Re: GNU Social Contract 1.0 - doubts

Final answer to the Social Contract Question from Phil Maker 1. Since I've only got two options (:-)) I choose "I do not adhere" which should be read as after a bit of investigation and time wasting that this is a very bad idea. Every rock you lift up has something under it (who, why,

Re: GNU Social Contract 1.0: "level of experience" rhetoric

On 2020-02-14 15:58, Phil Maker wrote: Ludovic, ..., Re the Social Contract I'm sure greater minds than mine have looked at it but I feel obliged to make some sort of response of which the next paragraph is the only important one. Here is a problem: "[The GNU Project] welcomes all

Re: avoiding the bias in vocabulary

On 15/02/2020 21:11, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote: > On 2020-02-15 09:56, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> There are a lot of words used in various discussions today that have >> some bias. >> >> For example, the word /ban/ is quite disparaging to the victim.  Simply >> using the word continues

Re: avoiding the bias in vocabulary

On 2020-02-15 09:56, Daniel Pocock wrote: There are a lot of words used in various discussions today that have some bias. For example, the word /ban/ is quite disparaging to the victim. Simply using the word continues the bias. Note that this word is quite central in the "Code of Conduct"

Re: GNU Social Contract 1.0 - doubts

On 2020-02-15 10:10, Andreas Enge wrote: thanks for thinking about the options and sharing your opinion! Speaking strictly logically, a third option is not possible "If you're not with us, you're against us, comrade." You may wanna brush up on logic, there, buddy. It's quite a broad field,

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

On 2020-02-14 17:33, Mark Wielaard wrote: 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

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

Hello Andreas (R.), On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:14:32PM +0100, Andreas R. wrote: > Could you clarify what this cut-off date of February the 24th means? What > happens afterwards? afterwards we know who endorses and who does not :-) > Since there is no reason for this bloc not to exist, even

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

On 15.02.2020 20:02, Andreas Enge wrote: It is an agreement between those who endorse it, evidently. I am not presuming anything else. It is you who write "all GNU contributors", not me. Saying "us, GNU contributors" is all too easily taken to imply that you represent all GNU contributors.

Re: GNU Social Contract 1.0 - doubts

Hello Phil, On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 09:28:56AM +0930, Phil Maker wrote: > Given the two options "I endorse" or "I do not adhere to" may I be bold as to > choose > the third option, i.e. no thanks, not interested, neither answer is acceptable > to me. thanks for thinking about the options and

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

On 14/02/2020 18:03, Andreas Enge wrote: > We have invited all GNU maintainers to send a message until February 24, > the end of the endorsement period, to endorse this version 1.0 of the > GNU Social Contract, or to declare they do not wish to adhere to it. You appear to be presenting that

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 07:11:31PM +0200, Dmitry Gutov wrote: > On 14.02.2020 20:03, Andreas Enge wrote: > > It is both an agreement among us, GNU contributors > > It's an agreement between select GNU maintainers. > Why do you presume to speak for all GNU contributors? Or even a majority of > us?

gnu social construct 1.0 endorsement

Hello, I am co-maintainer of GNU Hurd. I endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract proposed at . Samuel signature.asc Description: PGP signature

avoiding the bias in vocabulary

There are a lot of words used in various discussions today that have some bias. For example, the word /ban/ is quite disparaging to the victim. Simply using the word continues the bias. >From a technical perspective, banning somebody from a mailing list and censoring somebody on a mailing

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

On 15.02.2020 3:33, Mark Wielaard wrote: This initiative is not supported by Richard Stallman. Nevertheless, we consider it a legitimate action by and for GNU maintainers to collectively define the core values we believe GNU stands for. That makes it sound like Richard is

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

On 14.02.2020 20:03, Andreas Enge wrote: It is both an agreement among us, GNU contributors It's an agreement between select GNU maintainers. Why do you presume to speak for all GNU contributors? Or even a majority of us?

Re: gnu social construct 1.0 endorsement

Hi Samuel, On Sat, 2020-02-15 at 07:49 -0800, Samuel Thibault wrote: > I am co-maintainer of GNU Hurd. I endorse version 1.0 of > the GNU Social Contract proposed at > . Thanks for your support. You have been added to

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

Hi Andreas, On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 07:03:07PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > > We have invited all GNU maintainers to send a message until February 24, > the end of the endorsement period, Could you clarify what this cut-off date of February the 24th means? What happens afterwards? As things

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

This initiative is not supported by Richard Stallman. That is quite false, you're free to do any kind of initiatives you wish, so it is quite the opposite. What the GNU project won't do is to require volunteers to agree to any kind of document similar to this. So why not add the offical

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 05:27:17AM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Since you are not the head of the GNU project, it is not in your > capacity to decide what the values of the GNU project are. Well, being just one out of, I think, a few hundred GNU maintainers and many more contributors, I can

Re: Moderation

Hi, On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:00:41PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > 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

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

Hi Alfred, On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:42:23PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Please rename the non-GNU social edict to something that else, since > it does not reflect the stance of the GNU project. You're perfectly > free to host such a document, but is is untrue to say that this is a >

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

While GNU maintainers and volunteers are free to endorse anything they want, this is not a document that is affiliated with the GNU project. I suggest everyone to read what the GNU project stance is: Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:26:51 -0500 From: "Richard Stallman (Chief GNUisance)" To:

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

just a public heads-up on progress on the GNU Social Contract. Following our initially announced timeline, we had put online the first draft at the end of January. The GNU project has rejected the idea of a social contract. Can you please rename it so to stop causing confusion? Seeing

Re: gnu social construct 1.0 endorsement

There is no such thing as the "GNU Social Contract". The text to which you refer has no affiliation to GNU, is not a contract in any legal nor even colloquaial sense of the word. Furthermore it tries to impose upon people a very anti-social regime. J' On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:25:33PM

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

GCC has a steering committee apointed by the head of the GNU project, not the FSF. The FSF isn't responsible for GCC.

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

Hi David, On Fri, 2020-02-14 at 09:31 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > I, a maintainer of GCC [1], endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social > Contract, available at . Thanks for your support. GCC has an FSF appointed steering committee

GNU Social Contract version 1.0

Hello all, just a public heads-up on progress on the GNU Social Contract. Following our initially announced timeline, we had put online the first draft at the end of January. The goal of the document is to formulate a common core set of values for the GNU Project, on which we can jointly build to

Re: gnu social construct 1.0 endorsement

Hi Mark, On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 12:25 -0700, Mark Galassi wrote: > I am the founder and co-maintainer of the GNU Scientific Library, and of > Dominion, and I am GNU contributor since 1985. I endorse version 1.0 of > the GNU Social Contract, available at >

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] about the GNU promise

Le jeudi 13 février 2020, 18:43:33 CET Ruben Safir a écrit : > On 2/12/20 12:54 AM, Mike Gerwitz wrote: > > Personal attacks weaken your argument and are not appropriate for this > > list. > > No censorship does that. Censorship doesn’t work since you circumvent it by using several mail and

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] security alert... worth noting

Le vendredi 14 février 2020, 20:52:06 CET Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) a écrit : > Not everyone has that control over their mail, unfortunately. You can still filter client-side. Most clients do that, and if your mail- reading software is free, it is easy to implement. Either you do that per

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] What's GNU -- and what's not

Don’t use capslocks. I mean, don’t avoid to use them while you mean them. But if you *feel* you mean and thus need them, just wait a little, calm down, do something else, write your thing, and only when you becomes getting indifferent enough about what you wrote to be able to remove

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Cause for bans

Le jeudi 6 février 2020, 10:51:24 CET Ludovic Courtès a écrit : > John Darrington skribis: >> > 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

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] What's GNU -- and what's not

Le lundi 10 février 2020, 00:18:30 CET Mark Wielaard a écrit : > Hi Frederico, > > On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 01:48:28AM +0200, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > > I'd like to stress a passage which made me think quite a bit: > > > We have never > > > pressed contributors to endorse the GNU Project