Re: Some thoughts on censorship in this mailing list.

Hi Marcel, On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:52:52PM +0700, Marcel wrote: > I did not harass anyone. I expressed myself, as I am doing now, and > every time I did so, my posts were silently kept from the list. > > If all three versions of my response all violated the censor's rules, so > did her

Re: to what extent is the gnu project philosophical?

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 07:09:46PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > The FSF is also a charity collecting donations and running servers and so on > for GNU, so it is very practical indeed. The latter could maybe move to GNU > proper, with the former needing to remain at the FSF, as well as legal >

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Hi Andreas, On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 06:19:29PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > attached is a new proposal; I am not using org-mode and I am not a native > speaker, so bear with me for any mistakes. Also not a "native speaker", but it reads very well to me. Thanks. > Proposal of a “GNU Social

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Hi Andreas, On Sat, 2019-11-02 at 09:56 +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 12:49:19AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > > This document states the core commitments of the GNU Project to the > > > broader free software community. All current GNU Project memb

Re: Women and GNU and RMS (was Re: something else)

Hi Sandra, On Fri, 2019-11-01 at 09:34 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > I'd like to clarify some things, and provide some references. Since I > sent my original post in this thread, several people have accused me of > slandering or defaming RMS, lying about what he has said, making false >

Re: List posting rules

Hi Sandra, On Sat, 2019-11-02 at 13:21 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 11/2/19 1:01 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > > The purpose of this list is spelled out in the list description. > > Sandra didn't post a discussion about governance, she didn't talk > > about restructuring the GNU Project.

Re: List posting rules

Hi DJ, On Sat, 2019-11-02 at 19:54 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > If your solution to "I broke the rules" is "post my messages anyway, so > I can get away with breaking the rules"... no thanks. > > If you have a problem with the moderation, that's between you and the > moderators. The rest of us

Re: list moderation

Hi, On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 14:29 -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > Thanks to all of those that provided input into the list moderation > and censorship discussions. > > My moderation is certainly biased towards posters that write well, and > argue without attacking the original poster, and create

Re: list moderation

Hi, On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 04:51:09PM -0500, Thompson, David wrote: > If you're sticking to the same guidelines, what's the harm in allowing > the former moderators to continue doing the same? For the record, I don't want to. As you can probably understand it will take a bit of time before I

Re: A purely GNU system?

Hi Andreas, On Sat, 2019-11-09 at 22:55 +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > On Sat, Nov 09, 2019 at 03:15:16PM -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > Is glibc purely GNU? It borrows code from a variety of sources and > > was not written completely from scratch. (Although there are many > > parts

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Hi Brandon, On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 16:36 +, Brandon Invergo wrote: > A social contract is only a necessity in a community-run organization > because it helps prevent the organization from moving off-course. When > the moral compass of the organization is set and maintained by a leader > or

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Hi John, On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 01:39:46PM -0800, John Wiegley wrote: > He’s correct, I do not share the GNU philosophy, even if I enjoy > supporting the technical aspects of the software they produce. Boo! If you are not with us, then you are against us! Sorry, I don't actually mean that. I

Re: to what extent is the gnu project philosophical?

Hi Andy, On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 22:17 +0100, Andy Wingo wrote: > So my question is: is GNU fundamentally about producing coherent, > empowering free software systems, or is it fundamentally about > developing and propagating an inspiring, liberatory philosophy? I think it is both. There is no

List posting rules

Hi Dora, On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:32:20PM -0400, Dora Scilipoti wrote: > On 10/31/2019 09:01 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > Please follow the rules of this list. Repetition should not happen. > > You have made your case. > > It's no repetition. Ruben is responding specifically to a statement.

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Hi Alfred, On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 13:16 -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > This 'we' that you are talking about is excluding people that are > capable of making decisions, something you seem to not care about. > You're not in a position to decide what the GNU project is, or how it > should be

Re: list moderation

Hi Brandon, On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 11:59:04AM +, Brandon Invergo wrote: > Also, it is true that you and the others have been involved longer than > me, but please do not in turn minimize the time and effort I have > invested in GNU, especially in the thankless, mundane, boring >

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Hi Andreas, I think this is a really good starting point for getting feedback from other GNU maintainers, developers, stakeholders to see whether they would agree with this GNU mission statement. And discuss with the broader community whether it actually says what we want it to (what in it makes

Re: A summary of some open discussions

Hi Andreas, On Mon, 2019-12-16 at 20:22 +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 11:32:02PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > I wrote a blog post about some open discussion items > > that were discussed on this list over the last 2 months: > > https://gnu.wildebeest

A summary of some open discussions

I wrote a blog post about some open discussion items that were discussed on this list over the last 2 months: https://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2019/12/02/a-public-discussion-about-gnu/ There was also some discussion about this on the LWN website: https://lwn.net/Articles/806184/ It summarizes

Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

On Thu, 2019-10-24 at 22:50 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Alfred M. Szmidt, le jeu. 24 oct. 2019 16:31:41 -0400, a ecrit: > > We don't promote non-free software, we don't host non-free software, > > so clearly things have worked for 30 years where they have not for > > Debian. > > The goals

Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

Hi Brandon, On Sat, 2019-10-26 at 15:19 +0100, Brandon Invergo wrote: > 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 &

Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

Hi, 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. Cheers, Mark ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org

Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

Hi, On Mon, 2019-10-21 at 17:16 +0200, Félicien Pillot wrote: > On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:08:33 +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

Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

Hi Ruben, On Tue, 2019-10-22 at 01:08 -0400, Ruben Safir wrote: > On 10/21/19 7:04 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > But let me try to explain how GNU > > would ideally look like to me. > > I don't really care. GNU is what Richard wants it to be and that is > a good thi

Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

On Tue, 2019-10-22 at 10:16 +0200, František Kučera wrote: > i.e. there is no guarantee that contributors are faithful to free > software ideas and that they always work for the benefit of users and > their freedom. > > So if this is to have a chance of success, there must be a rigid >

Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

On Tue, 2019-10-22 at 14:54 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > Well, that covers quite a bit. Not all of it, I assume. That might > be enough for projects that live 100% in the gnu.org domain, but not all > do. The ones that do, just need to check that they really are, and the > ones that don't, need a

Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

On Tue, 2019-10-22 at 14:00 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 1:55 PM DJ Delorie wrote: > > Even if we all agree on the "big picture simple answer" the details and > > "best practices" are just as important. > > > > Do you have any suggestions for filling in these details?

Re: “GNU software is distributed under the terms of [copyleft] licenses” (was: A GNU “social contract”?)

On Sat, 2019-10-26 at 02:35 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: > Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > * GNU licenses uphold user freedom > > > > The GNU Project has designed software licenses to ensure developers > > cannot strip off user freedom from GNU software—“copyleft” > > licenses. GNU software is

Re: Women and GNU and RMS (was Re: something else)

On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 22:04 -0500, wayne, steve wrote: > I'll probably mute this thread after hitting "send" so you would be > wasting invective for my sake but if it makes you feel better, knock > yourself out. No, we are not going to knock ourselves out. Be respectful to your fellow GNU

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Hi Alfred, On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 00:19 -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > All in all, this should first be discussed with RMS before brought to > public discourse. It has been discussed with him and he has been told that these kind of discussions and decisions need to be made in public. Likewise

Re: A summary of some open discussions

Hi Alfred, On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 05:22:36AM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >It summarizes things as I see them personally. But maybe some >of this can be the start of discussion pages once we have a >collaborative wiki to work them out further. > > It is not so open when you remove

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Hi Ludo, On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 03:33:20PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Mark Wielaard skribis: > > > I think this is a really good starting point for getting feedback from > > other GNU maintainers, developers, stakeholders to see whether they > > would agree with th

Re: Setting up a wiki for GNU Project volunteers?

Hi Carlos, On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 01:25:57PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > Wikis are useful software that allows developers to work > collaboratively and quickly on informal documents that are part of the > day-to-day running of the packages or project activities. > > This includes

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Hi Ludo, (It looks like your message never made it to the list, so quoting a bit more extensively to make sure everything you wrote is also in this message.) On Fri, 2019-12-20 at 12:28 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Mark Wielaard skribis: > > I agree. But it feels like we can

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

Hi Frederic, 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,

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

Hi Mike, On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:47:35PM -0500, Mike Gerwitz wrote: > Firstly, I want to reiterate that the unwelcoming and unkind behavior > on this list is not acceptable. Thanks. > Moderation of this list was taken over because moderators were supposed > to have been appointed by GNU

Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

Hi Mark, On Sun, 2020-02-23 at 11:36 -0700, Mark Galassi wrote: > I wrote to endorse the GNU social contract and received an email which > made me feel insulted and intimidated (this one said "F*** you", so not > much risk of misinterpreting the language). I also got a sequence of > replied from

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

Hi Siddhesh, On Tue, 2020-02-25 at 10:42 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On 23/02/20 23:34, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > Contrary to the members of Manor farm, we welcome anyone and will not > > dismiss your opinion just because you are not a GNU maintainer. This > > Wait, I was told that my

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

Hi Eli, On Sun, 2020-02-23 at 17:50 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > When we get appointed, we receive > a 1000-word message from RMS with some quite non-trivial instructions, > including, but not limited to, a pointer to maintain.texi as the place > to find specific policies and guidelines that are

Re: about the GNU promise

Hi Benno, On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 04:28:52PM +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote: > Maintainer of GNU nano talking here. I haven't followed the whole discussion, > but I've peeked at some of the archived emails, and was disheartened by the > tone and attitude in some of them. :| We do try very hard

Re: What's GNU -- and what's not

Hi Richard, On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 01:36:07AM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:26:51 -0500 > From: "Richard Stallman (Chief GNUisance)" > To: r...@gnu.org > Subject: What's GNU -- and what's not > > The GNU Project is sending this message to each GNU package >

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

Hi Nathan, On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 17:33 +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 2/14/20 8:45 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > > Thanks for your support. GCC has an FSF appointed steering committee > > <https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html> which is what we would > > tradi

Re: Endorsing GNU Social Contract v1.0

Hi Andy, On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 17:27 +0100, Andy Wingo wrote: > I, co-maintainer of GNU Guile, Guile-GNOME, and Guile-OpenGL, and > developer of a number of other GNU packages, endorse version 1.0 of the > GNU Social Contract, as written here: > > https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

Hi Alfred, On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 11:21 -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > I asked about it previously, it feel deafly silent, and since you > feelt that discussions should occur faster it shouldn't be unrealistic > to expect an quick answer as to why you're not willing to show what > the GNU

Re: Endorsement of the Social Contract 1.0

Hi Ludo, On Thu, 2020-02-20 at 14:43 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > I, co-maintainer of GNU Guix, GNU Guile, the GNU Shepherd, and > GNU Guile-RPC, and a contributor to other GNU packages, endorse > version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at: > >

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

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

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

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 collect

Re: Endorsement of the GNU Social Contract version 1.0

Hi Andrej, On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 09:56 +0300, Andrej Shadura wrote: > I, the maintainer of package GNU indent, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU > Social Contract, available at: > Thanks for your support. You have been added to

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

Hi Eli, On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 12:09 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Ludovic Courtès > > > > See the timeline at: > > > > https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback > > If, as that page says, the proposed "contract" is entirely voluntary, > then what is its significance? IOW, what would

Re: Endorsement of the GNU Social Contract

Hi GNU, I, maintainer of GNU Classpath, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at . Thanks, Mark signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Endorsing the GNU social contract

Hi Han-Wen, On Sun, 2020-02-23 at 10:34 +0100, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > I, maintainer of package LilyPond, endorse version 1.0 of the GNU > Social Contract, available at > https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract. Thanks for your support. You have been added to

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

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

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: 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

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: 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: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

Hi Andrej, On Thu, 2020-02-06 at 18:35 +0100, Andrej Shadura wrote: > On 01/02/2020 13:39, fredomatic wrote: > > I, Frederic Y. Bois, maintainer of package GNU MCSim, endorse version > > 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at > > . > > As the

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:00:22PM +0100, fredoma...@free.fr wrote: > Thanks for the precisions. I would like to take this opportunity to > declare my support to initiatives aiming at being more inclusive of > women in GNU. I am for example quite surprised that (as far as I > saw) only one or two

Re: What's GNU -- and what's not

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 philosophy, or any > > other philosophical views, because people are welcome

Re: A summary of some open discussions

Hi Mike, On Wed, 2020-01-15 at 02:20 -0500, Mike Gerwitz wrote: > 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 > &

Re: A summary of some open discussions

Hi Mike, On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 21:48 -0500, Mike Gerwitz wrote: > Yes, this is what I meant. I've volunteered in an administrative role > for the GNU Project for a number of years now---with the authority to > appoint comaintainers to existing packages---and never has the FSF > attempted to

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: 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. Th

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

Hi Andreas, On Wed, 2020-01-15 at 11:32 +0100, Andreas R. wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:56:16AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 04:24:44AM -0500, Dora Scilipoti wrote: > > > > Since Brandon was delegated by the FSF president to > > >

Re: A summary of some open discussions

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. Of course it means something! You are the glibc release manager.

Re: A summary of some open discussions

Hi Federico, On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 10:35 +0200, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Mark Wielaard, 16/01/20 19:03: > > Sure, and the relationship is always evolving. These days the GNU > > project is actually one of the smaller programs the FSF runs. The last > > public form 99

Re: Proposals for the new GNU/FSF relationship

Hi Jean, On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 06:00:00PM +0100, Jean Louis wrote: > So when you say "as volunteers we are happy" -- which volunteers did > you ask to represent their views here? Did they give you consent for > such? What are their names exactly? Is that anywhere recorded? > > > To that end

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Hi Samuel, On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 09:43:25PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > I do believe it is important to emphasize "all". Yes, one reason to emphasize "all users" is to show we might want to adopt policies to specifically make our software usable by all users. Like we did for non-native

Re: posts by non-members

Hi Brandon, On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 04:40:37PM +, Brandon Invergo wrote: > 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

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

On Wed, Jan 01, 2020 at 06:16:17AM +0100, Jean Louis wrote: > * Mark Wielaard [2019-12-31 12:49]: > > It would indeed be good if we worked with the FSF to ratify the GNU > > Social Contract and make sure it doesn't clash with their mission. But > > given the FSF has several o

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

Hi Andreas, On Mon, 2019-12-30 at 22:25 +0100, Andreas R. wrote: > This writing, "GNU - Principles and Guidelines", is based on Andreas > Elke's preliminary version > (draft posted on 1 Nov 2019) of a general and concise document that > states some guidelines ("GNU Social Contract") > which

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Hi, On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 03:49:20PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Mark Wielaard skribis: > > > Yes, I believe we are nitpicking at this point. And we do seem to > > agree. But if we are nitpicking anyway, then I would keep it short and > > to the point. Shorter is b

Re: A summary of some open discussions

Hi, On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 02:00:17PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Brandon Invergo skribis: > > 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 top

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Hi Andreas, On Sat, Jan 04, 2020 at 10:00:06AM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > Thanks for working on the document, personally I am happy with it now. It does look like we nitpicked it enough and it might be ready for wider adoption. I personally like to call it the GNU Social Contract. But some

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

Hi Alfred, On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 12:26:59PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > You are clearly > uninterested in having a discussion, and this contiued spreading of > FUD and lies is out of control on your side. I am interested in discussing these issues since I believe they are important for

Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines

Hi, On Sat, Jan 04, 2020 at 12:19:12AM -0500, Mike Gerwitz wrote: > > Perhaps remedying this is something that could be added to the > > governance discussion - how the GNU leader is chosen, what powers the > > FSF is required to cede, and how to enforce those. > > Discussions of how to mitigate

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

Hi Ludo, On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 05:53:09PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Mark Wielaard skribis: > > > (It looks like your message never made it to the list, so quoting a bit > > more extensively to make sure everything you wrote is also in this > > message.

Proposals for the new GNU/FSF relationship

of the various GNU resources should also be publicly documented. Sincerely, - Ludovic Courtès - Andy Wingo - Carlos O'Donell - Andreas Enge - Mark Wielaard