Re: A summary of some open discussions

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

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

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

Re: Moderation / Censorship

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 >>

Re: A summary of some open discussions

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

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

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

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

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

Re: A summary of some open discussions

* 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

Re: A summary of some open discussions

* 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 >

Re: Moderation

* 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

Re: A summary of some open discussions

* 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

Re: A summary of some open discussions

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.

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

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 >

Re: A summary of some open discussions

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: A summary of some open discussions

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

Re: Moderation

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?

Moderation

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

suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

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

Re: A summary of some open discussions

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

Re: A summary of some open discussions

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

Re: Moderation

* 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

Re: A summary of some open discussions

> 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

Re: Moderation

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

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

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

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

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

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

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 >

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

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

Re: A summary of some open discussions

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 > > >

Re: A summary of some open discussions

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

Re: A summary of some open discussions

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

Re: Moderation

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 >> .

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

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

Re: A summary of some open discussions

* 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

Re: A summary of some open discussions

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