Re: what is GNU? what is a social contract?

[Carlos O'Donell]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 12:18 AM Carlo Wood  wrote:
> They are hostile towards the GNU project.

Yes, we are opposed to the current governance structure of the GNU Project.

> Therefore, there is nothing to discuss really. The correct
> thing to do right now is to ignore their attempts to sow discord.

My goal is certainly not to sow discord, but to engage in change that
improves the governance and effectiveness of the GNU Project.

> I will certainly not object to discuss *a* social contract, but not
> with these people, who even created a misleading "gnu*" website, trying
> to convince people they speak for the GNU project. Perhaps we
> can pick this up again in a few months when things have returned
> to normal :)

The goal behind creating wiki.gnu.tools is not to be misleading, but
to create additional tools for GNU Maintainers.

Right now we're offering a git-backed wiki for GNU Maintainers to use.

Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Cause for bans

[nipponmail]

Dear Ruben Safir,
If you're going to take legal action, take it. Don't just "threaten" 
forever. Your "threats" and unhappiness have no meaning if you do not 
take the next step (note: legal "threats" are not threats)
200 dollar filing fee, have one of your friends help you pro-bono. If 
you have a case, do it. And forward me the case number as I would like 
to watch (I mean that sincerely, I like to read as cases unfold). I 
don't like censorship either, or extraneous writings (such as social 
contracts) non-attorneys try to impose in-order to extend or modify the 
actual copyright licenses and practices that actual copyright holders 
and developers have decided upon.



On 2020-02-04 18:34, Ruben Safir wrote:

On 2/2/20 5:37 AM, Ales Cepek wrote:

I was not sure whether to endorse the GNU Social Contract or not, but
you definitely convinced me that I should. Thank you for removing my
doubts.



Thank You!


This is now enough evidence to bring to court for legal action. It
proves that the site is intentionally misrepresnting the GNU project 
and

that it succeeds in causing confusion, : IE it is a successful phishing
site.



Aleš Čepek

On 2/1/20 9:23 PM, facebook wrote:

https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct



This webpage is cause for banning of individuals from the GNU 
Project.

It is PHISHING of the GNU organization

and prclaims policies for GNU that didn't come from its official
governing structure.



These individuals need to be banned, regardless of what contribution
they make.  There is no justificiation for PHISHING the GNU name and
organiziation.  This is a serious legal and ethical violation that 
has
to be forcefully confronted.  Also, be aware, that failure to protect 
a

trade mark is cause for the government to rule against trademark
authorization and pocession.  They need to be zelously protected, or
they are legally lost.


Ruben






--
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: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Andreas R.]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:12:04PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> "Andreas R."  writes:
> > The wiki has been described as a tool for *all* GNU maintainers, even
> > though it's only available to a certain subset of GNU maintainers
> > willing to agree to new stipulations that were never part of being a
> > GNU maintainer.
> 
> The wiki states "currently limited to GNU Maintainers".  It does not
> explicitly state that being a GNU maintainer is sufficient to guarantee
> access, although it does state "wiki for GNU Maintainers".  I see no
> ambiguity here, it's intended audience is GNU maintainers,
> non-maintainers are not invited yet.

Being accesible to _all_ GNU maintainers has been mentioned multiple times by 
the gnu.tools community leaders when referencing the wiki on this list:

"The wiki is free to use for all GNU Maintainers."[1]
"the wiki is open to all GNU maintainers"[2]

I'm sure it's a fairly harmless oversight, but it does skew potential 
participation towards those who are already in agreement with more
stringent social participation requirements.

> > Until this distinction becomes more clear, pointing out the difference
> > helps prevent misunderstanding.
> 
> Incessantly pointing out the difference, as the sole point of an entire
> email, does not add anything to the conversation.

Normally no, but in this case gnu.tools leadership has sent out a GNU project
wide email to all GNU maintainers with the instruction to mail their 
approval to this list[3].

It's not unreasonable to assume most GNU maintainers do not follow this
list and are unaware of the discussion and the various arguments around 
the document, and as such should be made aware of the fact that they are
not participating in an official GNU poll.

[1]https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00067.html
[2]https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00031.html
[3]https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-wiki/tree/code/sc-email.txt

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Daniel Pocock]

> I, Frederic Y. Bois, maintainer of package GNU MCSim, endorse version
> 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at
> .


People are welcome to endorse the social contract (or any other
document, like the Bible or the Koran) if they wish

However, how is that relevant if some people endorse it and others don't?

Could it be better to work from the ground up, to document the points
which almost everybody agrees on before talking about the points that
are controversial?

gnu social construct 1.0 endorsement

[Mark Galassi]

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
.

Mark Galassi

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Frederic,

Mark Wielaard  skribis:

> On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 12:31 +0100, fredoma...@free.fr wrote:
>> As far as I can see, there has not been modification to the proposed
>> GNU Social Contract, and I happy to re-iterate my support to it.
>
> There were several pieces of feedback that were either not sent to the
> public list, or are still held up in moderation. We are still adding
> them all to https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback and after
> processing them all we hope to have the final 1.0 as soon as possible.
> Sorry for the delay.

We reached 1.0 yesterday a few hours after your message:

  https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract

Background on the discussions that took place at:

  https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback

You’re welcome to reiterate your support if that’s still fine with you!

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: Moderation

[Ludovic Courtès]

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
> .  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.

I didn’t get any response from you on this matter.

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 through unmoderated AFAICS
(i.e., there’s no delay between their ‘Date’ header and the time I
receive them.)

Mike, Brandon: please rectify this situation.

Thanks in advance,
Ludo’.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Andy,

On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 20:14 +0100, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Recently I put dozens of hours into
> analyzing past GNU releases.  The result is here:
> 
>   https://wingolog.org/archives/2020/02/09/state-of-the-gnunion-2020

Thanks for that and for publishing the raw data too. The data itself is
fascinating. I must say I don't really know how to interpret the data.
Also because as you say active package count isn't precisely the same
as project health. Having more data, like lines of code and/or
contributor counts would be nice. But even harder to collect.

Two random observations for packages that I happened to look at:

- In the manually-collected-release-dates you include eprints,
  but it isn't really clear that is still
  a GNU package. https://www.gnu.org/software/eprints/ just
  redirects to https://www.eprints.org/uk/
  I cannot even find the word GNU on their website.
  The sources mention GNU EPrints 4 times, but almost everywhere
  the software is just called EPrints. Other uses of GNU are only
  in combination with the (L)GPL.
- GNU diction did do some releases through ftp.gnu.org, but
  does also have some more releases at
  http://www.moria.de/~michael/diction/
  But it isn't really clear how you would know that.
  Gentoo has the newer versions, but no other distro seems to
  have picked them up. Since they aren't published on ftp.gnu.org.

No real conclusion from those observations. Except that getting
reliable data about GNU packages is much harder than it looks.

Thanks for collecting it all. And I hope people will look at it and
sent in updates where possible.

Cheers,

Mark