanting GNU to be community-run.  What we’re
doing here is trying to build consensus on how we define GNU and our
commitment to it.  It shouldn’t be too difficult because, as has been
noted, this draft just summarizes points very well explained elsewhere.

The next step, as I see it, is to get feedback from maintainers, to
begin with, to see whether they would be willing to commit to such a
pledge.  Hopefully we will agree that this cannot harm the project.
Personally I think it can only make it stronger.

> With that said, I am fully in support of having a couple of succinct
> documents that describe the structure and mission of the GNU project.
> Richard has also expressed interest in that.  I just don't see any need
> of enacting them as the basis of a formal pledge.

OK.  Let’s focus on what we share, and let’s work together on completing
this document.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi all,

Thanks, Andreas, for this new version!  Some comments below.

a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) skribis:

> What is the exact _goal_ of this text?

We discussed it several times before, notably in these messages:

  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-10/msg00011.html
  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-10/msg00081.html

>Apart from rare historical exceptions, all software written by the GNU 
> Project
>is distributed under copyleft licenses, designed to ensure that developers
>cannot strip off users' freedom from GNU software.
>
> This would exclude those cases where we might want to distribute
> something under a non-copyleft license for strategical reasons.

I agree with Alfred.  For that reason, I think the other phrasing you
proposed, Andreas, would be more appropriate:

  Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the
  advancement of free software, all software...

>* The GNU Project provides a consistent system
>
>The GNU Project develops, in the form of GNU packages, an operating system
>and a set of applications, the GNU system.  GNU package developers work
>together to ensure consistency across packages.  GNU packages should follow
>the design and development guidelines of the GNU Project.
>
> The GNU system isn't just GNU packages, […]

I agree that there’s maybe some ambiguity in the first sentence.
Perhaps something like this:

  The GNU Project develops an operating system, the “GNU System”, as
  well as a set of applications.  Each software component developed by
  the GNU Project is referred to as a “GNU package”.

?

Nitpick: for clarity, I would use quotes (or italics) for every new term
being defined (as in the example above.)

Apart from that, it looks good to me!  What do people think?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: list moderation

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Brandon,

Brandon Invergo  skribis:

> Andy Wingo writes:
>
>>> Who is “we” in “we have decided” above?
>>
>> I don't think this question has been answered.  Brandon, could you
>> clarify please?
>
>>> Can you explain how “moderation was being used in a biased manner”,
>>> giving specific examples?
>>
>> I am also interested in answers to this question.
>
> I do not intend to discuss internal GNU matters on a public mailing
> list.

Wait, the topic is precisely moderation of this public mailing list; I
think you can’t simply avoid the question, you’re accountable.

> I'm sorry you have interpreted it that way.  I have been working
> tirelessly to keep peace since you created this mess a few weeks ago.
> Please keep in mind that "something was broken" for me the moment all of
> you took up arms against GNU.

I feel bad that you’re characterizing us this way.  You’re talking about
people who’ve dedicated many years or their lives to GNU (more than you
did!) and still pour huge amounts of energy into it.

That you disagree with what we do is fine; that you accuse us of
attacking GNU is not.  It’s not even plausible to anyone who’s been
following along.  We all *are* GNU.

As for the disagreement itself: it’s also a surprise to me.  We met on a
couple of GHMs.  In particular, in 2011 in Paris, we had discussions
about governance not unlike those we’re having now; at the time I recall
you were part of the discussions and not seeing anyone “taking arms.”

It’s OK if you view things differently now, but I would prefer if you
would use more nuanced wording when describing the actions of others.
We have different views, but we’re working for the betterment of GNU.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: list moderation

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Brandon,

Brandon Invergo  skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> A bit more than 24 hours later, two things have become clear to me: that
>> Mark and Carlos were indeed doing a good moderation job, and that by not
>> doing any moderation, you’ve opened the flood gates and silenced the
>> rest of us.
>>
>> In that time we got ~100 messages, the majority of which were written by
>> the same 3 people.  Worse, many of those messages were personal attacks,
>> and many others were off-topic for this list.
>
> Don't misrepresent the situation.
>
> Ruben was placed under indefinite moderation for his attacks.  The
> attacks took place overnight while I was asleep (he's obviously in a
> different time zone).  So, since I started actively moderating, which
> requires being awake, things have been pretty peaceful.

I’m surprised it’s news to you that Ruben (among others) is attacking
people personally; that’s something you could have learned from the
previous moderators.

> Another user is under moderation for incessant off-topic, hateful posts
> as well as a lot of cross-posting (which we depend on the other
> subscribers to help fight; some of his moderated messages were quoted
> anyway due to cross-posting and/or CC'ing others).

Good.

> That's it.  If someone attacks, harasses or is otherwise abusive towards
> anyone, be it another subscriber or rms (let's not have elephants in
> this room), they will be placed under moderation until the situation
> cools down.  This is not a place to discuss other people.  This is a
> place to discuss GNU.  The previous moderation efforts failed in that
> regard, and did so in a particularly biased manner.

How did it fail?  What do you suggest regarding elephants in this room?
Who are you accusing of what, to be clear?

I’m baffled that you can be so assertive and dismissive of the
moderation work that was done before (which I can only guess was no
fun!).  I would have loved to read your answers to my other questions to
better understand your viewpoint.

> Your messages require moderator action simply because you're not
> actually subscribed to the list.  I have not silenced you but if you
> want your messages to go through quicker, I invite you to subscribe.
> You are welcome to continue to discuss whatever "governance" issues you
> would like here, but we are under no obligation to cultivate that as the
> new raison d'etre of gnu-misc-discuss nor to acknowledge it as carrying
> any priority over any other discussion that takes place here.

Sure, we’ll talk about governance (no quotes) as much as possible,
meaning as much as the signal-to-noise ratio doesn’t prevent that.
Governance is very much on-topic for this list.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: list moderation

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi again Brandon,

Ludovic Courtès  skribis:

> I think Mark and Carlos have done a great job.  I am happy that this
> list was host to constructive discussions and not as toxic as the
> private GNU lists.  I am concerned that about the ability to continue
> discussing constructively going forward.

A bit more than 24 hours later, two things have become clear to me: that
Mark and Carlos were indeed doing a good moderation job, and that by not
doing any moderation, you’ve opened the flood gates and silenced the
rest of us.

In that time we got ~100 messages, the majority of which were written by
the same 3 people.  Worse, many of those messages were personal attacks,
and many others were off-topic for this list.

Brandon, I see what you’ve achieved, but could you please explain what
your goal is?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Enge  skribis:

> These are good points. I wrote "that respect users' freedom" everywhere,
> and spoke a bit more vaguely of "systems", as well as dropped all references
> to computers. Given that the document is aimed to be valid longterm, there
> should indeed be some opening for future projects. For instance, providing
> a free system for smartphones might be the next big project; this seems to
> be the area where currently we experience the biggest restrictions of our
> daily life when we want to limit ourselves to free software. And while this
> is, strictly speaking, covered by "operating systems for computers", I
> wanted to avoid to sound too specific like "GNU/Linux for 'traditional'
> computers". Also, there is the topic of free hardware. Why this does not
> seem to be something that we can tackle currently, it might be an option
> and entirely reasonable in a few years from now. And I would argue it can be
> within our mission statement (also given that the boundary between soft- and
> hardware becomes quite blurry).
>
> Then, as discussed, I merged the points 1, 2 and 4.
>
> Unlike discussed so far, I rewrote parts in my personal style:
> - I replaced most occurrences of "the GNU Project" by "we", to emphasise
>   that this is indeed a commitment by us towards our users.

I think we should avoid “we” because it’s ambiguous.  Instead, I very
much prefer either “the GNU Project” or maybe “members of the Project”
where appropriate, but “members” is undefined.

> - As I like snappy text, I shortened things quite a bit and occasionally
>   left out the rationale for a paragraph.

Perfect.  :-)

> Proposal of a “GNU Social Contract”
>
> This document states the core commitments of the GNU Project to the
> broader free software community.  All current GNU Project members
> have agreed to uphold these values.

Note that “members” is undefined, but maybe that’s OK.

We could define “member” as someone who signed the social contract, but
that’s probably not enough: a group of people could make a hostile
takeover by signing it en masse.  So there needs to be some form of
cooptation to avoid that, as is commonly done in organizations.

I guess that leads to a new sub-task: defining the procedure to become a
“member” of the project.

> The purpose of the GNU Project is to provide software and systems that
> respect users' freedoms.
>
> * GNU respects users' freedoms
>
> We provide software that guarantees to users the four essential freedoms,
> without compromise:
>   0. The freedom to run the program as they wish, for any purpose.
>   1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
>  their computing as they wish.
>  Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
>   2. The freedom to redistribute copies so they can help others.
>   3. The freedom to distribute copies of their modified versions to others.
>  By doing this they can give the whole community a chance to benefit
>  from their changes.
>  Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
>
> All software written by us is distributed under copyleft licenses, designed
> to ensure that developers cannot strip off users' freedom from GNU software.

Like others wrote, this should be stated as a preference:

  The GNU Project preferably distributes software it develops under …

Also, it may be better to avoid the term “copyleft” unless we define it.

> * GNU provides consistent systems

Side note: in the first version, I tried to use “GNU” to refer to the
software, and “the GNU Project” to refer to the collective.  It might be
worth preserving that distinction for clarity.

> We develop an operating system and a set of applications, in the form of
> GNU packages.  GNU package developers work together to ensure consistency
> across packages.  GNU packages follow the design and development guidelines
> of the GNU Project.

Perhaps s/follow/should follow/ to better reflect current reality.

> * GNU collaborates with the broader free software community
>
> Free software has extended beyond the GNU Project, and we work with
> companion free software projects that develop key components of our system.

s/our system/the GNU operating system/ (to make it sound less
possessive.)

That’s all I have to say!

Should we do a v2.1 based on this and feedback others gave?
What do people think?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: list moderation

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Brandon,

Brandon Invergo  skribis:

> For the past month or so, every message to the list has been subject to
> moderation, so-called "emergency moderation".  It has become clear that
> the moderation was being used in a biased manner.  We have decided to
> remove Mark and Carlos as moderators/admins and to turn off the
> emergency moderation.  We will not place any restriction on the topic of
> discussion beyond what is outlined in the pre-existing list guidelines.

Who is “we” in “we have decided” above?

Can you explain how “moderation was being used in a biased manner”,
giving specific examples?

I think Mark and Carlos have done a great job.  I am happy that this
list was host to constructive discussions and not as toxic as the
private GNU lists.  I am concerned that about the ability to continue
discussing constructively going forward.

I am also disappointed that you, Brandon, took the liberty to remove
those who had added you as a moderator.  That looks, at best,
discourteous.

I’m looking forward to reading your explanations.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: to what extent is the gnu project philosophical?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Jason,

Jason Self  skribis:

> This has been one benefit to the GNU Project having the BDFL model, as
> some other projects also have. There's been one person to keep the GNU
> Project on point with regard to these social, ethical, political, and
> moral issues rather than having them get stuck in committee to
> eventually settle on the lowest common denominator.
>
> There are a very small number of people in the world that I would
> consider to have an RMS-level of dedication to the social, ethical,
> political, and moral issues that he's been talking about all for all
> of these decades.
>
> Change the underlying foundation by changing out the leadership with
> other people with anything less than the very same level of dedication
> to those self-same issues and you change everything the GNU Project is
> based on.

To what extent is the success of GNU, a project with thousands of
volunteers, due to the dedication of a single person?  Is there
something inherent to the computer user freedom struggle or to the
production of a free operating system that would prevent it from being
led by different people over time?

Isn’t the moral standing of an organization likely to be stronger if
it’s been incarnated by dozens of “leaders” over time than if it’s only
ever been embodied by a single person?

For GNU like for other activist organizations, I feel that the
organization is stronger if it entrusts more of its members with
responsibilities.

You mention a “lowest common denominator” that people on a committee
would eventually consent to.  The social contract discussion is about
defining a lowest common denominator, but note that the lowest common
denominator doesn’t have to be “low”: we get to define how high our
standards should be.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: to what extent is the gnu project philosophical?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Andy,

Andy Wingo  skribis:

> The realm of ideas pertains to the FSF: theory, organization, advocacy,
> and so on.
>
> GNU, on the other hand, is about action in the software domain: the
> construction of an ever-growing software commons, putting the theory of
> the FSF into practice, and lending validity to the FSF's work.

I view it that way, too.

The two aspects are still very much intertwined.  On several occasions,
when working on technical issues in Guix or on the Hurd, I’ve seen
people take a step back and wonder about the implications of these
issues on the freedom and empowerment of their users.  I think GNU is
quite unique in that respect, and to me that’s a defining feature of
GNU.

I think some of the articles under philosophy/ are very much “GNU”
because they help set a vision for technical work we’re doing.  Some
might be policy, like Mark wrote, and others might be more general
advocacy articles that are rather “on the FSF side.”

Overall, I think advocacy work as done by the FSF and development work
done by GNU are different in nature.  Clarifying this might be one of
the tasks to define a new GNU-and-FSF relationship.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Enge  skribis:

> What is missing, however, is, right at the beginning, a statement of mission;
> I think this is so because you essentially assumed it was understood as
> granted... I would put this as the very first paragraph, before the bullet
> list with more detailed points.

Good point!

> Maybe something like this, inspired by the starting words on gnu.org,
> "What is GNU?" :
>
> "The purpose of the GNU project is to provide an entirely free operating
> system."

To better match reality, I would write: “… to provide an entirely free
operating system and free applications.”

Or: “… is to contribute to an entirely free operating system and to
develop applications.”

Regarding “free” and the fact that it’s not defined yet, I would
actually rather write: “… is to develop an operating system and
applications that respect user freedom.”

> I also like the next few sentences on gnu.org, which could be used to
> clarify the point about licenses:
> "The GNU operating system consists of GNU packages (programs specifically
> released by the GNU Project) as well as free software released by third
> parties."
> Then we could explain that GNU packages need to be released under copyleft
> licenses, while third party software only needs to be released under free
> licenses.

How does “third-party software” relate to the GNU Project?  There’s some
connection with “the GNU operating system”, because it supposedly
includes third-party software, but that doesn’t sound like a central
concern for the project to me.  WDYT?

> But maybe this requires more discussion, since some of you seem to think
> that GNU should have a broader mission statement?

To me the social contract should talk about the project and its goals
more than about the software.  The “user freedom” goal is set in stone
whereas software could be a moving target.

> I think we also need to define the terms "GNU something" more clearly.

I think the version I sent defined “GNU packages”, for instance, quite
clearly, no?  It doesn’t the use any other phrase like “GNU operating
system”, which has the advantage that we don’t have to define them.

> What do you think? I would volunteer to formulate in a few days a new
> version taking the discussion into account.

Sure, that’d be great!

Ludo’.

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Alfred,

a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) skribis:

> What GNU maintainers agree to is very small, it is only to follow the
> policies that we have.  They don't need to go beyond that, which is
> what "uphold" would imply.

Exactly, that’s the change we’re proposing: members of the project
(maintainers and contributors alike who want to formalize their
affiliation with the project) would “sign” the social contract, meaning
that they commit to upholding the values defined therein.

As you note, this would be “stronger” than the current situation where
maintainers are not expected do be willing to defend the project’s
values.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: “GNU cares for computer user freedom beyond software”

[Ludovic Courtès]

Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès  wrote:
>> * GNU cares for computer user freedom beyond software
>
> Does the title reflect well what is under it?  Among SaaS(S), nonconsently 
> installed (java)scripts, DRM and surveillance, only surveillance issues go 
> beyond software.

Well SaaSS is about services and DRM usually includes hardware, but
yeah, maybe the title and/or the examples are badly chosen (we could
also mention free hardware designs.)

Ludo’.

Re: “GNU software is distributed under the terms of [copyleft] licenses”

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

"Carlos O'Donell"  skribis:

> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 5:03 PM Mark Wielaard  wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 2019-10-26 at 02:35 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>> > Ludovic Courtès  wrote:
>> > > * GNU licenses uphold user freedom
>> > >
>> > > The GNU Project has designed software licenses to ensure developers
>> > > cannot strip off user freedom from GNU software—“copyleft”
>> > > licenses.  GNU software is distributed under the terms of these
>> > > licenses.
>> >
>> > Sorry, but thatʼs simply untrue.   Few GNU software packages are
>> > under lax, non-copyleft licences, namely: ncurses, nana, speex.  And
>> > there might be a good reason for that [1].
>>
>> I agree. It would say something like "We prefer to distribute under the
>> terms of these licenses."

Oh yes, you’re right.

>> This is also partly why I would recommend trying to merge points 1
>> (freedom), 2 (uphold freedom) and 4 (beyond software freedom). That
>> makes it easier to explain what compromises we do and do not make to
>> uphold user freedom.
>
> That sounds like a good compromise.

Sure, works for me!

Ludo’.

A GNU “social contract”?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Mark Wielaard  skribis:

> Right. I think what is being objected to is a GNU Social Contract that
> would contain something like this part of the Debian Social Contract
> https://www.debian.org/social_contract

Looking at the form of Debian’s Social Contract, its conciseness and
clarity, I was inspired to think about a few points that would summarize
GNU’s mission and workings in a way that would hopefully be rather
consensual among maintainers (I’d like to draw attention to the six
headings, not necessarily on the detailed wording.)

Thoughts?

Ludo’.

Proposal of a “GNU Social Contract”

This document states the core commitments of the GNU Project to the
broader free software community.  All current GNU package maintainers
have agreed to uphold these values.

* GNU is software that respects the freedom of computer users

GNU is software that will always guarantee 
[[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html][the four essential freedoms]]
of computer users.  Because GNU is about user freedom, the GNU Project
refers to GNU as 
[[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html][“free 
software”, not “open source”]].  The GNU Project
[[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html][does not compromise on user 
freedom]].

* GNU licenses uphold user freedom

The GNU Project has designed software licenses to ensure developers
cannot strip off user freedom from GNU 
software—[[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.html][“copyleft” licenses]].
GNU software is distributed under the terms of these licenses.

* GNU is a consistent operating system and set of applications

The GNU Project [[https://www.gnu.org/gnu/about-gnu.html][develops an operating 
system]] as well as a set of
applications—the “GNU packages”.  GNU package developers work to 
[[https://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html#whatmeans][make
packages consistent and to ensure they work well together]].  GNU packages
should follow the project’s design and development guidelines, in
particular those embodied in the 
[[https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/][GNU Coding Standards]] and the
[[https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/][Information for Maintainers of 
GNU Software]].

* GNU cares for computer user freedom beyond software

Computer users can be free if they use software that respects their four
essential freedoms, but also if that software is loyal to them.  The GNU
Project pays attention to and responds to new threats to user freedom as
they arise, such as 
[[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html][software
 substitutes]], 
[[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html][distribution of non-free
software via the Web]], 
[[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.html][mass 
surveillance]], 
[[https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-drm.en.html][digital restrictions 
management
(DRM)]], and more.

* GNU collaborates with the broader free software community

Over time, free software has extended beyond the GNU Project, and the
GNU Project naturally works with companion free software projects that
have been developing key components of a typical GNU system.  The GNU
Project supports developments that aim to extend the reach of free
software to new fields.

* GNU welcomes contributions from all and everyone

The GNU Project produces software for anyone to use, but also wants to
give everyone the opportunity to contribute to its efforts—be it as
software developers, web masters, translators, speakers, system
administrators, or on any of the many tasks that contribute to GNU.

The Project welcomes everyone regardless of their gender, ethnicity,
sexual orientation, level of experience, or any other personal
characteristics.  The GNU Project commits to providing a harassment-free
experience for all its contributors.

Re: What is governance and to whom would it extend to in the GNU Project?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Carlos,

"Carlos O'Donell"  skribis:

> A governance model would apply to all of the people who are part of
> the GNU Project, and so discussing these two points makes sense to me.
> I look forward to any feedback about this.

Not surprisingly, I agree that GNU could benefit from a better defined
governance and from a better distribution of responsibilities among
people.  So thanks for starting this discussion!

> Next, who is a part of the GNU Project?
>
> It's fairly straight forward to say the following people are part of
> the GNU Project:
> * GNU Maintainers (as seen in the 'maintainers' file).
>
> This is a narrow view though and leaves out a lot of really important people:
> * People working on advocacy and policy.
> * Developers working on GNU packages (bug submission, triage, wiki
> gardening etc.)
> * Anyone supporting the GNU Project directly with non-developer roles.
>   * IT admins, project management, release managers, package review,
> mentoring/coaching.
> ... basically anyone involved in the day-to-day running of the GNU Project.
>
> Governance should extend to all of the people in the community via the
> defined roles and responsibilities.

I suppose “who is part of GNU” is going to be the first question we’ll
have to answer in a more formal way than is currently the case.  It’s a
precondition to distributing responsibilities while ensuring that the
project’s values and mission are upheld.

In that sense, it is connected to the idea of a “social contract” Mark
mentioned: if maintainers commit to some form of a social contract,
stating that they commit to furthering the project’s mission and
defending its values, then they’re very much part of the project.  In
turn, they could be entrusted with specific responsibilities within the
project, in addition to that of being a package maintainer.

But like you write, GNU is made by many more people than just
maintainers, and others should legitimately be included.  So developers,
admins, etc. could also sign the “contract” as a way of formalizing
their relation with the project.

Thoughts?

Ludo’.

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

Mark Wielaard  skribis:

> For my own GNU project (some years ago) we did use savannah, but we
> had to give up on lists.gnu.org because it just didn't scale to the
> volume of email that we produced. Savannah didn't provide a wiki, so we
> set one up ourselves, etc. We had setup our own planet. Organized
> hacker meetings. But had to use SPI for helping with the finances
> because the FSF couldn't help us at the time (these days there is the
> FSF working together funds BTW, which are great!). I know other GNU
> projects faced the same issues. Most GNU projects I am working on these
> days are not even using savannah, but sourceware.

My experience with this for Guix is that the FSF has been really
helpful: they provided us our first build machine (a VM), and Guix works
with them through the Working Together fund.

> I am not sure what the best way forward is for these things. Can the
> FSF scale to manage all these resources on behave of the GNU
> maintainers and projects? The GNU volunteers that manage these
> resources mostly don't work for the FSF and might not have the time to
> scale them from project specific resource to "all of GNU" resource.

It would be great if GNU, as a project, could support individual
packages in need of infrastructure.  The FSF can help as I wrote, but in
its current setting, it’s not clear whether it would scale well (there
are already very few people taking care of key bits of GNU
infrastructure, and I’m not sure we can add more on their plate.)

Another question is to what extent infrastructure such as GNU servers
and staff maintaining them would be in line with the FSF’s mission if it
were to grow beyond the current limits: in the end, I suppose the FSF
has to balance its spending between general free software activism and
day-to-day GNU operations.

It’d be useful to work on GNU/FSF answers to that!

Ludo’.

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Mark,

Mark Wielaard  skribis:

> Information For Maintainers of GNU Software:
>   https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/
>
> GNU Coding Standards:
>   https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/
>
> For the basic ideas of GNU and Free Software:
>   https://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html
>   https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>   https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
>   https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html
>   https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
>   https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
>   https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html
>   https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
>
> There are a lot of shoulds, but very little musts in those documents.
> Which is good, because the amount of information is really a lot. And
> it gives GNU maintainers a lot of freedom to implement the suggested
> policies and decide what does or doesn't apply in the specific
> (technical) context of a package. But it takes a lot of time to
> describe the responsibilities, delegation and decision frameworks for a
> package to bring in more people who can share the maintainer load. It
> would be good to try to distill a small core of musts, a summary of
> sorts, that can be more easily communicated as a kind of social
> contract for GNU.

I agree.  I think in practice many (most?) maintainers not only agree to
uphold the free software values, but also share them.

To make that clearer, having some sort of a “social contract” for
maintainers to sign, where they explicitly commit to defending a
specified set of core values of the project, would be great.  It would
make it easier to share overarching responsibilities among maintainers
because they’d have explicitly committed to furthering the project’s
missions.

Thoughts?

Thanks for starting this discussion!

Ludo’.

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss