Re: Moderation
On 2/18/20 12:07 AM, Mike Gerwitz wrote: On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 17:25:38 +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote: Indeed, given the toxicity on this list, I had presumed there was no moderation (any more). If it is that modereration is being applied, it is either sorely deficient, or an indication of the language that GNU permits (in spite of the 'kind communication' document). Which is a good demonstration of why people might not find it a welcoming organization. It is worth reminding that readers of this list cannot see the number and type of messages being rejected (and so cannot judge what moderation is being done), and that this moderation is being done by volunteers on their own time. It is also worth reminding that it is not possible to make all parties happy. Indeed, moderators get verbal lashings from all sides. Thanks for confirming the toxicity is acceptable to the list administrators. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell
Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract
On 2/14/20 8:45 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: Thanks for your support. GCC has an FSF appointed steering committee <https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html> which is what we would traditionally call the official GNU maintainers for a GNU package. But given that GCC is so big they delegate responsibility to maintainers for larger subsystems/packages, of which you are one. I have created a special section on <https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract-endorsement> to list GNU community members like yourself who have endorsed the GNU Social Contract. Further, RMS is a member of the GCC steering committee, and I believe has veto power (possibly only over non-technical decisions). So the likelihood of that /committee/ endorsing the Social Contract is low. I do not know if other GNU projects have a similar oversight structure. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell
Re: Moderation
On 2/12/20 4:00 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: 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. Indeed, given the toxicity on this list, I had presumed there was no moderation (any more). If it is that modereration is being applied, it is either sorely deficient, or an indication of the language that GNU permits (in spite of the 'kind communication' document). Which is a good demonstration of why people might not find it a welcoming organization. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/19/20 8:07 PM, facebook wrote: On 1/19/20 7:59 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: When we release the software we produced collectively the FSF takes on some liability. have you ever read the GPL?? There is no legal liability... you seem to be equivocating waranty and liability. The releaser of the GPL'd software is asserting that the software is indeed GPL'd. They are liable if it is not. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell
Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect
On 1/14/20 7:37 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: On 15/01/2020 01:19, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 5:48 PM Daniel Pocock mailto:dan...@pocock.pro>> wrote: On 15/01/2020 00:42, Joel Sherrill wrote: > This will create a lot of paperwork which puts GNU project maintainers in a > very bad position. In practice, this is the sad reality of an organization where volunteers have not been registered as equal members with equal votes in the corporate entity, FSF, Inc You are missing the point entirely. This is not about representation or voting, this is about the burden of daily activities. I agree those issues are important and burdensome for the project maintainers. Nonetheless, contributors have a right to decide who owns the intellectual property. *contributors* have already made that decision -- they filed the paperwork and *continue to* contribute. It would be irresponsible for someone with an assignment, to revoke that assignment /and/ continue contributing patches. You could decide you no longer wished to contribute to an FSF project, and no longer submit patches to it (in addition to any explicit public/private message you might send). AFAICT there is no example of adding a revocation to the copyright.list file. I never noticed one. I noticed that my individual assignment, including an employer assignment, never had a note later when I changed employers and ended up covered by the employer's blanket assignment. The closest it gets are assignments that are explicitly time-limited from the get go -- they have a termination date when assigned. Now, that's not to suggest your idea is inherently bad. The thought had occurred to me too -- stop contributing. But I decided things would have to be really dire to do that. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell
Re: Setting up a wiki for GNU Project volunteers?
On 12/27/19 6:22 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: I don't see that those two things are contradictory. You claim "must", but then reject the same must. Which requirement do you consider to have been rejected in the removal Carlos mentions? I am looking at creating a wiki for use by those who find wikis useful. Since the idea of a GNU wiki has already been rejected, It has been rejected by you, not by others. Were a wiki created, there is no obligation for you to participate. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell
