Re: duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >Is FSF censoring gnu-misc-discuss and other GNU lists and are
   >these other things an attempt to circumvent that?
   > 
   > The FSF is not handling moderation of GNU project mailing lists,
   > nor is there any censorship going on here anymore.  The list _is_

   I noticed some of my own posts to this list were delayed, sometimes
   by many hours

Yes, and sometimes days because people have other things to do.  There
isn't any harm in such a delay either, people should have more
patience.

Lets please drop talks about censorship and banning of people, since
neither things will occur here.  If people can follow the GNU Kind
Communications Guidelines and the guidelines for this list
(https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss), then such
messages will always go through no matter what.

Even messages that criticize the GNU project, they are free to post
here.  So lets not fall into the same trap as those pushing for the
anti-social edict, which tries enforce group think, and activley
excludes contributors based on their opinon.

Re: duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[Daniel Pocock]

On 16/02/2020 09:43, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>Is FSF censoring gnu-misc-discuss and other GNU lists and are these
>other things an attempt to circumvent that?
> 
> The FSF is not handling moderation of GNU project mailing lists, nor
> is there any censorship going on here anymore.  The list _is_

I noticed some of my own posts to this list were delayed, sometimes by
many hours

> moderated but that is to get rid of very nasty and obvious garbage --
> the majority sent by a single person who is the one who setup the
> ghost list.  Since they are constantly trying to subvert any means, it
> has meant that things pass through slowly, and sometimes garbage
> sneaks through.  
> 
> I suspect that people are also simply confused as to which list is
> which, making it look all crazy.

That may be the primary intention of some people.  Some users end up
unsubscribing from all the lists when confronted with too much garbage
and confusion.

>Can there be a more efficient way to achieve this?
> 
> Since the GNU project isn't in control of the ghost list, we can't do
> much to address that. :-( Do you have any suggestions on how to tackle
> this? 

The first thing is transparency.  It is useful to document factually,
not politically, what has actually happened.  E.g. foo was censored, foo
forked the list, how many people have copies of subscriber data,
unsubscribe links for each list.  This can be written without taking
sides or blaming anybody.  Most users can decide for themselves how they
want to proceed.

Users who control their own mail servers probably have tactical
solutions they can use, e.g. /etc/postfix/access

Mail filters can also be used.  For example, telling the filter to match
on certain things in the Received headers.

Strategically, both the censorship that started the problem and the
attempts to work around the censorship are both faults that need to be
addressed at a high level, it raises questions like:

- what is the best way to build an electronic communications platform
that is de-centralized, without gatekeepers/censors/moderators but also
not susceptible to abuse?

- taking a step back even further, can and should free software
communities operate without discussion lists or any mailing lists?

Regards,

Daniel

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le samedi 15 février 2020, 19:12:09 CET Dmitry Gutov a écrit :
> 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. Why don't you choose a better, more
> specific term, as has been suggested multiple times?

No, actually english is what makes that ambiguous (I guess by default it’d 
be the same in russian wouldn’t it?).  In french, we could have say “Nous, 
(des) contributeurs GNU” (but maybe the ambiguity would still stay 
there…), or “Nous, les contributeurs GNU” (the ambiguity would be gone), 
but in english it’s incorrect to say “us, the GNU contributors” (but maybe 
we should start x))… so as long as it can be indefinite, it can be only a 
way to *describe* (contingent) the “us” (so just to say the “us” refers to 
people who happens to be GNU contributors), rather than to *define* 
(essential) it (so the set “us” *would be* the set “GNU contributors”… 
which is false, as there are likely too many of them, and likely many of 
them are dead, don’t read this mailing-list, far away, or totally don’t 
care, etc.).

Sometimes the very existence of plural piss me off.  Would be better if 
plural didn’t exist, and when you wanted something akin, you were forced 
to use any *defined* logical concept (none, some, every/all), or 
statistical concept (most, majority, biggest majority (>30%), averages, 
medians, quartiles, etc.).

But I doubt, in their position, they’re in favor of more clarity and 
precision, quite the opposite, as it *could* benefit them.

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 16 février 2020, 12:20:07 CET Daniel Pocock a écrit :
> On 16/02/2020 09:43, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> >Can there be a more efficient way to achieve this?
> > 
> > Since the GNU project isn't in control of the ghost list, we can't do
> > much to address that. :-( Do you have any suggestions on how to tackle
> > this?
> 
> The first thing is transparency.  It is useful to document factually,
> not politically, what has actually happened.  E.g. foo was censored, foo
> forked the list, how many people have copies of subscriber data,
> unsubscribe links for each list.  This can be written without taking
> sides or blaming anybody.  Most users can decide for themselves how
> they want to proceed.

+1

Though some will be lazy, tided anyway, and unsubscribe anyway :/

Anyway, this is illegal and bad behavior (subscribing people to something 
(especially something controlled by a different person) without their 
consent).

> Users who control their own mail servers probably have tactical
> solutions they can use, e.g. /etc/postfix/access

Overkill, it’s not made for that, you’d better use client-side stuff, or 
antispam tools.

> Mail filters can also be used.  For example, telling the filter to match
> on certain things in the Received headers.

The canonical way is to use list-id.  The hangout list conforms to that, 
so that can be used to filter/separate both lists.

But yeah “received” allows to use information from your own webserver and 
be sure it works even if other mailservers and headers lie.  But this is 
not the case, fortunately.

> - what is the best way to build an electronic communications platform
> that is de-centralized, without gatekeepers/censors/moderators but also
> not susceptible to abuse?

Client-side spamfilter, willingly shared blacklists and bayesian antiwords 
list.  But willingly sharing blacklist is tedious.  It ought to be 
automated.  So I’d recommand something recursive and indirect, like liquid 
democracy: a WoT of blacklists, ponderated by social distance to you (how 
many bonds).  But that’s complex to implement.  And, to be decentralized, 
has to be clientside.

Or at least mail-server side but I find that pretty bad as it suffers from 
issues of *federation* [1] and emprison users into the will of their 
providers (providers they might not be willing to change, to keep some 
technology, service quality, or simply internet address (domain name)), 
and it is as easy to implement client-side than server-side (except if 
server-side, the work is to be done by admins, so you’re back with the 
initial problem, plus you need compliant server, plus if you want user to 
have a say need a platform for it)

[1] https://secushare.org/federation

But generally “decentralization” and “moderation/antiabuse” go against 
each other.

> - taking a step back even further, can and should free software
> communities operate without discussion lists or any mailing lists?

They do.  With private and member-only lists.  And this is what chief 
GNUisance asked for several time: use the private GNU mailing-lists.  But 
Ludo don’t want this.  They want to act in the public light… yet they 
don’t want the disadvantages of it :/ (trolls).  They want the fame and 
reputation of freedom, without its downsides.

Re: GNU Social Contract 1.0 - doubts

[Brian.Tiffin]

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.
>
> 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.
> Please be so kind as to record that somewhere and if you make any public
> lists of
> responses it would be nice to put that in.
>
>
Totally agree with Phil on this one.  I voted no on even holding these
discussions in a public area, months ago now.  Still don't want to take
part.

So, you'll find my imaginary non endorsement tucked inside my letter to
Santa.

If that sounds like an unkind swipe, it is.  I have no inclination to
think that any, ANY, of these current modes of communication are well
intended; responses will not be veiled as well intended or kind.  Akin
to when you may have to slap someone in the face when they are risking
themselves and others in a state of panic.  Sowing discontent with a
polite smile is not good, it smacks of evil and willful ignorance.

I'll add that I'd like to be removed from any further imaginary fair-use
of the email address that was scraped from fencepost, Ludovic.  Make
that removal real, please.  You were not given my permission for use of
that information for that purpose.  And now you are given an explicit
demand to cease and desist.  The fact that that information might happen
to match what I may have exposed on gnu-misc-discuss and other lists is
irrelevant.  Cease and desist usage for those imaginary purposes. 
Personally speaking, there is no i in my concept of team GNU.  There is
"me", Richard Stallman and those he deems worthy of the Gnuisance moniker.

This us versus them wedge is imaginary; the fallout and after effects
are and will be real, and in my opinion, damagingly so.

Have good, make real

Re: duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Is FSF censoring gnu-misc-discuss and other GNU lists and are these
   other things an attempt to circumvent that?

The FSF is not handling moderation of GNU project mailing lists, nor
is there any censorship going on here anymore.  The list _is_
moderated but that is to get rid of very nasty and obvious garbage --
the majority sent by a single person who is the one who setup the
ghost list.  Since they are constantly trying to subvert any means, it
has meant that things pass through slowly, and sometimes garbage
sneaks through.  

I suspect that people are also simply confused as to which list is
which, making it look all crazy.

   Can there be a more efficient way to achieve this?

Since the GNU project isn't in control of the ghost list, we can't do
much to address that. :-( Do you have any suggestions on how to tackle
this? 

Re: duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[Daniel Pocock]

On 16/02/2020 12:59, Ruben Safir wrote:
> It is pretty simple.  Stop trying to remove the emotional content
> of my emails in face of this broad injustice to RMS and GNU

This is a legitimate and important point

Any serious course on communication teaches that logos, ethos and pathos
go together.

One of the things people try to do with Codes of Conduct is to undermine
that, reducing the communication to logos alone.  In other words, people
can do work for free in their communities but nobody can offer an
alternative leadership vision.

> Stop the soft talking Nazi's from pushing their political agenda to
> destroy GNU
> 
> and Stop Censuring me.
> 
> After 30 years of this crap on mailing lists, this is the breaking
> point.  I am sick of these talk kindly and be nice rules  when people
> are straight out trying to .

This is an accurate assessment of the situation.

Nonetheless, I don't feel your solution is the only option and I feel
you can make more impact without certain words.

As for a technical solution, please look at how I put the Libre back
into Libreplanet:
https://fsfellowship.eu/freedom-and-censorship-on-mailing-lists/

Running a forked list for discuss...@lists.fsfe.org was important
because I see no value in encouraging new people to join FSFE.  The
constitution of the organization is rigged and they have no elections
any more.  They are Google puppets.

But for FSF/LibrePlanet and GNU, the situation is a little bit
different.  By simulating List-Id headers, you avoid the inconvenience
of duplicate messages.  Less people will be annoyed and they focus on
contents of your message rather than the duplication of messages.

Look at what happened in FSFE, here is how I tell the story without foul
language, do you feel it remains easy to read and gets the point across?

a) May 2017: an independent candidate elected, not the person management
wanted

b) December 2017: to dilute the vote of people elected by the community,
the FSFE President appoints his friend Florian Snow and some of his
employees to have a vote in the GA/board too

c) May 2018: special general meeting changes constitution.  Only 9
people at the meeting, 5 staff.  It is done in Berlin office while the
community representative is at an event in Kosovo.

d) later 2018: FSFE President censors emails and blog of the
representative elected by the community

e) FSFE President engages in conspiracy with Debian and Mozilla to
further censor blog posts of last community representative, removing the
representative from FSFE and Debian keyring on the same day

They offered the community an election, they didn't get a result they
liked so they made a conspiracy.  This level of cheating is clearly
criminal.

Regards,

Daniel

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-16 05:20, Alexandre François Garreau wrote:

Le dimanche 16 février 2020, 10:43:44 CET Alfred M. Szmidt a écrit :

   Is FSF censoring gnu-misc-discuss and other GNU lists and are these
   other things an attempt to circumvent that?

The FSF is not handling moderation of GNU project mailing lists, nor
is there any censorship going on here anymore.  The list _is_
moderated but that is to get rid of very nasty and obvious garbage --


How isn’t moderation censorship?  That it’s useful or even good is not 
a

sufficient reason not to call it censorship.


How moderation isn't censorship is that it isn't a state-imposed ban
that curtails your freedom to express ideas within your entire country.

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Jean Louis]

* Andreas Enge  [2020-02-15 11:29]:
> Hello all,
> 
> just a public heads-up on progress on the GNU Social Contract.

That is misleading and misguiding as in last days, on this public and
official GNU mailing list it was announced that "GNU Social Contract"
is not authorized by GNU project, it is not GNU, and that you should
publish that it is not endorsed by GNU, and you should in my opinion
immediately remove the brand "GNU" from the website.

It is misleading to say "public heads-up" on a mailing list of GNU,
because it is not.

In my opinion, it would be better working on free software production
instead of wasting time of multiple people on this mailing list.

> Following our initially announced timeline, we had put online the
> first draft at the end of January.

It is misleading of the public on this mailing list, to say "we"
without saying that it is not official GNU and that your website
gnu.tools is not endorsed by GNU project, neither affiliated with it.

> 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 form a
> stronger community. It is both an agreement among us, GNU
> contributors, and a pledge to the broader free software
> community.

It is misleading to say so, as it was clearly rejected by many people
and rejections you did not publish on the domain which was not
authorized by GNU project: gnu.tools to speak on behalf of GNU
project.

> We received a number of questions and suggestions on the first draft of the
> document, witnesses to our collective approach to shaping a document that
> can help us go forward together. We discussed all the input with great
> care; it is documented, together with the adopted resolutions, at:
>   https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback

As you have not published all the comments, the feedback is clearly
biased. You have accepted only what you like, and have not published
what you don't like.

Further, "resolutions" are normally conducted by voting, you have not
published who voted on what, thus making your own attitude very much
not transparent.

> The result of all this is version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, see
>   https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract

It was rejected by GNU and as you do not represent GNU project, you
should remove the word GNU from there.

> We believe that the outcome is an even snappier document, which lays out
> our common foundations even more clearly, and thank everyone of you who
> contributed to improving it.

It is misleading to say "we" on this mailing list if your website have
been already rejected by GNU project, as people may think that "we"
relate to official GNU, which is not the case.


-- 
Thanks,
Jean Louis

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Ruben Safir]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 11:52:10AM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
> 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 

Makes you a replacable volunteer who has zero say over the orgnaization
and you never will.  Whatever influence you ever wanted to have, you
basically killed with this power grab and support for libel.

> and many
> more contributors, I can of course not "decide" by myself what the values of
> the GNU Project are. But the process of reaching this document has been 
> open
> and collective, 

Too bad for you, though, that GNU is not.  Otherwise you would be 
using Outlook, insteald of MUTT.


>so that we hope that it reflects a broader consensus than
> just individual opinions. And the endorsement period is also there to gauge
> whether the document strikes a more general chord.
> 
> Andreas
> 
> 
> ___
> Hangout mailing list
> hang...@nylxs.com
> http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout

-- 
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: [Hangout - NYLXS] GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Ruben Safir]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 08:12:09PM +0200, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> 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. Why don't you choose a better,
> more specific term, as has been suggested multiple times?


There is nothing to imply.  They are saying outright that they plan
on using this as a mechanism to gain control of GNU leadership, even
if it means just rendering the current leadership and meaningless.

They are trying to create a shadow government for GNU without Stallman.

> 
> I could call it "GNU SJW WG" (in jest, mostly), but *any* name would
> do, that would somehow differentiate the signatories from the whole
> project.
> 
> Preferably in a way that doesn't imply that the rest of the project
> are terrible people.
> 
> ___
> Hangout mailing list
> hang...@nylxs.com
> http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout

-- 
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

Aw: Re: Moderation

[Kim Lee]

 

 

u wnt it both ways!  under the 1 hand u want moderation.  at the same time u want not to be.

 

i think u want other people moderated but not u.

 

u r just arrogent!


Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Februar 2020 um 01:23 Uhr
Von: "Mark Wielaard" 
An: "Ludovic Courtès" 
Cc: "Mike Gerwitz" , "Brandon Invergo" , gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Betreff: 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 through unmoderated AFAICS
> (i.e., there’s no delay between their ‘Date’ header and the time I
> receive them.)

I am seeing the same thing. My own posts seem to take multiple days to
arrive on the list. While others seem to only have a short delay. If
there is anything I can do to help with the moderation please let me
know.

Thanks,

Mark
 

duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[Daniel Pocock]

Some odd things appear to be going on between gnu-misc-discuss and
hang...@nylxs.com

Some people appear to be cross-posting to both lists and/or other lists

Somebody appears to have set up out-of-band forwarding of messages from
the list hang...@nylxs.com to go to other individual addresses
subscribed to the gnu-misc-discuss list so some messages are delivered
more than once.

Is FSF censoring gnu-misc-discuss and other GNU lists and are these
other things an attempt to circumvent that?

Can there be a more efficient way to achieve this?

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le samedi 15 février 2020, 02:33:35 CET Mark Wielaard a écrit :
> This initiative is not supported by Richard Stallman.

You may as well say “by the GNU Project in its current govermental state”.

But as you seem to be willing to ignore anything said to you about what is 
GNU currently, as if “ignoring current reality” was a good way of changing 
it for the one you’re aiming at and talking about (just as if colorblind 
antiracism or sofa socialism could work)…

…at least precise that “…this is why this wiki is not hosted on GNU.org or 
a subdomain of it”.

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 16 février 2020, 02:37:33 CET Ruben Safir a écrit :
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 08:12:09PM +0200, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> > 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. Why don't you choose a better, more
> > specific term, as has been suggested multiple times?
> > 
> > I could call it "GNU SJW WG" (in jest, mostly), but *any* name would
> > do, that would somehow differentiate the signatories from the whole
> > project.
> > 
> > Preferably in a way that doesn't imply that the rest of the project
> > are
> > terrible people.
> 
> No - you did that when you accused Stallman of being in support of Rape
> and discriminating against women.

No, Dmitry Gutov (the person you’re answering to) never did that.  He’s 
even defending your cause (but not with your aggressivity).  Stop that.  
Not only you’re unkind (aggressive), but you’re becoming paranoïd.  
Believing that any person beside you is against you (and except maybe rms 
himself, who you are trying to defend… which is understandable but 
inconsistent as he’s probably the most moderate, reasonable and silent 
actor here).

Re: duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[Daniel Pocock]

On 16/02/2020 15:02, John Darrington wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 01:44:57PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16/02/2020 12:59, Ruben Safir wrote:
>>> It is pretty simple.  Stop trying to remove the emotional content
>>> of my emails in face of this broad injustice to RMS and GNU
>>
>> This is a legitimate and important point
> 
> I'm not sure to which point you are refering.
> 
> Highlighting injustice is certainly a legitimate use of GNU 
> infrastructure - especially when it is being perpetrated in
> such a sustained and systematic way.
> 
> On the other hand, using this list to vent emotion (even when
> severly provoked) is not, in my opinion, an acceptable use.


Let me clarify then:

Except for some extreme cases, emails featuring emotive language don't
deserve to be censored

People who use metaphors as a way to help readers understand something
are not doing anything wrong either.  John Sullivan censored me from
libreplanet when I used the lynching metaphor.  If anybody wants to
discuss that particular metaphor, please don't reply here, take it up on
the libreplanet-discuss list.

An example with emotion and metaphor that would be censored under some
Codes of Conduct:
After the corruption of voting in FSFE and the Debian Project Leader
election in 2019, I felt really cheated, like those Aussie swimmers who
missed out on medals at the Olympics because the Chinese were doping.

Regards,

Daniel

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le samedi 15 février 2020, 11:52:08 CET Alfred M. Szmidt a écrit :
>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.

Yeah but isn’t that in some way implied by the very existence of the 
document?  I mean what if the initiative “does not entirely accord with 
the GNU Project’s views”, and propose a radical change from them?

GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le samedi 15 février 2020, 19:25:56 CET Andreas Enge a écrit :
> I agree with your analysis that trying to form a stronger GNU community
> should (and probaby will) be an open-ended process, requiring ongoing
> efforts with all interested people. And maybe people who are not
> interested in the GNU Social Contract

“Stronger GNU” is a pretty objective (for a subjective initiative) and 
wide concept.  It should be more inclusive.  However the “Social Contract” 
thing is not as much open as it could, as it requires from people who are 
not endorsing, supporting or at least agreeing with GNU Project (who has 
been famous to be pretty radical and extreme in views) “non-action” as a 
biggest participation.  This is not open.

I believe a “stronger GNU” could perfectly involve people who would 
disagree at least partially with GNU.  I expect free-software movement to 
be generally waay wider than people fully agreeing with GNU.  So 
either you’re willing to lessening GNU’s views, or to limit yourself to a 
narrower set of people.  I don’t see how any of these can make GNU 
stronger, pretty much the opposite.

The worse being lessening GNU’s views, because they’re rather unique and 
rare and need to be defended.  But I think you don’t *intend* or at least 
*realize* to do that.

The worse is that I believe that in the end, not realizing it, you may as 
well do both at the same time.

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Moderation

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 16 février 2020, 09:38:52 CET Kim Lee a écrit :
> u wnt it both ways!  under the 1 hand u want moderation.  at the same
> time u want not to be. 
> i think u want other people moderated but not u.
>  
> u r just arrogent!

Worse:

> Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Februar 2020 um 01:23 Uhr
> Von: "Mark Wielaard" 
>> If
>> there is anything I can do to help with the moderation please let me
>> know.

I think they, without admitting it directly thou, want to be added *again* 
as moderators (while they have been removed after abusing it).

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 16.02.2020 3:37, Ruben Safir wrote:

No - you did that when you accused Stallman of being in support of Rape
and discriminating against women.


Err, I didn't.

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 16 février 2020, 02:27:22 CET Ruben Safir a écrit :
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 11:52:10AM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
> > 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
> 
> Makes you a replacable volunteer

No.  Everyone is unique and could have something new to bring, if only 
willing to work together t-t

Please be kind, you’re counterproductive, as almost always :/

Re: gnu social construct 1.0 endorsement

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Snce these endorsements of a non-GNU document are repetitive, and do
not foster any discussion topic, specifically since the GNU project is
not going to adopt anything like this -- can you please recommend
people to not post them here?

Re: duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[John Darrington]

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 01:44:57PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> 
> 
> On 16/02/2020 12:59, Ruben Safir wrote:
> > It is pretty simple.  Stop trying to remove the emotional content
> > of my emails in face of this broad injustice to RMS and GNU
> 
> This is a legitimate and important point

I'm not sure to which point you are refering.

Highlighting injustice is certainly a legitimate use of GNU 
infrastructure - especially when it is being perpetrated in
such a sustained and systematic way.

On the other hand, using this list to vent emotion (even when
severly provoked) is not, in my opinion, an acceptable use.

Yet another point is that of cross posting.  I would kindly
ask that when people reply to this list, that they do NOT
CC hang...@nylxs.com and if you post to hang...@nylxs.com
then please do not CC gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org

People are welcome to participate in whichever list they
choose, but replying to both is a waste of resources and
causes confusion and complicates things for everyone.

J'

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Mark Wielaard]

Hoi Janneke,

On Sun, 2020-02-16 at 20:28 +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> I, a maintainer of GNU Mes and GNU LilyPond and a developer on GNU Guix
> and GNU 8sync, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available
> at .

Thanks for your support. You have been added to


Groetjes,

Mark

Re: duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[Ruben Safir]

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 03:12:49PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> 
> 
> On 16/02/2020 15:02, John Darrington wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 01:44:57PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 16/02/2020 12:59, Ruben Safir wrote:
> >>> It is pretty simple.  Stop trying to remove the emotional content
> >>> of my emails in face of this broad injustice to RMS and GNU
> >>
> >> This is a legitimate and important point
> > 
> > I'm not sure to which point you are refering.
> > 
> > Highlighting injustice is certainly a legitimate use of GNU 
> > infrastructure - especially when it is being perpetrated in
> > such a sustained and systematic way.
> > 
> > On the other hand, using this list to vent emotion (even when
> > severly provoked) is not, in my opinion, an acceptable use.
> 


But it is.  Human beings have emotion and telling someone that are
pissing them off is 100% proper communication

> 
> Let me clarify then:
> 
> Except for some extreme cases, emails featuring emotive language don't
> deserve to be censored
> 
> People who use metaphors as a way to help readers understand something
> are not doing anything wrong either.  John Sullivan censored me from
> libreplanet when I used the lynching metaphor.  If anybody wants to
> discuss that particular metaphor, please don't reply here, take it up on
> the libreplanet-discuss list.
>

The lynching metaphor was a 100% aproprate means to communicate what the
dynamic that is being used to screw RMS, and to sacrifice him on the
alter of "holy justice" by a select few people who wrongfully believe
that anyone should be thrown to the wolves in the pursuit of there
favorite poltical cause.

The truth is, that in a just world, Stallman is reinstalled as the
President of the FSF, and the GNU ban of pirates maintainers are simply
banned.

Then the mailing list can go back to normal and GNU can go back to doing 
job it was created for, to address the serious political implications 
of unfree software on a free society.


> An example with emotion and metaphor that would be censored under some
> Codes of Conduct:
> After the corruption of voting in FSFE and the Debian Project Leader
> election in 2019, I felt really cheated, like those Aussie swimmers who
> missed out on medals at the Olympics because the Chinese were doping.

Debian is a democratically run institution created for a whole different
purpose than GNU, but that is an entirely understandble feeling.


> 
> Regards,
> 
> Daniel
> 

-- 
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: duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[John Darrington]

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 01:43:15PM -0500, Ruben Safir wrote:

> > > On the other hand, using this list to vent emotion (even when
> > > severly provoked) is not, in my opinion, an acceptable use.
> 
> 
> Human beings have emotion and telling someone that are
> pissing them off is 100% proper communication

Sure.  But often it is wise to refrain from such communication, and
wise or not, this channel is not the place to do it.

J'

Re: Richard Stallman should be reinstated to President of the FSF

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-16 11:42, Ruben Safir wrote:

Richard Stallman was bullied from his position at MIT and FSF and the
FSF should take the couragous move of reinstating Richard as President
of the FSF


The FSF minus Stallman is a rotten organization; simply adding Stallman
back is not enough. It could use a good old-fashioned house-cleaning.

Everyone behind that heinous, cowardly move should in fact be ousted.

It actually boggles the mind how such leftist nonsense is tolerated in
country that elected Trump, on a platform consisting of material such
as "grab `em by the pussy", against the reproaches of which throngs of 
people

chanted "we don't care", and who might just give him a second term.

The average American will absolutely not condemn Stallman for some 
remarks

made in defense of Minsky (perfectly understandable and well within his
right), or some comments he wrote on mailing lists on this topic or that
that were actually well-reasoned and rationally defensible.

That's definitely a double standard. You can be as odious as you want, 
if

you have money and power that buy you the attention and support of the
populace, otherwise you can't even breathe the wrong word.

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 16.02.2020 13:45, Alexandre François Garreau wrote:

No, actually english is what makes that ambiguous (I guess by default it’d
be the same in russian wouldn’t it?).


Exactly (and your first option in French as well, I take it).

So we can't blame English. Dropping ", GNU contributors" from the text 
altogether would work just as well to avoid the ambiguity.

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Mark Wielaard writes:

> Hi all,
>
> After several months since our statement that it is time for GNU
> maintainers to collectively decide about the organization of the
> project, we are finally ready for a first small step towards that.
>
> There was a bit of push back that left us no choice than to setup our
> own space for this project. See https://wiki.gnu.tools/ Tools for GNU
> maintainers by GNU maintainers.
>
> But after lots and lots of discussions, a DRAFT proposal and a feedback
> process [*] we finally have: https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract
>
> 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.

Thank you all for working on this.

> If you are a GNU maintainer and do support this initiative please reply
> to this email, Reply-To set, (preferably signed with your OpenPGP key)
> stating:
>
>   I, maintainer of package X, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU
>   Social Contract, available at
>   .
>
> You will then be listed here:
> 

I, a maintainer of GNU Mes and GNU LilyPond and a developer on GNU Guix
and GNU 8sync, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available
at .

> You might have seen that 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.

Of course it is a personal choice for every one of us whether or not to
uphold these basic GNU values.  I know that GNU maintainers are not
required to adhere or uphold even any free software values and I must
say that was pretty shocked when I learnt that, but it makes me happy to
be able to make this commitment of freedom towards our users.

Greetings,
janneke

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen  | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com

Richard Stallman should be reinstated to President of the FSF

[Ruben Safir]

Richard Stallman was bullied from his position at MIT and FSF and the
FSF should take the couragous move of reinstating Richard as President
of the FSF

Nobody but Stallman can do what he does, as a spokeman, and strategic
planner to protect end users from the abuses of non-free software.

The reevaluation of the FSF and GNU should be put on hold and RMS needs
to put back in his rightful place.

Please see http://www.nylxs.com/ for a yet incomplete, but more detailed
explanation as to why this is correct course for the FSF and GNU.  It is
the best response to those who abuse the GNU trademarks, and resources
for their own purposes.

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://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 the GNU Social Contract

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-16 11:28, Jan Nieuwenhuizen 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.


Thank you all for working on this.


That's not working; working is writing code, debugging, documenting,
reviewing.

This monkey business of social contracts is just political sport.

People working on copylefted software need not share any "core values"
other than that copylefted software.

Someone working on the compiler front end can be a communist, whereas
the type checker could be hacked on by (necessarily) a fascist.

There is no need to have the same political views, listen to the same 
music

or anything else.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Dmitry,

On Sat, 2020-02-15 at 19:31 +0200, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> 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 the sole contrarian, and you five 
> (or however many) represent all the "good guys" GNU maintainers who are 
> endorsing this document.

Yes, I see how that formulation is too strong and might be read like
that. I hadn't realized how it sounded. Thanks for pointing that out. I
have updated it to say that "The process followed by this initiative is
not supported by...". Which I hope sounds more neutral and better
describes the core of the disagreement.

Thanks,

Mark

Re: Richard Stallman should be reinstated to President of the FSF

[Christophe Poncy]

On 2/16/20 02:42 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> Richard Stallman was bullied from his position at MIT and FSF and the
> FSF should take the couragous move of reinstating Richard as President
> of the FSF
> 

+1

> Nobody but Stallman can do what he does, as a spokeman, and strategic
> planner to protect end users from the abuses of non-free software.
> 
> The reevaluation of the FSF and GNU should be put on hold and RMS needs
> to put back in his rightful place.
> 
> Please see http://www.nylxs.com/ for a yet incomplete, but more detailed
> explanation as to why this is correct course for the FSF and GNU.  It is
> the best response to those who abuse the GNU trademarks, and resources
> for their own purposes.
> 
> Ruben

The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

[Christophe Poncy]

Simple user here.

On 2/16/20 20:28 PM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Of course it is a personal choice for every one of us whether or not to
> uphold these basic GNU values.  I know that GNU maintainers are not
> required to adhere or uphold even any free software values and I must
> say that was pretty shocked when I learnt that, but it makes me happy to
> be able to make this commitment of freedom towards our users.

FWIW: I do NOT need it. We have the GPL to protect that freedom. Please,
don't take users hostage. This anti-social contract could make us lose
it. Let’s call a cat a cat. It's a tool for you, not for us. Anyway, it
misses the point of free software, his glory, and all that it embraces.
It could help to produce better software by establishing the social
domination of programmers, but in a world governed by code, we have to
focus on the GPL. [1]

As Larry Lessig said, "Richard Stallman's work represents the most
important work for freedom that this culture, the American culture, has
seen in many many generations". [1]  What is happening here is a shame.
Please, stop.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/lessig-fsfs-intro.html
[2] https://www.fsf.org/appeal/2009/lessig-transcript

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

[Ruben Safir]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:01:26AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hoi Janneke,
> 
> On Sun, 2020-02-16 at 20:28 +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> > I, a maintainer of GNU Mes and GNU LilyPond and a developer on GNU Guix
> > and GNU 8sync, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available
> > at .
> 
> Thanks for your support. 

You are not authorized to get support.  What support are you gathering
here?  What do you do with this support?

You continue this nasty charade, and this game with you needs to be
ended by the GNU Governance.


> You have been added to
> 
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Mark

-- 
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: duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[Ruben Safir]

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 02:12:38PM -0500, John Darrington wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 01:43:15PM -0500, Ruben Safir wrote:
> 
> > > > On the other hand, using this list to vent emotion (even when
> > > > severly provoked) is not, in my opinion, an acceptable use.
> > 
> > 
> > Human beings have emotion and telling someone that are
> > pissing them off is 100% proper communication
> 
> Sure.  But often it is wise to refrain from such communication, and
> wise or not, this channel is not the place to do it.
> 

I don't agree with the second part.  I don't agree with most absolutes.  

There is a time and a place.  Its not like I dropped out of the sky after
thirty years and started ranting here.  This is where polite society is
allowing for fraud and libel to occur, at the expense of the community as
a whole.  This is the place where hurtful words disguised as nicities are
being spread.  So in this case, this is where it needs to be confronted.

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 the GNU Social Contract

[Ruben Safir]

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 08:28:50PM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Thank you all for working on this.
> 


There is nothing to thank them for.  They are doing it for there own
greedy reasons.

> > If you are a GNU maintainer and do support this initiative please reply
> > to this email, Reply-To set, (preferably signed with your OpenPGP key)
> > stating:
> >
> >   I, maintainer of package X, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU
> >   Social Contract, available at
> >   .
> >
> > You will then be listed here:
> > 
> 

This cross posting from the illegal website needs to be banned.

> I, a maintainer of GNU Mes and GNU LilyPond and a developer on GNU Guix
> and GNU 8sync, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available
> at .
> 
> > You might have seen that 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.


It is NOT SUPPORTED BY GNU.  It is NOT SUPPORTED by Stallman in his ROLE
as head of the GNU Project.  It is objected to and resisted by the GNU
Project.


> 
> Of course it is a personal choice for every one of us whether or not to
> uphold these basic GNU values.  

The values in this agreement are NOT GNU values.  They not only have
nothing to do with GNU, but they weaken the GNU project and its purpose.

The GNU values is outlined in the Four Freedoms.  In this video, for
example:

http://www.nylxs.com/images/rms_four_freedoms_2016.ogv

you find Richard Stallman ***BRAVELY*** in the face of toltalerian
dictatorship confront forces of digital censorship, control, and
repression, in a place where his message, and the real message of GNU
could have caused him to be arrested and even killed.  It has happened
in that country, and happened recently.

There is no subsitution for these values and there is no substitution
for this man, a man I personal consider my friend.

> I know that GNU maintainers are not
> required to adhere or uphold even any free software values and I must
> say that was pretty shocked when I learnt that, but it makes me happy to
> be able to make this commitment of freedom towards our users.

This contract is a fraud and does nothing to promote freedom or help
GNU.

It seeds discent and lays down cover for an aggressive attack on RMS and
GNU, to create a pretense for destroying the organization and destorying
RMS personally.

Don't make yourself an enemy of GNU and its mission.  Don't cohort with
lynch mods and pirates.

Ruben

> 
> Greetings,
> janneke
> 
> -- 
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen  | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
> Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com

-- 
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: Richard Stallman should be reinstated to President of the FSF

[Jean Louis]

* Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> [2020-02-16 23:17]:
> On 2020-02-16 11:42, Ruben Safir wrote:
> > Richard Stallman was bullied from his position at MIT and FSF and the
> > FSF should take the couragous move of reinstating Richard as President
> > of the FSF
> 
> The FSF minus Stallman is a rotten organization; simply adding Stallman
> back is not enough. It could use a good old-fashioned
> house-cleaning.

I cannot agree on this, as the FSF was already in place and its
founder is RMS, and FSF is doing its job to help in distribution of
free software and fights for free software politics.

When founder sets up a foundation, the foundation runs by itself,
Founder need not be president, this is not necessarily and one can
realistically see that since RMS left as President, that FSF continues
doing its business, and that both GNU and FSF work hand in hand
together.

Thus the activities of the FSF are same activities as before the
event. Good people are running the FSF, and I have no worries about
that.

There are so many various GNU systems around, some containing
proprietary software, but they are in existence, so everybody is free
to take a GNU OS and improve it in such a way that it is fully free
software, by removing the proprietary parts. Some of FSF endorsed GNU
distributions are already doing that. There is Purism, Hyperbola,
Parabola, GuixSD and so on.

Even if there is no financial support and team support by the FSF,
there is still plethora of people who would be helping in creation of
fully free software.

What really does matter is not the FSF alone, but the foundational
philosophy of free software.

> Everyone behind that heinous, cowardly move should in fact be
> ousted.

That is not so, and if you have specific case, that anybody did
something against the Articles of Organization or By-Laws, you should
then speak to them, to FSF. However, it is not a public organization
and they are not in obligation to even consider your requests or
complaints. It is Foundation, Non-Profit Corporation, that has its
founding documents and uses such and free software philosophy for its
management and activities.

> It actually boggles the mind how such leftist nonsense is tolerated
> in country that elected Trump, on a platform consisting of material
> such as "grab `em by the pussy", against the reproaches of which
> throngs of people chanted "we don't care", and who might just give
> him a second term.

Other politics should not be subject in this mailing list. No other
politics but free software politics is subject in GNU operating system
projects, including in discussions.

That is exactly the problem with the anti-social contract (Ludovic
Courtès and few others) as well, they are from the extreme political
direction that is opposed to behavior of people and have expressed it
so on chat and in emails, when I asked them. It is their effort to
"rule" and "govern" the group by some new rules. Yet GNU project was
liberal since its inception and does not accept it.

Just in the same manner that GNU does not promote nor endorse no other
politics, because it is bringing people together, then introducing
Trump as subject is also introducing "other politics". Myself I am
apolitical, but my friend nearby me is respecting Trump, so it really
does not matter, we are together.

Introducing politics in GNU is dividing people, which is what was
demonstrated by their public shamings of RMS and other actions.

> The average American will absolutely not condemn Stallman for some remarks
> made in defense of Minsky (perfectly understandable and well within his
> right), or some comments he wrote on mailing lists on this topic or that
> that were actually well-reasoned and rationally defensible.

It does not matter what average American would do or not, what matters
really is what is just.

Jean

Re: Richard Stallman should be reinstated to President of the FSF

[J.B. Nicholson]

Ruben Safir wrote:

Nobody but Stallman can do what he does, as a spokeman, and strategic
planner to protect end users from the abuses of non-free software.


If that's true then everything RMS headed up is in deep trouble. At some point 
everyone needs to be replaced if only because nobody lives forever. I don't agree 
with the above quoted claim. I think it's possible to find whom we need to keep the 
free software social movement going and I think it's important that more people speak 
publicly about software freedom as a value unto itself.


I won't post to your other mailing list to which I was apparently subscribed without 
asking, and I cannot unsubscribe (the links in the email were unreachable). I 
shouldn't have to unsubscribe as I shouldn't have been subscribed in that manner in 
the first place.

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 16 février 2020, 10:03:11 CET Daniel Pocock a écrit :
> Some odd things appear to be going on between gnu-misc-discuss and
> hang...@nylxs.com
> 
> Some people appear to be cross-posting to both lists and/or other lists

Likely Ruben, right? he used that same domain once for personal mail 
didn’t he?

> Is FSF censoring gnu-misc-discuss and other GNU lists and are these
> other things an attempt to circumvent that?

Yes there is moderation, but this is not of their action.

> Can there be a more efficient way to achieve this?

That recalls me an idea of convention/norm I had once about irc: for each 
channel, create a samenamed channed suffixed with “-offtopic” where anyone in 
the main topic interested in discussing offtopic stuff with people who’re 
used to discuss or be interested into the main topic would be.

The same way a “-unmoderated” list could be created that would relay 
anything having been moderated, for people who don’t mind reading garbage, 
insults and other unkind stuff (alongside with the answers to them).  But 
that’d be difficult to set up.  I recall having talked about a such thing 
with mailman hackers some years ago, but they were already too busy.

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] State of the GNUnion 2020

[Alexander Vdolainen]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2020 19:00:51 EET DJ Delorie wrote:
> a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> > You make the incorrect assumption that the health of the GNU project
> > should be measured in how many new projects are adopted or released --
> > instead of what our goal is to provide a free operating system.
> 
> Are we DONE producing that operating system?
yep, we're *done*.
> No?  If not, why not?
> Aren't all those developers who finished their packages working on
> other, new packages?
well, but why they have to?
> Why aren't the package counts continuing to
> increase, if the developers are otherwise unoccupied?
see the question above.
> 
> I think, package activity *is* a valid metric if the goal is "all
> packages in the OS are free."
no it is *not*.
> 
> If a set of developers finish a package, and don't start on a new one, I
> think that says something interesting about the health of GNU and its
> community.
nope. it says about a lot of things, but it's not about health. 
creating some stupid "gnu social contract" isn't a healthy thing.
> 
> ___
> Hangout mailing list
> hang...@nylxs.com
> http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-16 05:29, Alexandre François Garreau wrote:

Le dimanche 16 février 2020, 12:20:07 CET Daniel Pocock a écrit :

Users who control their own mail servers probably have tactical
solutions they can use, e.g. /etc/postfix/access


Overkill, it’s not made for that, you’d better use client-side stuff, 
or

antispam tools.


A system should filter unwanted events as early in the pipeline as it 
can.


That is more efficient.

I don't want my mail server receiving and delivering stuff that is going
to be certainly deleted later; it wastes bandwidth and cycles.

It's also very simple to implement "drop connections from this
mail host" not to mention simpler to convince yourself that the rule
is correct.

Plus: what if I don't want to get *anything* from that server, list or 
not?