Re: autoconf

On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 01:51:28AM -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: Where is the best news group to discuss autoconf The autoconf mailing list, which is documented in the autoconf manual, and in the --help output As for autoconf being impossible, many thousands of projects use it, so it

Re: List posting rules

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:25:17AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 9:20 AM Dora Scilipoti wrote: > > Please note that the message posted by a woman on Oct 30 contains a > > repetition of what we all have already read on dishonest media. > > Sandra Loosemore posted her

Re: List posting rules

On 11/2/19 7:54 PM, 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. fuck the rules -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological

Re: Is negative publicity always harmful?

On 11/5/19 4:02 PM, Thompson, David wrote: > Maybe this would be a reasonable request if we ignored all the context > of what has transpired in the past month or so (which, we must not > forget, was just the straw that broke the camel's back after *years* > of problematic behavior), there has

Re: Is negative publicity always harmful?

On 11/5/19 1:26 PM, Thompson, David wrote: > I don't think we can. RMS is GNU's leader, and his public comments, > whether or not they are specifically about free software, are relevant > to GNU. Some of us are tired of looking the other way. Then don't look the other way. Stare right at the

Re: GNU Kind Communication Guidelines versus social contract or Codes of Conduct

On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 08:25:18PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Jean Louis: > > > Can you see that it is discouraging and not welcoming contributions? > > > > Do you understand that mentioning various GNU projects causes > > contributors in those GNU projects not contribute if they find > >

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

is outright slander. I recognize no moral grounds that you stand on, and your work with binutils does nothing to prop up your misdeed in this matter. Ruben Safir -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

On 11/6/19 2:00 PM, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: > Sorry, I have this problem of being pretty verbose :/ it’s not intentional, > and on many places I indeed just resort to shut up (because otherwise I’m > not Personally, I don't see anything wrong with your writing style. For email,

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

On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 02:14:55PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > 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 > >

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

On 11/3/19 10:42 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 10:32 PM Ruben Safir wrote: >> Nobody believes this except for a few hysterical lunitics. Your >> posting this as such is another form of disinformation and an attack on >> the intelligence

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

On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 05:25:52AM +0100, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: > Hi, I like discussion. This so because I like language. And therefore, > meaning. > Try the term Loshen HaRah it is Hebrew > > But now about “hysterical”, which has been hinted several times by several > people

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

On 11/4/19 12:45 AM, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: > Le lundi 4 novembre 2019 06:41:29 CET, vous avez écrit : >> On 11/4/19 12:30 AM, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: >>> I don’t like the term “bigot”. It seems mainly used >>> against >>> individual, for individual

Re: Involuntary involvement to counter smear

> > We should clarify the misrepresentations now, correct the misinformation > and publicize facts instead of turmoil, however cathartic that turmoil > may seem to some with a need to express visions of future GNU and > volunteer structures. > > I truly believe that history will apologize to

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquestion!

On 11/3/19 10:42 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 10:32 PM Ruben Safir wrote: >> Nobody believes this except for a few hysterical lunitics. Your >> posting this as such is another form of disinformation and an attack on >> the intelligence

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquestion!

On 11/3/19 10:42 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 10:32 PM Ruben Safir wrote: >> Nobody believes this except for a few hysterical lunitics. Your >> posting this as such is another form of disinformation and an attack on >> the intelligence

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

On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 05:25:52AM +0100, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: > Hi, I like discussion. This so because I like language. And therefore, > meaning. > > Le lundi 4 novembre 2019, 04:32:04 CET Ruben Safir a écrit : > > Nobody believes this except for a few hysterica

Re: “Hysterical” [Was: Re: Women and GNU and RMS (was Re: something else)]

On 11/3/19 11:38 PM, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: > Yet, if we take a scientific approach to language, Not interested. I used the right word in the right place for the right meaning. I make plenty of gramatical errors, and this is not one. -- So many immigrant groups have swept through

Re: “Hysterical” [Was: Re: Women and GNU and RMS (was Re: something else)]

On 11/3/19 11:38 PM, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: > The question is then: what does it mean? crazy? or simply you don’t like > the > person? or nothing? It means that your working from an emotional framework where one acts irrationally... to the point by losing the ability to reason.

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

On 11/4/19 12:49 AM, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: > Le lundi 4 novembre 2019 06:46:36 CET, vous avez écrit : >> On 11/4/19 12:45 AM, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: >>> Le lundi 4 novembre 2019 06:41:29 CET, vous avez écrit : On 11/4/19 12:30 AM, Alexandre François Garreau

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

On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 02:14:55PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > 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 > >

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquestion!

On 11/3/19 10:42 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 10:32 PM Ruben Safir wrote: >> Nobody believes this except for a few hysterical lunitics. Your >> posting this as such is another form of disinformation and an attack on >> the intelligence

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

On 11/4/19 12:30 AM, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: > I don’t like the term “bigot”. It seems mainly used against > individual, for > individual purposes. Not a very social term. It is the cornerstone of Jewish ethics. -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that

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

On 11/4/19 12:45 AM, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: > Le lundi 4 novembre 2019 06:41:29 CET, vous avez écrit : >> On 11/4/19 12:30 AM, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: >>> I don’t like the term “bigot”. It seems mainly used >>> against >>> individual, for individual

Women love RSM and support his role as head of FSF and GNU

On 11/3/19 10:42 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 10:32 PM Ruben Safir wrote: >> Nobody believes this except for a few hysterical lunitics. Your >> posting this as such is another form of disinformation and an attack on >> the intelligence

Re: Women LOVE RMS and GNU

On 11/3/19 11:34 PM, Ruben Safir wrote: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 05:25:52AM +0100, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: >> Hi, I like discussion. This so because I like language. And therefore, >> meaning. >> >> Le lundi 4 novembre 2019, 04:32:04 CET Ruben Safir a Ã

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

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 don't moderate this truly fucked up

Re: Why don't gnu.org and RMS sign mail? - FDE Crypto

On 11/5/19 3:07 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * nipponmail: > >> Getting GNU/Linux onto a laptop these days is quite the difficulty if >> you don't know what you're doing because of Secure Boot. It's not a plug >> and play thing like once it was. Probably discourages alot of users. > > Sure, and

Re: Will RMS be back to Programming now?

On 11/8/19 2:44 AM, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote: > On 2019-11-07 22:58, Jean Louis wrote: >> Dear Nala, >> >> Greetings to China. I am eating here with chopsticks... >> >> * Nala Ginrut [2019-11-07 15:03]: >>> >>> Hi Jean! >>> >>> Yes, I totally agreed. And I actually meant RMS's health

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

On 10/28/19 8:36 AM, Jean Louis wrote: > "Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have > consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their > freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision > of a majority) in exchange for protection of

Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

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 thing. -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches

Re: A GNU "social contract"

On 10/28/19 3:11 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes: >> They shouldn't be required to defend the GNU projects values, we >> welcome everyone. And that is on purpose. > > I see a problem here... GNU is inclusive to anyone who is willing to be > a dumb code monkey who

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

On 10/28/19 2:41 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Jean Louis, le lun. 28 oct. 2019 21:54:00 +0530, a ecrit: >> Virgin joke is a joke > Now that I have read about it, I can definitely say that it is a > completely inappropriate "joke". Sure, it'll get a lot of people laugh. > But it'll also get some

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

On 10/28/19 2:41 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Jean Louis, le lun. 28 oct. 2019 21:54:00 +0530, a ecrit: >> Virgin joke is a joke > Now that I have read about it, I can definitely say that it is a > completely inappropriate "joke". Sure, it'll get a lot of people laugh. > But it'll also get some

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

https://www.hair-loss-is-awesome.com/100-baldness-jokes/ On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 12:27:51AM +0530, Jean Louis wrote: > * Samuel Thibault [2019-10-29 00:12]: > > Jean Louis, le lun. 28 oct. 2019 21:54:00 +0530, a ecrit: > > > Virgin joke is a joke > > > > Now that I have read about it, I can

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

On 10/25/19 9:56 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Looking at the form of Debian’s Social Contract, its conciseness and > clarity, I was inspired to think about a few points that would summarize > GNU’s mission and workings in a way that would hopefully be rather > consensual among maintainers

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

On 10/28/19 5:03 PM, Jean Louis wrote: > class of people which is targeted by the > joke, that person may feel offended, sure. There is no class of people targeted by that joke. Are virgins a class now? -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis,

Re: A GNU “social contract”?

On 10/28/19 6:22 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote: >> There is no class of people targeted by that joke. Are virgins a class now? > Yes. > > Samuel That is all that needs to be said at this point. You are not being rational or reasonable. -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that

Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

On 10/22/19 4:31 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > That is a different organization model. Yeah, I'm not interested in anything that reduces RMS's influence and control of GNU at this point. I think he has been abused and I just don't carer anymore. If you don't like how he does things, I would

Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

On 10/22/19 10:37 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> Yeah, I'm not interested in anything that reduces RMS's influence and >> control of GNU at this point. I think he has been abused and I just >> don't carer anymore. If you don't like how he does things, I would >> suggest you find other

Re: List posting rules

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 12:39:34PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > 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.

Re: List posting rules

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:25:17AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 9:20 AM Dora Scilipoti wrote: > > Please note that the message posted by a woman on Oct 30 contains a > > repetition of what we all have already read on dishonest media. > > Sandra Loosemore posted her

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

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:45:19AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > 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

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

On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 09:41:13AM +, Brandon Invergo wrote: > 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;

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

On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 09:46:42AM +, Brandon Invergo wrote: > > 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 a

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

- Ludovic Court??s - Andreas Enge - Carlos O???Donell - Mark Wielaard - Andy Wingo <> This is inapropriate use of GNU resources and it is intended to create an air of authority that they do not have. BAN THEM On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 04:08:36PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

On 2/20/20 3:55 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Our concern is that at some point GNU may be just completely unknown > to free software enthousiasts. Don't worry about that. It is not your concern an a package maintainer and it's not even a remote possiblity. -- So many immigrant groups have

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

On 2/21/20 3:07 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > I don’t think so, but I’d rather emphasize “symbiosis” with some > projects than disagreements with others. That is too bad because the goal of GNU is to seperate GNU from other projects that don't maining the Four Freedoms Ruben -- So many

Re: Feedback on the GNU Social contract and new wiki.gnu.tools.

On 1/29/20 5:46 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > It’s about building a shared understanding of what it is we’re aiming > for as a project. To me, that can only be beneficial to the project and > its cohesion. Tghere is no need for that. The purpose of GNU is outlined by the founder, Richard

Re: What exactly are we discussing?

On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 02:59:11PM +0100, Carlo Wood wrote: > Hello everybody, > > please forgive my innocence, but I have a few questions that I'd want > to see answered. > You are discussing a hostile take over appempt of GNU by a select few volunteers who hate Richard Stallman and want to

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

On 2/7/20 2:51 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > As you know since the FSF asked for feedback on the relationship > between the FSF and GNU As you know is the biggest indicator of lies and deceit to follow than any other phrase in English or any other language. It is followed by, "As we can all

Re: What exactly are we discussing?

On 2/6/20 12:39 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Ruben Safir, le mer. 05 févr. 2020 19:34:51 -0500, a ecrit: >> On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 02:59:11PM +0100, Carlo Wood wrote: >>> please forgive my innocence, but I have a few questions that I'd want >>> to see answered. >>

Re: Cause for bans

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 10:51:24AM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote: > Hi John, > > John Darrington skribis: > > > After all, the reason that these proposed "social contracts", "codes of > > conduct" > > and their ilk have caused so many people to become very angry, is because > > of > > the

Re: [r...@gnu.org: What's GNU -- and what's not]

On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 01:37:56PM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote: > Hello, > > a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) skribis: > > > From: "Richard Stallman (Chief GNUisance)" > > Subject: What's GNU -- and what's not > > To: r...@gnu.org > > Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:26:51 -0500 (2 days, 11 hours, 43

Re: Feedback on the GNU Social contract and new wiki.gnu.tools.

On 1/28/20 10:55 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > Myself and several other GNU Maintainers have been publicly discussing > a GNU Social contract on gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org and what it means to > be a GNU Project volunteer. > > We are continuing that discussion by reaching out (by email) to all > GNU

Re: Feedback on the GNU Social contract and new wiki.gnu.tools.

On 1/28/20 1:03 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > Namecheap, and likely most domain services, automatically block all > personal information by default. Protecting users' privacy is in line > with GNU standards. Attempting to expose people's hidden private > information is not. Nonsense - In fact,

Re: Endorsement of the GNU Social Contract version 1.0

mission. Everyone is asked to refrain from any cooperation from this rougue organization until it comes in line with GNU policy. Thank You Ruben Safir On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 09:57:02AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Andrej, > > On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 09:56 +0300, Andrej Shadura wro

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

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,

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

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

Re: duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

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: > &g

Richard Stallman should be reinstated to President of the FSF

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

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

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 >

Re: duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

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 u

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

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

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:50:28PM +0100, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: > Le samedi 15 février 2020, 19:07:36 CET Daniel Pocock a écrit : > > Maybe you could call your new group "GNU Europe", > > But many of them are USAians, aren’t they? No - they are all in France as far as I can well.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

Not - they are adding GNU to their names, at the behest of GNU, as a matter of fact. They are not claiming to be leaders of the GNU project and purposely breaking GNU policy. Just because an organization allows you to use their trademark for a purpose, that doesn't give someone permition to rip

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

I'm going to skip over this much of this interesting and valid discussion on metrics and data analysis, which is likely useful if it was in a different context, and get to the more criticle issues > Suppose the current leadership of GNU would respond to your criticism > by showing a schedule full

Re: Endorsing the GNU Social Contract

On 2/17/20 11:33 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 2/14/20 8:45 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > >> Thanks for your support. GCC has an FSF appointed steering committee >> which is what we would >> traditionally call the official GNU maintainers for a GNU package. >>

Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:25:33PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >Thought experiment: what would GNU be if all of its packages >stopped developing? Dead, right? > > Software that can be run, studied, redistributed, and modified is in a > state that is strarkly different than matter that

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

On 2/6/20 12:41 PM, Andrej Shadura wrote: > Everyone who works on GNU can and should represent the GNU project, so > it’s in fact you who’s misleading other participants. That is twisted and wrong. Policy at GNU or any organization is not a free for all and this is not the Paris Commune. --

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

On 2/6/20 6:00 AM, 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. This has nothing to do with the radical feminism that you support, although in of itself, that

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

On 1/14/20 9:39 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > FSF will not change unless somebody gives them a strong reason to change. > > For example, if GNU developers write the following email to FSF, that > will bring change. > > Each developer needs to make their own decision if they will send the >

Re: A summary of some open discussions

On 1/13/20 12:21 AM, Jean Louis wrote: > * Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> [2020-01-13 > 02:10]: >> On 2020-01-11 21:52, Jean Louis wrote: >>> * Thompson, David [2020-01-10 10:53]: The problem is that when he chooses to step in, GNU is worse off because

Re: A summary of some open discussions

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 01:59:14AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > 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

Re: A summary of some open discussions

On 1/17/20 7:01 AM, Andreas Enge wrote: > We should also think about the number of maintainers in a redefined > governance structure. There is no need for a redifened structure. Go build your own organization -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like

Re: A summary of some open discussions

On 1/8/20 4:37 AM, Andreas Enge wrote: >> All volunteer organizations are top down, even Debian... > That is clearly wrong, and well documented for Debian. Actually it is correct. Debian has governance and although it has elections and it is clearly top down It is designed with project leaders

Re: Concerns about GNU Bison maintenance.

On 8/6/20 2:58 PM, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote: > On 2020-08-06 01:35, a...@gnu.org wrote: >> What Jose mentioned, but also -- this all reads as if the GNU Bison >> maintainer is doing an excellent job adding new features and moving > > Where can I see a "product management roadmap" of

Stallman missing?

Has anyone heard from Richard of late? He seems to have maintained a low profile sinc ehis health issues. Reuvain -- 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