Re: A summary of some open discussions

[Jean Louis]

* Siddhesh Poyarekar  [2020-01-14 08:05]:
> On 13/01/20 10:51 am, Jean Louis wrote:
> > The big joke in the end is that few of those politically oriented,
> > mostly French GNU members, again wish to censor the joke that was
> > about censorship itself.
> 
> 1. As someone in the middle of that whole debacle, I'd like to clarify
> that I'm not French.  In fact, I wonder how many glibc contributors we
> have in France.  I'll admit that I wouldn't be able to tell French from
> Belgian, etc. given that, well, I'm not French.
> 
> 2. As for the manual text, would it be appropriate for me to send emails
> to this list about endangered Wildebeest?  Why not?  The list is about
> GNUs after all!  How about "Free Palestine" or "Free Kashmir"?  Why not?
>  How about "Stop internet censorship"?  The whole thing is a matter of
> debate *only* because of the will of the chief GNUisance.

GNU acronym itself is a joke. There is no point in discussing jokes,
if you like it, it is good, if you got the point, fine, if not, also
fine.

> 3. That censorship claim is ridiculous.  If anything, the current GNU
> structure gives the chief gnuisance power and he abused it to keep all
> of us hostage for a year.

As you are not French, and also not kept captive by RMS in his cellar,
you are also not a "hostage".

Find other project to abuse.

> 4. That thread ended up exposing much of what is wrong with the top-down
> approach of maintenance.  RMS threatened (and Alex executed on his
> behalf) to use his veto power when clearly the majority of the glibc
> community was against his viewpoint on the topic.

Exactly. That is what founder of project decided.

Opinion of majority is not necessary just opinion. Management of GNU
projects are by majority not democratic.

If you have a software project where you are project manager, you may
decide to let people vote on it.

Jean

Re: A summary of some open discussions

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 14/01/20 6:50 am, nylxs wrote:
> So you guys should get together an create your own organization
> 

The last time a major fork happened in the GNU world was with egcs.  A
little reading will give an indication of how that ended.

Siddhesh

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

suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

[Daniel Pocock]

FSF will not change unless somebody gives them a strong reason to change.

For example, if GNU developers write the following email to FSF, that
will bring change.

Each developer needs to make their own decision if they will send the
email.  RMS has previously suggested he would not like people to
completely abandon the agreements.  The email template below is only for
a conditional suspension of the agreement.  Nobody can tell you to
continue assigning[1] your rights to FSF if you want to wait for more
clarity about FSF's future.

You can still keep coding during the suspension: if a significant
quantity of code is published and virtually embargoed like this, it
creates an incentive for FSF to satisfy those people and gain rights
over that code.

Regards,

Daniel Pocock
--
Debian Developer
https://danielpocock.com



To: John Sullivan 
CC: (relevant project mailing lists)
Subject: suspension of contributor agreement

Dear John,

I am writing to suspend my FSF / GNU project contributor agreement[1]
signed __/__/

I will continue contributing code to (names of projects) retaining all
intellectual property rights personally during this suspension of the
agreement.

I also wish to notify you that my contributor agreement will be
reinstated when FSF makes a satisfactory commitment about leadership and
governance issues.  I have not yet decided what will constitute a
satisfactory commitment, for now, I will review the proposals put
forward by FSF and I may contribute further criteria as the situation
evolves.

All work completed during this suspension will be assigned
retrospectively to FSF when the conditions of reinstatement are satisfied.

Sincerely,

Developer


1. https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legal-Matters

Re: A summary of some open discussions

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Siddhesh Poyarekar 
> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 12:38:13 +0530
> 
> On 14/01/20 6:50 am, nylxs wrote:
> > So you guys should get together an create your own organization
> > 
> 
> The last time a major fork happened in the GNU world was with egcs.  A
> little reading will give an indication of how that ended.

OTOH, there was also the XEmacs fork, which started almost in the same
time frame, and which ended very differently.  If someone is going to
read on the egcs affair, I suggest reading on XEmacs as well.

My take from this is twofold:

  . forks are a terrible waste of our scarce resources
  . people should try harder to work with those with whom they
disagree, and should emphasize the common instead of the
disagreements

Re: A summary of some open discussions

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Such exagerations aren't useful, you nor anyone else was keept hostage
for a year in a box and prohibited to work on the GNU C Library.

Whatever you might think, it is RMS's perogative to decide how the GNU
project is managed, it is not a community run afair.  This is quite
clear when you agree to become a GNU maintainter.

Re: A summary of some open discussions

[Samuel Thibault]

Alfred M. Szmidt, le mar. 14 janv. 2020 12:24:57 -0500, a ecrit:
> Whatever you might think, it is RMS's perogative to decide how the GNU
> project is managed, it is not a community run afair.  This is quite
> clear when you agree to become a GNU maintainter.

See Andreas Enge's comment about this on Mon, 6 Jan 2020 22:00:47 +0100
Apparently it was very far from clear for him.

Samuel

Re: Moderation

[Jean Louis]

* Ludovic Courtès  [2020-01-14 15:39]:
> 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’.

Then why did you start in the first place with defamation of GNU
project and RMS?

Reference:
https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/

It is violation of GUIX Code of Conduct.

Jean

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

[Carlos O'Donell]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:39 AM Daniel Pocock  wrote:
> FSF will not change unless somebody gives them a strong reason to change.
>
> For example, if GNU developers write the following email to FSF, that
> will bring change.
>
> Each developer needs to make their own decision if they will send the
> email.  RMS has previously suggested he would not like people to
> completely abandon the agreements.  The email template below is only for
> a conditional suspension of the agreement.  Nobody can tell you to
> continue assigning[1] your rights to FSF if you want to wait for more
> clarity about FSF's future.
>
> You can still keep coding during the suspension: if a significant
> quantity of code is published and virtually embargoed like this, it
> creates an incentive for FSF to satisfy those people and gain rights
> over that code.

I can empathize with your frustration over the current state of
affairs and the lack of transparency (including timely updates to
members of the FSF).

However, what you propose is seems like a measure of last resort.

May I encourage you to help the current GNU Project volunteers working
to define a governance model that is organized from the bottom-up? A
governance model that rallies around the community to engage them in
the goals of the GNU Project, not just the outcomes.

We absolutely need people like you to promote the goals of the GNU Project.

Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Moderation

[Carlos O'Donell]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:25 PM Jean Louis  wrote:
> Then why did you start in the first place with defamation of GNU
> project and RMS?

Ludovic is asking about what is being written on the mailing list, but
your response is a question about a statement that has nothing to do
with what is being written on the mailing list. Your statement does
not logically follow Ludovic's question.

What does your alleged off-site defamation have to do with what is
being written on this mailing list?

If you find a case of defamation posted to this mailing list then
please raise this with Brandon and Mike the moderators.

Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

[Joel Sherrill]

This will create a lot of paperwork which puts GNU project maintainers in a
very bad position. In practice, once someone is known to have done
assignment paperwork, there is no reason to check if they have an active
assignment. This assumption would no longer be valid.

Worse, there could be multiple suspensions and reinstatements. This would
result in periods of "ok to merge" and "not ok to merge" of varying lengths
repeated.

Computationally, this means "OK to assignment" is not a boolean condition
that never changes after going true but a value that is dependent on some
point in
time. How would that precise range of time be managed by the FSF? a
maintainer would have to check that the submission occurred in an
"ok to merge" period. What would the timestamp be that needed to be
compared to the "valid assignment in place" method? How would the
maintainer know?

Assuming this happened, maintainers are burdened by checking that the
assignment is OK and if any mistake is made, there is a copyright assignment
issue which could submarine the project.

If you want to stop submitting code in protest, feel free to do so. Send a
letter
to the FSF telling you why you aren't submitting code. Post it anywhere you
want. But please, do not punish your fellow GNU project maintainers who
will be burdened by having the copyright assignment in force check process
changed forever.

Some of this discussion was about documenting the FSF and GNU Project
processes
and making them well-known. I'm all for that. but please don't burden
maintainers
forever just to make a point.

Thanks.

--joel sherrill
RTEMS, GCC, Binutils, GDB, Newlib

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 9:39 AM Daniel Pocock  wrote:

>
> FSF will not change unless somebody gives them a strong reason to change.
>
> For example, if GNU developers write the following email to FSF, that
> will bring change.
>
> Each developer needs to make their own decision if they will send the
> email.  RMS has previously suggested he would not like people to
> completely abandon the agreements.  The email template below is only for
> a conditional suspension of the agreement.  Nobody can tell you to
> continue assigning[1] your rights to FSF if you want to wait for more
> clarity about FSF's future.
>
> You can still keep coding during the suspension: if a significant
> quantity of code is published and virtually embargoed like this, it
> creates an incentive for FSF to satisfy those people and gain rights
> over that code.
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel Pocock
> --
> Debian Developer
> https://danielpocock.com
>
>
>
> To: John Sullivan 
> CC: (relevant project mailing lists)
> Subject: suspension of contributor agreement
>
> Dear John,
>
> I am writing to suspend my FSF / GNU project contributor agreement[1]
> signed __/__/
>
> I will continue contributing code to (names of projects) retaining all
> intellectual property rights personally during this suspension of the
> agreement.
>
> I also wish to notify you that my contributor agreement will be
> reinstated when FSF makes a satisfactory commitment about leadership and
> governance issues.  I have not yet decided what will constitute a
> satisfactory commitment, for now, I will review the proposals put
> forward by FSF and I may contribute further criteria as the situation
> evolves.
>
> All work completed during this suspension will be assigned
> retrospectively to FSF when the conditions of reinstatement are satisfied.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Developer
>
>
> 1. https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legal-Matters
>
>

Re: A summary of some open discussions

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Dora,

On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 04:24:44AM -0500, Dora Scilipoti wrote: 
> > Since Brandon was delegated by the FSF president to
> > appoint new (co-)maintainers [...]
> 
> Correction: Brandon Invergo was delegated by Richard Stallman wearing
> his Chief GNUisance hat, not as president of the FSF.

We cannot really know because he used to wear both hats and depending
on who you ask they'll tell you he made decissions as either Chief
GNUisance or as FSF President. If you say it was as Chief GNUisance
then it is a good question where that authority came from. And whether
we still need a position like Chief GNUisance going forward. Authority
in a volunteer organisation is always tricky. Which makes these
governance discussions so difficult.

Cheers,

Mark

Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Alfred,

On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 02:42:06PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> One cannot assume good faith from those who are clearly hostile to the
> GNU project.

I am certainly not hostile to the GNU project. I love the GNU project
and most people working on it. It is almost like a second family to
me. I don't want to harm my family. I believe in the FSF mission for
Free Software for everybody and try to do my best to get there through
my work on GNU.

> You've shown over and over again, even in your last
> email claiming that the FSF somehow appointed Brandon as a co-chief of
> the GNU project, that you have no intention to listen to those who are
> part of the leadership structure (like Brandon) who know what they are
> talking about.

That is not exactly what I said. But maybe I explained things in a
confusing way. I certainly listen to Brandon and find his experiences
very helpful.

> If you were interested, and in good faith, you would have raised the
> topic on the internal lists, as was requested, but you have not.  And
> as far as I can see, there is still no reply to the question if
> you/Ludo/...  are willing to let the GNU project take the text that
> you've drafted as some sort of starting point?

I believe we did raise the issue a couple of times on the internal
lists and said we felt it would be better to have the discussion in
the open going forward. Which is what we are doing right now.

>> Patently false, it is RMS who ratifies changes that are applicable to
>> the GNU project and nobody else.  Please stop spreading these made up
>> notions of how the GNU project is governed.
> 
>We are discussing how we want the GNU project to be governed. This is
>simply my opinion how we can collectively come together describing
>it. I do acknowledge that you feel differently about that.
> 
> No, you are discussing how _you_ want the GNU project governed, this
> we is fictional -- there is no we here.  There is no collective
> agreement, since there is no "we".

We are not having a discussion? It seems we really are. I gave my
opinion on how I see GNU governance going forward and what my
experiences and impressions of it from the past were. And you are
sharing your opinion.

> The GNU project is maintained by RMS.

I do wish you explained your opinions a bit more though.

Cheers,

Mark

Re: A summary of some open discussions

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 05:13:29PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 5:16 AM Brandon Invergo  wrote:
> > Mark Wielaard writes:
> > > 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.
> 
> Which part?
> 
> The FSF is a tax-exempt charity that has oversight responsibilities
> for the work being done with the resources it owns. So at least that
> part is true.
> 
> The last two sentences are a reframing of the existing governance
> structure based on the legal requirements placed on the FSF by its
> tax-exempt status, which is why Mark uses the word "technically" not
> "literally." You appear to have interpreted this as the literal
> meaning, which is likely not Mark's intent. As Ludovic says, please
> assume good intent. You can ask Mark what he meant by it before
> calling all of it, incorrectly so, a falsehood.
> 
> I agree with Ludovic and Andreas' comments downthread that when you
> join a volunteer organization you join it to further the goals of the
> organization.

This was indeed what I meant. More specifically I said "GNU
maintainers serve at the pleasure of the FSF" because that is what I
really believe. I certainly joined GNU because I support the FSF
mission. My copyright assignment is with the FSF. When I became a GNU
maintainer I was added to some FSF internal lists that said "For ALL
gnu programmers (volunteers included) and programmers of software that
the FSF has included in GNU." As a GNU maintainer the FSF arranged I
could talk to legal counsil (java used to have lots of tricky legal
issues). The FSF sysadmins have always helped with any extra technical
setups GNU projects need. I am a member of the FSF and donate money to
the GNU project through the FSF.

Cheers,

Mark

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

[Joel Sherrill]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 5:48 PM Daniel Pocock  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.

Before work can be submitted to any project (GNU or otherwise) which has
a contribution form, there must be a check before merging to ensure the
submitter has active paperwork. AFAIK for Apache, Eclipse, GNU, CLANG,
Go, etc, this is a simple "Is person X on the list? Yes/No". Once a
maintainer
sees yes, that is a constant Yes for in the future.

With your on again/off again proposal, the project maintainer must check
EVERYTIME they merge a contribution from ANYONE.Anyone can change
their mind at any time and repeatedly.

The paperwork burden on FSF is bad but the impact on maintainers is worse.
[FWIW I

You seem to have missed the change from a simple Yes/No condition
that never changes after the No -> Yes transition to a condition which
must be evaluated EVERYTIME a submission is made.

This really complicates things for those doing the day to day work.

--joel
RTEMS

Re: A summary of some open discussions

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 14/01/20 10:54 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Such exagerations aren't useful, you nor anyone else was keept hostage
> for a year in a box and prohibited to work on the GNU C Library.

Of course it is not hostage in the literal sense.  It is in the sense
that a decision was prevented from being taken only because of one
person's whim despite the damage they could see happening to the project
as a result.

> Whatever you might think, it is RMS's perogative to decide how the GNU
> project is managed, it is not a community run afair.  This is quite
> clear when you agree to become a GNU maintainter.

Perhaps it is for maintainers (or not) but it is definitely not for
contributors.  The copyright assignment process does not mention that
the impression of autonomy in your GNU project has been explicitly
blessed by the chief gnuisance and can be taken away at any time based
on his will.  Basically the difference between the queen of England and
the Kind of Saudi Arabia.  OK maybe not as extreme as Saudi Arabia, but
basically someone who actually exercises their power.

Siddhesh

Re: Moderation

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 19:28:18 +0100, Jean Louis wrote:
>> 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’.
>
> Then why did you start in the first place with defamation of GNU
> project and RMS?

This has been discussed ad nauseam and every conceivable point has been
made multiple times over.  Let's please move on.

People on this list can help out the moderators by not requiring
moderation.  Please.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 15:39:30 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I will continue contributing code to (names of projects) retaining all
> intellectual property rights personally during this suspension of the
> agreement.

Please note that the GNU Project and the FSF avoid use of the term
"intellectual property":

  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#IntellectualProperty

> I also wish to notify you that my contributor agreement will be
> reinstated when FSF makes a satisfactory commitment about leadership and
> governance issues.  I have not yet decided what will constitute a
> satisfactory commitment, for now, I will review the proposals put
> forward by FSF and I may contribute further criteria as the situation
> evolves.

The FSF has no authority over the GNU Project, and so this isn't a
useful statement.

GNU requires copyright assignments for all substantial changes from
contributors to GNU packages with copyrights assigned to the FSF.  By
suspending that, your contributions will not be able to be accepted, and
you're predicating the assignment on a condition that is not possible
for the FSF to meet.

I understand there are frustrations all around, but attempting to force
change raises tensions rather than resolving them.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: A summary of some open discussions

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 15/01/20 11:02 am, Jean Louis wrote:
> Which decision in particular?

A decision to reinstate the patch that the glibc community had agreed on
and that RMS got reverted through a bad faith assumption of consensus.

> Siddhesh, your sense for justice is different than sense of justice of
> RMS. Can you get the idea?
> 
> For you is public opinion what matters most. For RMS is justice that
> matters most.
> 
> RMS is pretty uncompromising person when it comes to justice issues.

RMS' sense of justice and your take of my sense of justice are not the
topic of discussion, so even though I don't agree with both of those
assessments, I will not rebut it.

> GNU project is not government. Comparing things which are not similar
> to each other is bad analogy.

... but I haven't compared the GNU project with governments, I have
compared it with Kingdoms :)

Siddhesh

Re: A summary of some open discussions

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 15/01/20 11:33 am, Jean Louis wrote:
> Sorry, I do not know what you mean. If you refer to the censorship
> joke, RMS made final decision, it need not be by consensus. GNU is
> about jokes since its inception. If somebody does not like, can read
> jokes which one likes.

I disagree, but like I said, this discussion risks derailing the current
topic so lets stop.

>> ... but I haven't compared the GNU project with governments, I have
>> compared it with Kingdoms :)
>>
>> Siddhesh
> 
> Is nothing of that kind. Totally wrong.
> 

Of course not with a military, bureaucrats and all that, at least not
that I'm aware of.  But as a top down organisation that operates at the
explicit blessing of the one at the top, of course it is.  You can say
that you don't like the analogy for whatever but you can't just claim
that it's incorrect.

Siddhesh

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

[Daniel Pocock]

On 14/01/2020 22:31, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:39 AM Daniel Pocock  wrote:
>> FSF will not change unless somebody gives them a strong reason to change.
>>
>> For example, if GNU developers write the following email to FSF, that
>> will bring change.
>>
>> Each developer needs to make their own decision if they will send the
>> email.  RMS has previously suggested he would not like people to
>> completely abandon the agreements.  The email template below is only for
>> a conditional suspension of the agreement.  Nobody can tell you to
>> continue assigning[1] your rights to FSF if you want to wait for more
>> clarity about FSF's future.
>>
>> You can still keep coding during the suspension: if a significant
>> quantity of code is published and virtually embargoed like this, it
>> creates an incentive for FSF to satisfy those people and gain rights
>> over that code.
> 
> I can empathize with your frustration over the current state of
> affairs and the lack of transparency (including timely updates to
> members of the FSF).
> 
> However, what you propose is seems like a measure of last resort.
> 

That is a matter of perspective

In France, la grève is the go-to solution


> May I encourage you to help the current GNU Project volunteers working
> to define a governance model that is organized from the bottom-up? A
> governance model that rallies around the community to engage them in
> the goals of the GNU Project, not just the outcomes.

My proposal is not intended to distract from that. Rather, it is
intended to help focus people's minds.

> We absolutely need people like you to promote the goals of the GNU Project.
> 

Thanks, I really appreciate your positive attitude.

Re: Moderation / Censorship

[Daniel Pocock]

On 14/01/2020 19:28, Jean Louis wrote:
> * Ludovic Courtès  [2020-01-14 15:39]:
>> 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’.
> 
> Then why did you start in the first place with defamation of GNU
> project and RMS?
> 
> Reference:
> https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/
> 
> It is violation of GUIX Code of Conduct.


Neither Moderation nor a Code of Conduct is a solution

We need to think outside the box about the way communication is effected
in free software communities.

It looks like the list is already moderated / censored.  I posted a
message today and it took 59 minutes to be distributed.  Check the
Received headers of messages you receive to see if that is happening to
other people.

Regards,

Daniel

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

[Daniel Pocock]

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

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

[Daniel Pocock]

On 15/01/2020 01:19, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 5:48 PM Daniel Pocock  > 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.

The decision of the contributor/developer comes first as they are the
one contributing their time and skill without any payment whatsoever.
Everything else has to be secondary to that.

Regards,

Daniel

Re: A summary of some open discussions

[nylxs]

On 1/14/20 7:05 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> This was indeed what I meant. More specifically I said "GNU
> maintainers serve at the pleasure of the FSF" b


But they don't.

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

[Ruben Safir]

On 1/14/20 9:39 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> 
> FSF will not change unless somebody gives them a strong reason to change.
> 
> For example, if GNU developers write the following email to FSF, that
> will bring change.
> 
> Each developer needs to make their own decision if they will send the
> email.  RMS has previously suggested he would not like people to
> completely abandon the agreements.  The email template below is only for
> a conditional suspension of the agreement.  Nobody can tell you to
> continue assigning[1] your rights to FSF if you want to wait for more
> clarity about FSF's future.
> 
> You can still keep coding during the suspension: if a significant
> quantity of code is published and virtually embargoed like this, it
> creates an incentive for FSF to satisfy those people and gain rights
> over that code.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Daniel Pocock
> --
> Debian Developer
> https://danielpocock.com
> 
> 
> 
> To: John Sullivan 
> CC: (relevant project mailing lists)
> Subject: suspension of contributor agreement
> 
> Dear John,
> 
> I am writing to suspend my FSF / GNU project contributor agreement[1]
> signed __/__/
> 
> I will continue contributing code to (names of projects) retaining all
> intellectual property rights personally during this suspension of the
> agreement.
> 


Laughable.

That would just get you locked out of all GNU projects, probably
permanently.  If you retain your rights, you can not contribute.


Watch who you give the middle finger too, it might be the mirror


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

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

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

Re: Moderation

[Jean Louis]

* Carlos O'Donell  [2020-01-14 22:41]:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:25 PM Jean Louis  wrote:
> > Then why did you start in the first place with defamation of GNU
> > project and RMS?
> 
> Ludovic is asking about what is being written on the mailing list, but
> your response is a question about a statement that has nothing to do
> with what is being written on the mailing list. Your statement does
> not logically follow Ludovic's question.
> 
> What does your alleged off-site defamation have to do with what is
> being written on this mailing list?
> 
> If you find a case of defamation posted to this mailing list then
> please raise this with Brandon and Mike the moderators.
> 
> Cheers,
> Carlos.

It is very much connected. Ludovic started with defamation, and in the
next step, he was convinced that he will kick RMS on this mailing
list.

What he does is divide and conquer. I cannot say that is good for any
group.

Then he complains if there is something he does not like on the
mailing list.

It is very related. First step, public defamation. Did not work. Next
step, divide and conquer by using remote means of rumor mongering.

Jean

Re: A summary of some open discussions

[Jean Louis]

* Siddhesh Poyarekar  [2020-01-15 03:31]:
> On 14/01/20 10:54 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > Such exagerations aren't useful, you nor anyone else was keept hostage
> > for a year in a box and prohibited to work on the GNU C Library.
> 
> Of course it is not hostage in the literal sense.  It is in the sense
> that a decision was prevented from being taken only because of one
> person's whim despite the damage they could see happening to the project
> as a result.

Which decision in particular?

Siddhesh, your sense for justice is different than sense of justice of
RMS. Can you get the idea?

For you is public opinion what matters most. For RMS is justice that
matters most.

RMS is pretty uncompromising person when it comes to justice issues.

> > Whatever you might think, it is RMS's perogative to decide how the GNU
> > project is managed, it is not a community run afair.  This is quite
> > clear when you agree to become a GNU maintainter.
> 
> Perhaps it is for maintainers (or not) but it is definitely not for
> contributors.  The copyright assignment process does not mention that
> the impression of autonomy in your GNU project has been explicitly
> blessed by the chief gnuisance and can be taken away at any time based
> on his will.  Basically the difference between the queen of England and
> the Kind of Saudi Arabia.  OK maybe not as extreme as Saudi Arabia, but
> basically someone who actually exercises their power.

GNU project is not government. Comparing things which are not similar
to each other is bad analogy.


Jean

Re: A summary of some open discussions

[Jean Louis]

* Siddhesh Poyarekar  [2020-01-15 07:00]:
> On 15/01/20 11:02 am, Jean Louis wrote:
> > Which decision in particular?
> 
> A decision to reinstate the patch that the glibc community had agreed on
> and that RMS got reverted through a bad faith assumption of
> consensus.

Sorry, I do not know what you mean. If you refer to the censorship
joke, RMS made final decision, it need not be by consensus. GNU is
about jokes since its inception. If somebody does not like, can read
jokes which one likes.

> > Siddhesh, your sense for justice is different than sense of justice of
> > RMS. Can you get the idea?
> > 
> > For you is public opinion what matters most. For RMS is justice that
> > matters most.
> > 
> > RMS is pretty uncompromising person when it comes to justice issues.
> 
> RMS' sense of justice and your take of my sense of justice are not the
> topic of discussion, so even though I don't agree with both of those
> assessments, I will not rebut it.
> 
> > GNU project is not government. Comparing things which are not similar
> > to each other is bad analogy.
> 
> ... but I haven't compared the GNU project with governments, I have
> compared it with Kingdoms :)
> 
> Siddhesh

Is nothing of that kind. Totally wrong.

Re: A summary of some open discussions

[Jean Louis]

* Siddhesh Poyarekar  [2020-01-15 07:09]:
> >> ... but I haven't compared the GNU project with governments, I have
> >> compared it with Kingdoms :)
> >>
> >> Siddhesh
> > 
> > Is nothing of that kind. Totally wrong.
> > 
> 
> Of course not with a military, bureaucrats and all that, at least not
> that I'm aware of.  But as a top down organisation that operates at the
> explicit blessing of the one at the top, of course it is.  You can say
> that you don't like the analogy for whatever but you can't just claim
> that it's incorrect.
> 
> Siddhesh

Software projects on this planet Earth are mostly started by private
individuals, and there are private companies starting software
projects.

It is true that one who is not creator of such, normally cannot
participate in substantial changes of such software projects,
especially, it is impossible to just kick out the founder of the
project. It is ridiculous even to think of that, as that is indication
of criminal mind. It is like kicking out the home owner out of his own
home.

GNU project consists of many pieces of software and you are free to
contribute and change and propose whatever you wish.

Right now you are only making a point that you don't find it good that
RMS is founder of the project, all that due to a joke, that is somehow
waste of time.

Jean

Re: A summary of some open discussions

[nylxs]

On 1/14/20 2:04 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> 3. That censorship claim is ridiculous. 


the censorship is real

Re: Moderation

[nylxs]

On 1/14/20 10:42 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
>> Then why did you start in the first place with defamation of GNU
>> project and RMS?
> This has been discussed ad nauseam and every conceivable point has been
> made multiple times over.  Let's please move on.


why should we?

Re: A summary of some open discussions

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 01:05:02 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> This was indeed what I meant. More specifically I said "GNU
> maintainers serve at the pleasure of the FSF" because that is what I
> really believe. I certainly joined GNU because I support the FSF
> mission. My copyright assignment is with the FSF. When I became a GNU
> maintainer I was added to some FSF internal lists that said "For ALL
> gnu programmers (volunteers included) and programmers of software that
> the FSF has included in GNU." As a GNU maintainer the FSF arranged I
> could talk to legal counsil (java used to have lots of tricky legal
> issues). The FSF sysadmins have always helped with any extra technical
> setups GNU projects need. I am a member of the FSF and donate money to
> the GNU project through the FSF.

The relationship can be confusing; GNU and the FSF have been pretty
tightly coupled form the beginning (the FSF was created for GNU), but
there are important separations.

Clarification about the relationship between GNU and the FSF will
hopefully come soon.  But GNU maintainers do not serve at the pleasure
of the FSF.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature