Re: GNU Kind Communication Guidelines versus social contract or Codes of Conduct
We are legitimate members of the project, and we have legitimate demands. Letâs work together on shaping this new GNU! You've yet enumerated those demands, instead you've been continouly attacking the GNU project and its decision making process, by excluding those whom you do not agree with.
Re: GNU Kind Communication Guidelines versus "social contract" or Codes of Conduct
Andreas Enge, 06/11/19 11:33: If you start by equating two unrelated concepts, nothing useful can come out of a discussion. I don't know about equating, but there is a clear connection. When you establish some rules with some sanctions, and a process to enforce them, this process needs to be depend on somebody or something. If this something is not held accountable to the same values and methods that the project normally operates on, it's easy to have a conflict. A common example is a self-appointed enforcer attached to an entity accountable only to itself (as many USA foundations are). If you add it on top of a project whose community is a do-ocracy or democracy, based on some values, there is no way to make sure the enforcer respects the community's values. (Forgive the following analogy.) Many software projects have a "constitution" but said constitution has no teeth. If you add a "criminal law" and there is no way to hold the respective executive/judicial power in check, whatever values the "constitution" proclaims are no longer worth the paper they're printed on. The traditional GNU structure at least is coherent because there is a single source of legitimacy. In Debian, as far as I understand, everything is under the project leader, who is however elected. In Wikimedia there's a self-appointed legal entity with its own bureaucracy (Wikimedia Foundation) and a separate community with its own values and processes. These things are not easy to get right. Federico
Re: GNU Kind Communication Guidelines versus social contract or Codes of Conduct
On Sun, 2019-11-10 at 18:52 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > 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 That's supposition, likely coloured by personal bias. > enough is enough. That's a slogan without added substance. Enough of *what* is enough of *what* here? Please use words that would help clarify the situation and create understanding. Slogans are not helpful here. > We are legitimate members of the project, and we have legitimate > demands. So formulate those demands in a point by point fashion so they can be discussed and debated. The current approach of slowly presenting them in a developing document is creating confusion and misunderstandings, and hardening opinions in the process. It hasn't failed at this point, but it's not proven very convincing or making much progress. > Let’s work together on shaping this new GNU! Let's start then with the natural and non-contentious assumption that the current chief GNUisance at some point will no longer be able to perform his duty[1]. What should happen next? Should the role of GNUisance be made obsolete? If not, who will be their successor? If so, who will supervise the implementation of software freedom? Will there be voting? How will voting work? Who will be allowed to vote? How does the FSF fit in all this? What is the current relation with the FSF, and will it be maintained in the same capacity? et cetera, et cetera. As things are there seems to be a loose request for stricter oversight and more governance, but with no clear goal defined or procedures given to reach that goal other than: "We'll start drafting this unspecified document and everything will explain itself over time." It appears to be a messy approach for something as important as overhauling the governance of the project, so getting people to agree might be a very hard sell, even if they are not opposed to your demands. -Andreas [1] Maybe because of age, maybe because GNU maintainers threaten to step back with a vote of no confidence with such a majority the project would no longer have any substance. Either way, it would be a neutral framework that would be needed regardless.
Re: GNU Kind Communication Guidelines versus social contract or Codes of Conduct
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: GNU Kind Communication Guidelines versus social contract or Codes of Conduct
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 08:25:18PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Jean Louis: > > > Can you see that it is discouraging and not welcoming contributions? > > > > Do you understand that mentioning various GNU projects causes > > contributors in those GNU projects not contribute if they find > > fallacies in your public shamings statement? > > > > As a signer of public shaming, I cannot know what is your motivation > > as related to encouraging contributions. It appears you have same > > motivation. > > > > Am I right? Please answer me? > > 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. > > Keep in mind that *we* have to justify to our friends and colleagues > why we support, through our paid and unpaid work, a project that > refuses to distance itself from a leader who has bizarre notions about > consent. This is the reality for us. > I doubt that sincerely. I've been around GNU and Free Software for 30 years and nobody would even remotely come to ask this kind of question. Furthermore, he does not have bizzarre notions of consent. He has guenine and mainstream notions about political freedom, due process, human ethics, and the abuse of criminal justice. > Looking back over the last 18 months or so, I am no longer sure if > people join GNU because they want to work towards a world of free > software, or if GNU is simply the pretext they need to label other > people as morally corrupt or wrong, downright evil, and generally > bully them, while viewing themselves as morally superior. There is no reason for this. -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
Re: GNU Kind Communication Guidelines versus social contract or Codes of Conduct
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. That is clearly not true, you're most welcome, and your work is more than needed, the more people write free software or hack on GNU the better! But have you considered the feelings of other members, and what they have and are going through? There are many feelings boiling, for many reasons, so it is wise to step back and not take what people write literally, and try much harder than usual to understand the other sides argument and state of mind. We want GNU to succeed, and out live all of us, but since RMS founded this project, and has lead it for 35+ years, it is his decision as to what the future of the project will be. It would be quite unwise to dismiss because you disagree on some unrelated topic... Keep in mind that *we* have to justify to our friends and colleagues why we support, through our paid and unpaid work, a project that refuses to distance itself from a leader who has bizarre notions about consent. This is the reality for us. Since one is not related to the other, that shouldn't be hard to justify: I support the GNU project because I want a free operating system, what personal opinions people have is theirs to have. You can easily distance yourself from someones opinion. But can we please stop raising peoples private opinions that are unrelated to either free software, or the GNU project on this list? If you want to discuss such topics, it is best done in person.
Re: GNU Kind Communication Guidelines versus social contract or Codes of Conduct
* Jean Louis: > Can you see that it is discouraging and not welcoming contributions? > > Do you understand that mentioning various GNU projects causes > contributors in those GNU projects not contribute if they find > fallacies in your public shamings statement? > > As a signer of public shaming, I cannot know what is your motivation > as related to encouraging contributions. It appears you have same > motivation. > > Am I right? Please answer me? 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. Keep in mind that *we* have to justify to our friends and colleagues why we support, through our paid and unpaid work, a project that refuses to distance itself from a leader who has bizarre notions about consent. This is the reality for us. Looking back over the last 18 months or so, I am no longer sure if people join GNU because they want to work towards a world of free software, or if GNU is simply the pretext they need to label other people as morally corrupt or wrong, downright evil, and generally bully them, while viewing themselves as morally superior.
Re: GNU Kind Communication Guidelines versus social contract or Codes of Conduct
* Andreas Enge [2019-11-06 10:34]: > Hello, > > starting with the subject of your message, it conflates two completely > unrelated concepts: a social contract, which is a mission statement and > statement of the general principles of an organisation, as well with respect > to the inner workings as well as an engagement to the outer world; and a code > of conduct, that gives rules about expected behaviour in a given context > (conference attendance, mailing list postings, and so on), as well as a > procedure that can be followed if the rules are broken. > > If you start by equating two unrelated concepts, nothing useful can come > out of a discussion. They may be in practice often intertwined, they are not practically completely unrelated concepts. Point of that message which you quoted is to encourage contributions from anybody. As you are signer of the public shaming of GNU project and RMS, obviously people are discouraged of contributing. I have given you few clear evidences. Can you see that it is discouraging and not welcoming contributions? Do you understand that mentioning various GNU projects causes contributors in those GNU projects not contribute if they find fallacies in your public shamings statement? As a signer of public shaming, I cannot know what is your motivation as related to encouraging contributions. It appears you have same motivation. Am I right? Please answer me? Real question is what can be done to welcome new contributions to GNU project? Could we try creating practical applicable methods to welcome contributions to GNU project? We need practical applicable method or manner on how to welcome and invite more contributions to GNU project. There is one way and other way to agree on same purpose. As unless you answer my above questions negatively, we are on the same purpose which is to welcome more contributions, there is just the method or manner that is not practical, rather destructive way to do it, and there is other method or manner that is practical and applicable. Calling out to negativities whatever they may be, just or unjust, founded or not founded, argumented or not argumented, is negative way of trying to achieve more contributions. It attracts Streisand effect[1]. It is one of the ways of doing things. To be more specific, your public shamings page on Guix project is one type of manner of trying to attract more contributors. You just think that public shamings is the way to go. And I don't. But we are on same purpose to attract more contributors. And what is result of the public shaming campaign? Did you apply the method as some engineer who knows the work of public relations and did you actually achieve more contributors and contributions to GNU project? Or did you achieve contrary effect, to lose fans of Guix system, and to lose contributors to Guix? As this was evident from one of my previous references to loss of contributions and Guix fan' support. Other way is to encourage practically and applicably more contributors. For example, if you maybe think that women is less or if you are sharing opinion that women is by any manner harassed or discriminated, then you could make a campaign on Guix pages to welcome more women. I hope that you understand this. In summary one can point out to negativity, while not being effective and practical, resulting with zero new contributions to Guix project or any others based on such. Count if you got new women contributions because of that public shamings you people issued. Count it, and see, as that is the result. You should also count comments from people who felt harassed by that statement and publicly stated to remove their contributions from Guix. Observe your method of achieving the same purpose, analyse it critically[2]. And then one can devise practical ways that would efficiently bring new women into Guix. Then you could actually count new contributions by women to Guix, and you could say you are doing something positive. And people would give more support to Guix and other GNU projects, and there would be more contributions. Let me give you examples of positive, practical and efficient methods of achieving the same purpose we talk about (encouraging contributions): How Do You Start a Career in Tech? –Lightning Talk Night– https://www.meetup.com/Women-Who-Code-Tokyo/events/253653211/ The article starts with: "Dear women, WE NEED YOU! Are you a woman considering a career in technology? You’re not alone. The tech industry needs you more than ever, and we’re here to help you get there. Do you need to be a genius? Do you have to quit your job to study programming? Is it ever too late? No, no, and no! Come and hear women like you talk about the tech world, how they got into it, and why you should join them." Do you see the difference between the purpose to encourage more contributions by manner of public shamings and achieving number of discouraged contributors -- between the other method of
