>> Dressing up the fact that they're behind the times:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkM6RJf15cg
Wow...it's official, our society officially deems us old when
advertisers see fit to appeal to our sense of nostalgia.
But anyway, that ad had nothing to do with IE until the very end, so
it'
hell=True' option if you are passing the full string; otherwise it can
be omitted.
import subprocess
subprocess.call("ls -l /home/rms", shell=True)
subprocess.call(["ls", "-l", "/home/rms"])
-brandon
--
Brandon Invergo
On Mon, 2019-10-21 at 17:08 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> In practice GNU already is mostly a bottom-up organization, where the
> GNU hackers that do the actual work shape the project, but it would be
> nice to make it more formally so.
As I have already described to you and the others elsewhere,
Hi everyone,
For the past month or so, every message to the list has been subject to
moderation, so-called "emergency moderation". It has become clear that
the moderation was being used in a biased manner. We have decided to
remove Mark and Carlos as moderators/admins and to turn off the
emergen
Hi Kaz,
Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) writes:
> I'm afraid I don't agree. Firstly, anyone who is grown up and halfway
> intelligent already knows that those comments don't have anything
> to do with the GNU project; and that there is a lot more to
> GNU than just one person.
This, in particular
Ruben Safir writes:
> On 11/3/19 11:51 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
>> This is unkind and unconstructive.
>
> No it is not. It is SPOT ON and constructive.
>
> Lieing about Richard Stallman, that is unkind and fucked up.
>
> I don't care what your moderation is. I will just copy to places that
> do
Ruben Safir writes:
> The hell with that. She and our Bordeaux fiends should be sued and
> shunned.
>
> Get on the right side of the ethics here.
>
> I don't care about your threats of moderation.
I understand your points, but right now I have zero tolerance for this
low level of discourse. W
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> A bit more than 24 hours later, two things have become clear to me: that
> Mark and Carlos were indeed doing a good moderation job, and that by not
> doing any moderation, you’ve opened the flood gates and silenced the
> rest of us.
>
> In that time we got ~100 messages
Samuel Thibault writes:
> Wow, this is so welcoming a community...
>
> Samuel
Ruben has been placed under moderation and I rejected the message that
you are referring to. If you received it, it's because he sent it to
you personally (I guess by scraping the email addresses of everyone who
has
Dmitry Alexandrov writes:
> Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> The absolute worst thing the public-facing representative of *any*
>> organization can do is bring negative publicity to the organization
>> about things that are irrelevant or contrary to the organization's
>> mission.
>
> Iʼm afraid, you
Thompson, David writes:
> So you ousted the moderators that added you as moderators? How
> lovely. The discourse here has gotten considerably worse since.
> Surely a coincidence.
As I have made abundantly clear, I do not intend to discuss internal GNU
matters on a public list. I invite you t
Dora Scilipoti writes:
> How and by whom they were appointed remains unknown. Certainly not by
> the GNU project. So the most plausible answer is that they took it by force.
That is not true, and it is an unfair accusation of Carlos and Mark. As
I just wrote in another message, unfounded accus
Thompson, David writes:
> I hope you can see the terrible optics this has. Something has
> happened behind the scenes, shortly after you and Mike became
> moderators, that makes it appear as though Carlos and Mark were
> retaliated against for being critical of GNU leadership.
Optics are funny
Andy Wingo writes:
>> Who is “we” in “we have decided” above?
>
> I don't think this question has been answered. Brandon, could you
> clarify please?
>> Can you explain how “moderation was being used in a biased manner”,
>> giving specific examples?
>
> I am also interested in answers to this
Ludovic,
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> I feel bad that you’re characterizing us this way. You’re talking about
> people who’ve dedicated many years or their lives to GNU (more than you
> did!) and still pour huge amounts of energy into it.
>
> That you disagree with what we do is fine; that you accu
Andreas Enge writes:
> Hello,
>
> I will reply once more, but it may be the last time in this thread. Please,
> Alexandre and others, if you wish to contribute, stop rambling and come to
> the point, and actually try to stick to a point that is raised and avoid
> going off on lengthy tangents th
Jean Louis writes:
> "Social contract" has etymology coming from France,
Given that language evolves and contemporary connotation can differ
significantly from the original meaning, no argument can be won through
weaponized etymology. It's more important to understand the intent of
the speaker
Alfred M. Szmidt writes:
>Of course, it is no coincidence if you have a déjà vu feeling when
>looking at the proposed GNU Social Contract. It is intended as a
>base for going forward with the GNU Project, but of course it takes
>the existing into account.
>
> I do not see how it
Jean Louis,
I stepped over a personal line in writing my message on Friday. I am
moderating myself on this list now.
> That is hypocrisy. The public shamings page as published by Guix and
> Ludovic states "Joint statement on GNU project" while you are thinking
> Dr. Stallman. You speak about Sta
In the interest of public transparency and honesty, you should have
mentioned that Richard has already explicitly and unequivocally rejected
the proposal for a public, project-wide wiki. Therefore, the following
question must be emphasized:
> Where could we host a wiki like this without causing
Apologies for the recent backlog of messages under moderation.
Please note: until now, we have been lenient about letting through posts by non-
subscribers to gnu-misc-discuss. In order to reduce the burden of moderation
(and to ensure that all relevant messages are let through without delay), we
On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 13:53 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> In general it is somewhat inconvenient if you can only post to the
> list from the address with which you are subscribed.
In practice, with only one or two exceptions from what I have seen so far, this
would only affect people whose mes
Mark Wielaard writes:
>> There is no such thing as a FSF steward, GNU maintainers are appointed
>> by RMS/GAC. The FSF has no say in the topic. You've keept
>> misrepresenting this over and over again.
>
> This is just a legal technicallity. The FSF has oversight
> responsibility over the GNU
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> As a side note: I think authority is not something one should take for
> granted. We’re a group of volunteers, and each one of us has just as
> much authority as the others consent to give them.
No. When you join an organization, you implicitly or explicitly agree
to
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> As you’ve probably seen in your moderator queue :-), I’m a former
> non-member: I used to read via Gmane.org, and thus posting as a
> non-member. Some of my previous messages are lost in limbo, it seems.
>
> I’ve subscribed now, but I do find it a bit inconvenient; it’
On Mon, 2020-01-06 at 14:05 +, Brandon Invergo wrote:
> In fact, consent is reversed from that of governments: the volunteers
> participate at the consent of the organization.
And before anyone tries to misinterpret what I wrote, I will clarify "the
volunteers participate at the
Samuel Thibault writes:
> Yes, it means that people have to follow what was decided. That's also
> what a community is about.
>
>> and they broke off and forked over distros
>
> Yes, that's unfortunate, but that can't be helped with. Different goals,
> thus different projects.
Exactly. Their g
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> I’ve subscribed now, but I do find it a bit inconvenient; it’s also one
> of the few public GNU mailing lists I know of (perhaps the only one)
> where posting is now restricted to members.
Ok upon further thought I'm convinced that the list-members-only rule
wasn't a g
On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 18:33 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Siddhesh,
>
> On Wed, 2020-01-15 at 23:19 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > I continue to express support for a more open governance model
> > with the understanding that it probably means nothing since I
> > am not a GNU maintainer.
29 matches
Mail list logo
