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 family to me. I don't want to harm my family. I believe in the FSF mission for Free Software for everybody and try to do my best to get there through my work on GNU. > You've shown over and over again, even in your last > email claiming that the FSF somehow appointed Brandon as a co-chief of > the GNU project, that you have no intention to listen to those who are > part of the leadership structure (like Brandon) who know what they are > talking about. That is not exactly what I said. But maybe I explained things in a confusing way. I certainly listen to Brandon and find his experiences very helpful. > If you were interested, and in good faith, you would have raised the > topic on the internal lists, as was requested, but you have not. And > as far as I can see, there is still no reply to the question if > you/Ludo/... are willing to let the GNU project take the text that > you've drafted as some sort of starting point? I believe we did raise the issue a couple of times on the internal lists and said we felt it would be better to have the discussion in the open going forward. Which is what we are doing right now. >> Patently false, it is RMS who ratifies changes that are applicable to >> the GNU project and nobody else. Please stop spreading these made up >> notions of how the GNU project is governed. > >We are discussing how we want the GNU project to be governed. This is >simply my opinion how we can collectively come together describing >it. I do acknowledge that you feel differently about that. > > No, you are discussing how _you_ want the GNU project governed, this > we is fictional -- there is no we here. There is no collective > agreement, since there is no "we". We are not having a discussion? It seems we really are. I gave my opinion on how I see GNU governance going forward and what my experiences and impressions of it from the past were. And you are sharing your opinion. > The GNU project is maintained by RMS. I do wish you explained your opinions a bit more though. Cheers, Mark
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
* Andreas R. [2020-01-12 14:05]: > > > maybe my wording caused misunderstandings, but I did not mean the Social > > > Contract to be a comprehensive document that codifies our inner > > > working; > > > > If not approved by RMS, you are speaking in vain. How about you make > > your own free software project, and do it there? > > As much as I admire your passion for the discussion, suggesting that the > worst possible outcome for the project is desirable (Existing GNU > maintainers leaving the project) will likely prove detrimental to > the discussion. I have better things to do, but I do think, that it is necessary to unveil your true intentions, and sort them as not having good intention. I like to point out to facts. This is not about passion, but about justice. In my opinion, GNU project is about free operating system, and as such it continued and can continue without few disgruntled people who hate Dr. Richard M. Stallman for reasons of his opinions. You are free to hate too, but please take it out of GNU. > Irrespective of how one might feel about disrespecting rms, respecting > him as a person is not a requirement. As he is GNU project founder, it is best for you, that you take your disrespect and apply it in your home, do not divide people in GNU project. Divide your own family for example, destroy something else, move your bad intentions away. > As I see it, the GNU project is in no real danger of being "taken > over". It could, however, be in danger of disenfranchised > maintainers taking their leave for a variety of reasons. > > Every maintainer that takes their leave is a loss and should be > considered extremely regrettable, even if one personally disagrees > with them, but their departure is not something the discussion > should actively steer towards regardless. And that is exactly the blackmail that you are doing since the first public shaming and initiative by Ludovic Courtès, the extremist political and feminist agenda in Guix leadership is destroying the good image of GNU and Guix. I cannot say you are welcome. RMS is still welcoming you, that is big kindness from him. I would not. I would kick you out faster than you can think. > Maybe some causes for dissattisfaction can be addressed to > everyone's satisfaction in the course of GNU project's governance > discussion You can discuss, but nobody invited that discussion. Governance is clear. Do not deviate. FSF did not invite you to discuss governance. Stallman's statement about governance is clear on www.stallman.org -- there is nothing to discuss. Especially if you have nothing to say or talk to RMS, there is nothing to discuss. You are hater and rumor monger, your character is bad, you should let GNU alone. > , and if, in the end, even a single maintainer who would have > otherwise resigned decides to stay because their objections have > been addressed, the elaborate and sometimes difficult discussion > will have been worth it. That is because it is your initial plan, to blackmail RMS, to blackmail GNU, to blackmail FSF, everything for your extreme feminisit political agenda that Ludovic Courtès introduced into Guix operating system. It is long standing policy for GNU that there is no politics, no other politics but free software. > Sorry I replied to one of your posts specifically to reply to address this > matter. It's nothing personal, but I've seen the sentiment expressed a few > times by various participants on the list and with increasing frequency, and > I believe any maintainers needleswsly leaving the GNU project can never be > considered a constructive outcome to the whole situation, no matter how > much one might disagree with them. The only reason that maintainers may wish to leave is not RMS, but Ludovic Courtès and you, who are rumour mongers, and who are causing division. You are the one speaking badly about RMS, without evidence. RMS is not speaking badly about you. You are the one accusing RMS for anti-feminist propaganda. Ludovic declared it, he told me personally what is his agenda. He does not tell much about it in public. But in GNU politics does not matter. Practice your feminism in France, not in GNU project, it is apolitical project, no politics other but free software politics. That is the policy. Stop blackmailing. Jean
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
> > maybe my wording caused misunderstandings, but I did not mean the Social > > Contract to be a comprehensive document that codifies our inner > > working; > > If not approved by RMS, you are speaking in vain. How about you make > your own free software project, and do it there? As much as I admire your passion for the discussion, suggesting that the worst possible outcome for the project is desirable (Existing GNU maintainers leaving the project) will likely prove detrimental to the discussion. Irrespective of how one might feel about disrespecting rms, respecting him as a person is not a requirement. In fact, one of the points of those who are critical of the social contract document could, I think, be loosely summarised as not having any such extra requirements. As I see it, the GNU project is in no real danger of being "taken over". It could, however, be in danger of disenfranchised maintainers taking their leave for a variety of reasons. Every maintainer that takes their leave is a loss and should be considered extremely regrettable, even if one personally disagrees with them, but their departure is not something the discussion should actively steer towards regardless. Maybe some causes for dissattisfaction can be addressed to everyone's satisfaction in the course of GNU project's governance discussion, and if, in the end, even a single maintainer who would have otherwise resigned decides to stay because their objections have been addressed, the elaborate and sometimes difficult discussion will have been worth it. Sorry I replied to one of your posts specifically to reply to address this matter. It's nothing personal, but I've seen the sentiment expressed a few times by various participants on the list and with increasing frequency, and I believe any maintainers needleswsly leaving the GNU project can never be considered a constructive outcome to the whole situation, no matter how much one might disagree with them. regards, Andreas R.
Re: A GNU “social contract”? - Ban the violators
On 1/8/20 3:38 PM, Andreas Enge wrote: > On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 11:14:47PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: >> I personally like to call it the GNU Social Contract. But some people >> do seem to get confused by the word contract. Since it means promises >> we are making to each other and the broader Free Sofware community, >> maybe we should simply call Our GNU Promises? Or a more long and >> boring title like: GNU Principles and Mission Statement? Or keeping >> social contract, but explain it as GNU Mission Statement and Social >> Contract? > admittedly, I like the name "GNU Social Contract", as a reference to > the Debian Social Contract as well as Rousseau. I wonder what it tells > about our time that people do not think of social philosophy, but > rather of civil law contracts when they hear the word "social contract"... > > Your alternative suggestions lack somewhat in snappiness, if I may be > so bold. But if someone comes up with an alternative name that expresses > well the intentions behind the document and is short and to the point, > we should discuss it. > > Andreas > > You guys in Paris don't miss a beat, You are relentless in your attempt to subvert and destroy GNU and destroy Richard Stallman. I don't see how this can continue other than resulting in a complete BAN from GNU of all the supporters of this rebellion. Whether Richard find it distasteful or not, I see no choice but to ban off of you, starting with Ludovic Courtès , and working through the entire list, .Mark Wielaard, Andreas R. , Carlos O'Donell , the whole group is just going to have to be kicked out. This is like getting a shot when your sick. The sooner and fastest it is don't the sooner this drama comes to a close.
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
* Andreas Enge [2020-01-06 22:36]: > Hello, > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 04:05:51PM +0100, Andreas R. wrote: > > Andreas Enge, in response to the difference between a "Social contract" and > > a > > "Code of Conduct" writes on the 6th of November[1]: > > "a social contract, which is a "mission statement" and statement of the > > general principles > > of an organisation, as well with respect to the inner workings as well as > > an engagement > > to the outer world" > > which could be summed up as: > > - a statement of the general principles of an organisation, > > - a statement with respect to the inner workings > > - a statement regarding an engagement to the outer world > > maybe my wording caused misunderstandings, but I did not mean the Social > Contract to be a comprehensive document that codifies our inner > working; If not approved by RMS, you are speaking in vain. How about you make your own free software project, and do it there? > just as a document that outlines our mission, which then of course would > have implications on our internals (for example, internally we could have > documents stating the licenses under which GNU packages may be published, > but according to the Social Contract, only free licenses would be > acceptable). There are enough documents written since decades by RMS that outlines mission statements. GNU project was always based on individualism, whereby people contributed by its individual decisions, regardless of their political opinions. "Social Contract" implies collectivism approach where small group of people who are making the social contract would like to coerce larger group of people into certain frames or rules, which is contrary to long term individualism approach. Would you have guns and liberty to use guns, you would now by lynching RMS and taking it over. That is what it is about, you are using force, not consent, you wish to coerce majority into some kind of "contracts", yet that is not how GNU project works and never did so. > As it stands, the Social Contract is compatible with different organisational > structures of the GNU project (having a benevolent dictator for life, a > committee making decisions, a Debian style bottom-up organisation). See above question about individualism and collectivism, it is not compatible. First, "social contract" has negative connotation from Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It is bad in its title. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract and start thinking. GNU project was not coercive, ever. It is based on individual decisions to contribute. > Well, I am not quite sure; as stated above, the Social Contract is > essentially a summary of the goals of the GNU project, and I think more > or less everyone working in the project will agree with its content. I do not agree. It is short, it does not say anything new. It is badly worded, badly titled. It implies "contract" onto people who maybe did not agree to it. It brings boundaries, not freedom. GNU project accepts contributions from everybody, you need not coerce people to contribute. It is based on individual decisions, not on coercion. > It has been attacked, as I understand it, essentially by people who fear > change in the governance structure of the GNU project, on the basis > that There is no change in the governance. Nobody invited anybody to even talk about the GNU governance, you few people imagined it, it is fantasy. You can speak, and write, but it is in vain. FSF did not invite you to talk or propose any governance, and FSF does not govern GNU project. FSF invited people to comment about relation between FSF and GNU, that is all. Word "governance" was not a question, and is not question now. You are mistaken. You are off-topic. > Notice that this is not stated *in* the Social Contract itself, but in a next > logical step would be required, in a document describing the governance > structure of the GNU project, from the people making decisions for the > project. In theory, it would make sense to require this even from a bene- > volent dictator for life (it sounds strange to require something from a > dictator, but maybe a benevolent one can be expected to follow the basic > guidelines of their project, even though it would by definition be > impossible to hold them to account). Please don't use word like "dictator" when RMS is not a dictator. He is founder of a GNU project and has final say, just as millions of other software projects. Please don't be disrespectful, can you find some better words? > It is no secret that I am in favour of a bottom-up organisation, in > which all members of a, say, "GNU Assembly" would be required to > pledge allegiance to the Social Contract. Initially, I thought of > the GNU maintainers, but it has been pointed out that more people > are stakeholders and do volunteer work for GNU, so the exact peri- > metre of the GNU Assembly would have to be discussed. Conversely, it > would also be possible to
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hello Mark, On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 11:14:47PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > I personally like to call it the GNU Social Contract. But some people > do seem to get confused by the word contract. Since it means promises > we are making to each other and the broader Free Sofware community, > maybe we should simply call Our GNU Promises? Or a more long and > boring title like: GNU Principles and Mission Statement? Or keeping > social contract, but explain it as GNU Mission Statement and Social > Contract? admittedly, I like the name "GNU Social Contract", as a reference to the Debian Social Contract as well as Rousseau. I wonder what it tells about our time that people do not think of social philosophy, but rather of civil law contracts when they hear the word "social contract"... Your alternative suggestions lack somewhat in snappiness, if I may be so bold. But if someone comes up with an alternative name that expresses well the intentions behind the document and is short and to the point, we should discuss it. Andreas
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
One cannot assume good faith from those who are clearly hostile to the GNU project. You've shown over and over again, even in your last email claiming that the FSF somehow appointed Brandon as a co-chief of the GNU project, that you have no intention to listen to those who are part of the leadership structure (like Brandon) who know what they are talking about. If you were interested, and in good faith, you would have raised the topic on the internal lists, as was requested, but you have not. And as far as I can see, there is still no reply to the question if you/Ludo/... are willing to let the GNU project take the text that you've drafted as some sort of starting point? > Patently false, it is RMS who ratifies changes that are applicable to > the GNU project and nobody else. Please stop spreading these made up > notions of how the GNU project is governed. We are discussing how we want the GNU project to be governed. This is simply my opinion how we can collectively come together describing it. I do acknowledge that you feel differently about that. No, you are discussing how _you_ want the GNU project governed, this we is fictional -- there is no we here. There is no collective agreement, since there is no "we". The GNU project is maintained by RMS.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
* Andreas Enge [2020-01-04 10:01]: > Hello Mark, > > On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 01:42:13PM +0100, Mark Wielaard 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 better: > > > > > > > > The GNU Project adopts policies that encourage and enable developers > > > > to actively defend user freedom. These policies include using > > > > /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users’ freedoms cannot > > > > be stripped off, when appropriate. > > this looks very good to me now! The paragraph posed problems since we tried > to define a consistent policy, and our current practice is somewhat ad-hoc, > with a few exceptions when there are good reasons. I think your text captures > the spirit better, and allows for concrete policies to potentially be defined > elsewhere. That GNU project does not need "social contract" has already been discussed and is off-topic in my opinion, it has not been adopted by RMS, and there is nothing you can do about it. Your attempts to take over GNU project are futile. So I don't see why you spend so much energy, I don't believe that your motivation has good intentions, I am sorry. In regards to any kind of policy changings or enforcing, you cannot impose new policies that are contradictory to previous policies, that does not work in any organization. Your "social contract" as attempt of hostile take over of the GNU project in itself is very poor, it is not eloquent, authors did not take care of definitions and writing, it is too general, not specific, it is creating mess, not order. Example is that you wish to impose GNU GPL licenses only for free software, while GNU project acknowledges other free software licenses and may recommend them for certain type of works, please see: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses > > Thanks. Attached is an updated version and a diff with this change and > > a few other small nitpicks mainly aimed at making the text more > > concise. > > Great, this all looks good to me. Imagination is free and does not require any licenses. The fact is that "social contract" is not necessary and not welcome in GNU, as it is successful project in itself that caused thousands of other projects to come into existence for reasons that it did not have any coercion over individuals like your "social contract" imposes. It is for reason that GNU project allowed individuals to contribute in the way and manner how those individuals decided to be, and GNU project never discriminated by any reason, even if those maintainers or programmers have been programming proprietary software in their free time, or have been supporting "open source" branding of software that has the agenda to promote corporations and not freedom. So it does not matter in GNU project who is who, everybody is welcome to contribute. Lack of a "social contract" is the feature of GNU project. Jean
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 our community. But it is hard to have a discussion when you don't assume good faith and call statements or opinions you don't like FUD and lies. >The FSF holds the resources for the GNU project and has oversight >responsibility over how those resources are used, which should be in >accordance with the FSF mission as a charitable organization. > > There are plenty of GNU resources that are not managed by the FSF, the > FSF does not dictate how GNU project resources are used. So this is > patently false. There are some GNU projects which use other foundations to hold their assets and some GNU maintainers are compensated through other organizations for their contributions. But the FSF does hold lots of important resource for us, like funds, copyrights, the trademark, dns, various development machines, etc. As a US 501(c)(3) public charity they need to make sure those are used according to their mission for the public good. So when we make policies around who can use which resources we do have to work together with the FSF to make sure that is the case. >A Social Contract or Mission Statement for GNU is necessary as a >first step for new governance for GNU. It has obviously been >discussed with Richard, who has said it might be a good idea. But >he has also been told that discussions about GNU governance should >be done openly and publicly. His input is certainly welcome. But in >the end it is the GNU maintainers who ratify it by adopting it for >their packages. > > His input is the only input that matters in the end, since he is the > head of the GNU project. That you dismiss this is beyond any > reasonable discussion. I am interested in his opinion, but I simply don't agree that his input is the only one that matters. >But in the end it is the GNU maintainers who ratify it by adopting >it for their packages. > > Patently false, it is RMS who ratifies changes that are applicable to > the GNU project and nobody else. Please stop spreading these made up > notions of how the GNU project is governed. We are discussing how we want the GNU project to be governed. This is simply my opinion how we can collectively come together describing it. I do acknowledge that you feel differently about that. Cheers, Mark
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 people do seem to get confused by the word contract. Since it means promises we are making to each other and the broader Free Sofware community, maybe we should simply call Our GNU Promises? Or a more long and boring title like: GNU Principles and Mission Statement? Or keeping social contract, but explain it as GNU Mission Statement and Social Contract? Cheers, Mark
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
Hello, On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 04:05:51PM +0100, Andreas R. wrote: > Andreas Enge, in response to the difference between a "Social contract" and a > "Code of Conduct" writes on the 6th of November[1]: > "a social contract, which is a "mission statement" and statement of the > general principles > of an organisation, as well with respect to the inner workings as well as an > engagement > to the outer world" > which could be summed up as: > - a statement of the general principles of an organisation, > - a statement with respect to the inner workings > - a statement regarding an engagement to the outer world maybe my wording caused misunderstandings, but I did not mean the Social Contract to be a comprehensive document that codifies our inner working; just as a document that outlines our mission, which then of course would have implications on our internals (for example, internally we could have documents stating the licenses under which GNU packages may be published, but according to the Social Contract, only free licenses would be acceptable). As it stands, the Social Contract is compatible with different organisational structures of the GNU project (having a benevolent dictator for life, a committee making decisions, a Debian style bottom-up organisation). > The "GNU social contract" as it is, is not agreed on by everyone. Well, I am not quite sure; as stated above, the Social Contract is essentially a summary of the goals of the GNU project, and I think more or less everyone working in the project will agree with its content. It has been attacked, as I understand it, essentially by people who fear change in the governance structure of the GNU project, on the basis that codification is a prerequisite for change. It is less the *content* of the social contract that a few people complained about, but rather its mere *existence*. > A fairly significant change would be that maintainers would be required to > sign > an extra document. > This has been mentioned repeatedly [3] by the writer of the first version of > the > social contract, Ludovic Courtès. > Has this idea been dropped? Notice that this is not stated *in* the Social Contract itself, but in a next logical step would be required, in a document describing the governance structure of the GNU project, from the people making decisions for the project. In theory, it would make sense to require this even from a bene- volent dictator for life (it sounds strange to require something from a dictator, but maybe a benevolent one can be expected to follow the basic guidelines of their project, even though it would by definition be impossible to hold them to account). It is no secret that I am in favour of a bottom-up organisation, in which all members of a, say, "GNU Assembly" would be required to pledge allegiance to the Social Contract. Initially, I thought of the GNU maintainers, but it has been pointed out that more people are stakeholders and do volunteer work for GNU, so the exact peri- metre of the GNU Assembly would have to be discussed. Conversely, it would also be possible to decide that GNU maintainers need not agree to uphold the GNU Social Contract (which, in my opinion, makes little sense, since it really is very broad and general, but the argument has been made during the discussion), but that then they would not be part of the GNU Assembly and not have voting rights. Andreas
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 12:49:03PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > The latest version of the GNU Social Contract can be found here: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-11/msg00358.html > There were some minor wording suggestions since on the list. Thanks. I think that was the version I used, but I got the date wrong. > > In response to that request, earlier on-list feedback, and expressed > > support for having a couple of > > succinct documents that describe the structure and mission of the GNU > > project, I composed a version > > based on Andreas Elke's draft that attempts to address some of the > > problems that were raised. > > Thanks. But I think your version mixes why, what and how a little. Can you elaborate on that? I have an inkling about what you could mean by the "why", "what", and "how", but I wouldn't want to spend time answering the wrong questions. > The social contract says what users and the free software community can > expect from the GNU project, but doesn't prescribe how GNU volunteers > working on it do it, or how the project is structured precisely. That could be considered a shortcoming. Andreas Enge, in response to the difference between a "Social contract" and a "Code of Conduct" writes on the 6th of November[1]: "a social contract, which is a "mission statement" and statement of the general principles of an organisation, as well with respect to the inner workings as well as an engagement to the outer world" which could be summed up as: - a statement of the general principles of an organisation, - a statement with respect to the inner workings - a statement regarding an engagement to the outer world Has this layout changed? > It > looks like your document and the social contract could be separate > documents because they don't really conflict. That might make it more > clear what you are precisely proposing. There have been various statements in support of a general document that would "describe the structure and mission of the GNU project", even allegedly by rms himself[2] Since no such document exists, it would need to be agreed on by everyone who could be loosely defined as "part of the GNU project" to serve as any sort of guideline. The "GNU social contract" as it is, is not agreed on by everyone. The "GNU - Principles and Guidelines" attempts to address that. It's an adjusted version of the social contract that hopefully at some point can be agreed on by everyone, and serve as a first solid step towards finding a new governance model for the GNU project. > > This amended version: > > > > - is closer to the situation as it currently exists and as such > > should need no additional agreement > > or undersigning of existing maintainers since it should describe the > > status quo. > > Maybe you could state what in the GNU Social Contract doesn't describe > the status quo? A fairly significant change would be that maintainers would be required to sign an extra document. This has been mentioned repeatedly [3] by the writer of the first version of the social contract, Ludovic Courtès. Has this idea been dropped? If it has not been dropped, questions about enforcement have been fielded by Federico Leva [4] but not been readily addressed. Another point where the social contract deviates from the status quo is the complete absence of the FSF or existing governance. The social contract, as it is, simply gives "the GNU project" project-wide governance without precisely defining "the GNU project". Before entities are bestowed with formal agency, their makeup should to be precisely defined, otherwise you might end up with a cabal, alleged or otherwise. > I don't see it as a problem that GNU > maintainers outside their GNU work might not fully adhere to the social > contract as long as we can trust each other to do when we are working > together on the GNU project itself. My apologies. I meant GNU maintainers adherence to software freedom in the course of their GNU work. As things are, GNU maintaners can use non-free operating systems, even in publicly giving presentations about their GNU work. They can also, for example, be drawn to GNU maintenance for the technical challenge it provides instead of promoting the wider ideas that are usually associated with the GNU project. Given that they abide by the license of their GNU software, there is no conflict here, but the fact remains that being a GNU maintainer doesn't automatically gives one the right perspective to safeguard software freedoms. Of course, maintainers could be asked to sign a document that promises they will live up to the GNU project's standards, but what is to be done with existing GNU maintainers who are working on GNU for reasons other than software freedom? Will they be excluded from GNU project decision making? And maybe more importantly: will the GNU project reject aspiring maintainers who will not sign a document that puts the
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
* Samuel Thibault [2020-01-02 22:01]: > Jean Louis, le jeu. 02 janv. 2020 21:53:48 +0100, a ecrit: > > To say all in the context as you explained it would bring burden to > > developers who did not plan to make it for blind users. > > And yet that's what *has* to be done. That's what we have achieved to a > large extent for internationalization. I am sorry, that is nonsense. If blind user wish to play Sudoku, one could somehow make it, but if blind user wish to draw on GIMP graphical program, forget about it. Blind user is impaired user and cannot possibly have capacity as non-blind user can. Thus to include "all" in social contract, and to impose to developers something like that lacks a good analysis, unspoken from the fact that "social" contract is not social, but rather attempt from you few guys to take over GNU project under some kind of self-imposed government and with a lot of hidden agenda. Just speak transparently, I don't even have a feeling that "all" relates to blind users only, so please speak transparently, and tell which other groups you think should be included, like what is actually the problem there? As so far I know GNU is already for everybody, and many accessibility features are alread there. So I cannot believe that blind users are some "problem" that has to be resolved by imposing certain features to be programmed by GNU programmers. That would not bring more contributors, that policy would be damaging, not supporting. > > I suggest that any consent to provide software with features for > > blind users shall come from individual decisions and participations in > > such. > > That's what has been going on for decades, and the conclusion is: that > doesn't work, there is not enough manpower such way. So the matter has > to come from more fundamental principles, to bring people into caring > about them. Can you please tell us here few names of blind users, like could you have them here to participate, so that we know how actually and specifically we can help them to enjoy the GNU software? Can we hear from blind users? If you are their representative, could you provide us some credible references of your representation? Do you have some statement from blind users association that they need certain GNU features for blind users? Did any of those blind users file a bug for any specific GNU software? > > If you wish to make software accessible to blind users, file bugs, or > > program it for blind. > > Been doing that for twenty years already. Pleas give me reference to those bugs filed, if you have been doing it 20 years, there shall be many bugs filed for blind users. > But programmers have been inventing a lot of software in the meanwhile > too, so it's a never-ending lost battle. Really, compare that to > internationalization. If the GNU project hadn't taken care of putting > that into the GCS, programmers would have taken much less time in making > their software translable, handle non-ASCII, etc. > > > Don't impose on GNU programmers such requirement, > > As mentioned previously, it's even the UN itself which does impose > it. UN impose also the freedom of travel anywhere you wish, meaning that no passport is required, but that is not a reality. Waiting for the list of your bugs filed in last 20 years and comments from actual blind users. Jean
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
* Samuel Thibault [2020-01-02 21:44]: > Jean Louis, le jeu. 02 janv. 2020 17:12:16 +0100, a ecrit: > > * Mark Wielaard [2020-01-02 13:43]: > > > Thanks. Attached is an updated version and a diff with this change and > > > a few other small nitpicks mainly aimed at making the text more > > > concise. > > > > > > - Put the introduction text in one paragraph. > > > - Add "all" users for which the Four Essential Freedoms should hold. > > > > To add "all" users is not necessary, as the freedom zero is very clear > > that it is for everybody. > > > > See: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and where it says: > > "The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of > > person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for > > any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to > > communicate about it with the developer or any other specific > > entity. " > > > > Thus "all" users is not necessary, as that would mean nobody is > > reading the actual freedom, but focus on your "social contract" which > > is not "social" at all. > > Just to give an example on why we'd want to emphasize "all". > > We have been discussing with RMS on this precise kind of point, about > accessibility. He first said that accessibility was a "desirable > feature", but not a priority, and freedom #0 does provide the right > to run the software, so it was seeming all good already to him, even > if the software happens to be unusable for some people. He said that > making a program available, that unfortunately can't be used by e.g. > blind people, is not hurting them. But that's *precisely* ignoring > that you can't get completely away from social questions: as a program > becomes more and more used by a lot of people, it becomes more and > more mandatory to be able to use it (and not just run it...) in > order to be able to participate to the society, because not being > able to use it makes you excluded from that part of the society. The > UN definition of discrimination does include "denial of reasonable > accommodation". Eventually accessibility was made a priority on > https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/ > just like internationalization. > > I do believe it is important to emphasize "all". That is more specific, but obviously, not yet enough transparent. To say all in the context as you explained it would bring burden to developers who did not plan to make it for blind users. I suggest that any consent to provide software with features for blind users shall come from individual decisions and participations in such. What is not good is changing direction of GNU project, which is based on individualism to some sort of coercive, imposed "social" contract. If you wish to make software accessible to blind users, file bugs, or program it for blind. Don't impose on GNU programmers such requirement, as everybody is welcome to contribute including those who did not program software for blind users. Jean
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hello Mark, On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 01:42:13PM +0100, Mark Wielaard 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 better: > > > > > > The GNU Project adopts policies that encourage and enable developers > > > to actively defend user freedom. These policies include using > > > /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users’ freedoms cannot > > > be stripped off, when appropriate. this looks very good to me now! The paragraph posed problems since we tried to define a consistent policy, and our current practice is somewhat ad-hoc, with a few exceptions when there are good reasons. I think your text captures the spirit better, and allows for concrete policies to potentially be defined elsewhere. > Thanks. Attached is an updated version and a diff with this change and > a few other small nitpicks mainly aimed at making the text more > concise. Great, this all looks good to me. > - Remove extra explanations from the Four Essential Freedoms. > They are self-evident and make the text longer than necessary. At the same time, it was nice to have them in for the discussion and for reference :-) Thanks for working on the document, personally I am happy with it now. Andreas
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
You are wrong. No, it is you Mark who is in the wrong here. You are clearly uninterested in having a discussion, and this contiued spreading of FUD and lies is out of control on your side. The FSF holds the resources for the GNU project and has oversight responsibility over how those resources are used, which should be in accordance with the FSF mission as a charitable organization. There are plenty of GNU resources that are not managed by the FSF, the FSF does not dictate how GNU project resources are used. So this is patently false. A Social Contract or Mission Statement for GNU is necessary as a first step for new governance for GNU. It has obviously been discussed with Richard, who has said it might be a good idea. But he has also been told that discussions about GNU governance should be done openly and publicly. His input is certainly welcome. But in the end it is the GNU maintainers who ratify it by adopting it for their packages. His input is the only input that matters in the end, since he is the head of the GNU project. That you dismiss this is beyond any reasonable discussion. But in the end it is the GNU maintainers who ratify it by adopting it for their packages. Patently false, it is RMS who ratifies changes that are applicable to the GNU project and nobody else. Please stop spreading these made up notions of how the GNU project is governed.
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 English speakers through our internationalization effort with the GNU translators. Another reason, important in this context, is to emphasize that the Four Freedoms hold for all users, not just some (privileged) subset. No discrimination against people or fields of use. Cheers, Mark
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 other programs it runs, I think it is better > > if it is self contained. I don't see it as a problem that GNU > > maintainers outside their GNU work might not fully adhere to the social > > contract as long as we can trust each other to do when we are working > > together on the GNU project itself. > > FSF is not overseeing GNU project, it is supporting it. > > Richard Stallman is person who could "ratify" it, and social contract > is not necessary for GNU, that was already discussed and resolved so > far I know, multiple times on this list. > > Tell me if I am wrong. > > I am surprised that you and few other people forcefully wish to impose > something that is not necessary and that was said not to be necessary, > and behind the back of Richard Stallman, head of the GNU project. You are wrong. The FSF holds the resources for the GNU project and has oversight responsibility over how those resources are used, which should be in accordance with the FSF mission as a charitable organization. A Social Contract or Mission Statement for GNU is necessary as a first step for new governance for GNU. It has obviously been discussed with Richard, who has said it might be a good idea. But he has also been told that discussions about GNU governance should be done openly and publicly. His input is certainly welcome. But in the end it is the GNU maintainers who ratify it by adopting it for their packages. Cheers, Mark
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
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. The FSF is not in a position to ratify anything for the GNU project.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Jean Louis, le jeu. 02 janv. 2020 22:12:45 +0100, a ecrit: > but if blind user wish to draw on GIMP graphical program, forget about > it. Sure. So what? The UN only requires reasonable accomodation, not doing the impossible. And making accessible software is not that complex. Just like making internationalizable software is not either. > Blind user is impaired user and cannot possibly have capacity as > non-blind user can. And still there is very little they would not be able to do if some little effort was made. > Just speak transparently, I don't even have a feeling that "all" > relates to blind users only, Of course, that was just an example. > so please speak transparently, and tell which other groups you think > should be included, Colorblind, deaf, old, girls, non-english speakers, ... > like what is actually the problem there? To put it perhaps simply: simply caring about trying to include all people, not just the people we happen to be used to. > As so far I know GNU is already for everybody, and many accessibility > features are alread there. And way many more are missing. For instance there is *no* really good free speech synthesis, and let alone speech recognition. That makes a lot of people prefer to install non-free software on their GNU-based system, because they need higher quality speech to be able to work. > So I cannot believe that blind users are some "problem" that has to > be resolved by imposing certain features to be programmed by GNU > programmers. A screen reader used by a blind person can't work if applications don't somehow provide the text they show on the screen. Gtk does a fair good part of the work, but as soon as an application invents its own widget, it has to provide that kind of information, to be accessible to blind people. > That would not bring more contributors, that policy would be damaging, > not supporting. And yet we have succeeded in including internationalization, even if adding that policy would have been considered damaging, not supporting. > Can we hear from blind users? The GNU project does have an accessibility@ mailing with quite a few subscribers. One thread probably worth reading is https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/accessibility/2010-07/msg00048.html > Did any of those blind users file a bug for any specific GNU software? To many, yes. Just mentioning gnome for instance. > If you are their representative, could you provide us some credible > references of your representation? > > Been doing that for twenty years already. > Pleas give me reference to those bugs filed, if you have been doing it > 20 years, there shall be many bugs filed for blind users. > Waiting for the list of your bugs filed in last 20 years and comments > from actual blind users. This sounds so much like a joke to my ears... I will of course not spend time on collecting that, just putting a few urls out of my mind, where you will find the homework you could have done yourself. http://brl.thefreecat.org/ http://youpibouh.thefreecat.org/bugzilla.html https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=a11y https://blends.debian.org/accessibility/ > > As mentioned previously, it's even the UN itself which does impose > > it. > > UN impose also the freedom of travel anywhere you wish, meaning that > no passport is required, but that is not a reality. That doesn't mean that countries should not try to aim for it like Europe did at least internally. > attempt from you few guys to take over GNU project under some kind of > self-imposed government and with a lot of hidden agenda. Repeating something diffamatory ad nauseam does not make it magically true. Samuel
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Jean Louis, le jeu. 02 janv. 2020 21:53:48 +0100, a ecrit: > To say all in the context as you explained it would bring burden to > developers who did not plan to make it for blind users. And yet that's what *has* to be done. That's what we have achieved to a large extent for internationalization. > I suggest that any consent to provide software with features for > blind users shall come from individual decisions and participations in > such. That's what has been going on for decades, and the conclusion is: that doesn't work, there is not enough manpower such way. So the matter has to come from more fundamental principles, to bring people into caring about them. > If you wish to make software accessible to blind users, file bugs, or > program it for blind. Been doing that for twenty years already. But programmers have been inventing a lot of software in the meanwhile too, so it's a never-ending lost battle. Really, compare that to internationalization. If the GNU project hadn't taken care of putting that into the GCS, programmers would have taken much less time in making their software translable, handle non-ASCII, etc. > Don't impose on GNU programmers such requirement, As mentioned previously, it's even the UN itself which does impose it. Samuel
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Jean Louis, le jeu. 02 janv. 2020 17:12:16 +0100, a ecrit: > * Mark Wielaard [2020-01-02 13:43]: > > Thanks. Attached is an updated version and a diff with this change and > > a few other small nitpicks mainly aimed at making the text more > > concise. > > > > - Put the introduction text in one paragraph. > > - Add "all" users for which the Four Essential Freedoms should hold. > > To add "all" users is not necessary, as the freedom zero is very clear > that it is for everybody. > > See: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and where it says: > "The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of > person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for > any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to > communicate about it with the developer or any other specific > entity. " > > Thus "all" users is not necessary, as that would mean nobody is > reading the actual freedom, but focus on your "social contract" which > is not "social" at all. Just to give an example on why we'd want to emphasize "all". We have been discussing with RMS on this precise kind of point, about accessibility. He first said that accessibility was a "desirable feature", but not a priority, and freedom #0 does provide the right to run the software, so it was seeming all good already to him, even if the software happens to be unusable for some people. He said that making a program available, that unfortunately can't be used by e.g. blind people, is not hurting them. But that's *precisely* ignoring that you can't get completely away from social questions: as a program becomes more and more used by a lot of people, it becomes more and more mandatory to be able to use it (and not just run it...) in order to be able to participate to the society, because not being able to use it makes you excluded from that part of the society. The UN definition of discrimination does include "denial of reasonable accommodation". Eventually accessibility was made a priority on https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/ just like internationalization. I do believe it is important to emphasize "all". Samuel
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Dear Mark, On behalf of whom are you making these documents? Is there authorization by RMS? Is it possible to see your authorization? Without it, such document is not holding water. In relation to your document see my comments below: * Mark Wielaard [2020-01-02 13:43]: > Thanks. Attached is an updated version and a diff with this change and > a few other small nitpicks mainly aimed at making the text more > concise. > > - Put the introduction text in one paragraph. > - Add "all" users for which the Four Essential Freedoms should hold. To add "all" users is not necessary, as the freedom zero is very clear that it is for everybody. See: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and where it says: "The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. " Thus "all" users is not necessary, as that would mean nobody is reading the actual freedom, but focus on your "social contract" which is not "social" at all. > - Remove extra explanations from the Four Essential Freedoms. > They are self-evident and make the text longer than necessary. Four freedoms are not self-evident, and they must be detailed and that is why there exists GNU General Public License which defines the freedomes. I do not see where your reasoning comes from. How about hiring an attorney to draft it for you? Try asking for help and assistance by professionals in the field of legalities. > GNU Social Contract > > These are the core commitments of the GNU Project to the broader free > software community. The GNU Project provides a software system that > respect users' freedoms. GNU project was always for any type of community, and I do not know why are you insisting with words "broader" -- as there is no limitation who can use GNU software. GNU project does not provide just software system, rather it is project to build fully free operating system. Software system and operating system are not same in its meanings. In general, all that you write about is totally not necessary, I cannot see what are your purposes, in fact I see your actions as animosity towards the original GNU project, so you are not explaining what really bothers you, and what is really your problem. Could you tell on the list what is your real problem? I cannot see what new you are introducing here. I just got a feeling you have some serious undeclared problem. > * The GNU Project respects users' freedoms It was always like that, since beginning, so why now "social" contract which is not social at all? Or social means you and Ludovic? > The GNU Project provides software that guarantees to all users the > /Four Essential Freedoms/, without compromise: > 0. The freedom to run the program as they wish, for any purpose. > 1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does > their computing as they wish. > 2. The freedom to redistribute copies so they can help others. > 3. The freedom to distribute copies of their modified versions to > others. Some GNU GPL licenses guarantee some specific certain freedoms, but GNU Project shall not guarantee anything to users. It is creation, things can go wrong, servers can go down, there shall be no guarantee by GNU project. If you mention any type of guarantees you would need to mention "by what" exactly you would guarantee it. GNU GPL license guarantees certain specific freedoms and it guarantees it by the law. However, so many laws exists on this world, that its real guarantee cannot be ensured by anything. It is more a type of friendly agreement than enforcable legality. And if some software of GNU project is licensed by some other free software license, I am not sure if that would be compatible with those four guaranteed four freedoms. Further, explaining four freedoms in some short manner deviates from the actual thought and idea that is explained here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html You cannot just shorten the idea that has to be communicated to the public and assume it is self-evident. Further, there are no warranties by GNU GPL license, while certain freedoms by license are guaranteed by law, if you say that you wish GNU project to guarantee for those four freedoms your are legally jeopardizing the GNU project, putting it at legal risks, finally you are trying to make a "social" contract. Legally, it makes no sense at all. Friendly, it is not necessary for GNU project, as all those issues have been handled long time ago. Let me comment more: > The GNU Project adopts policies that encourage and enable developers > to actively defend user freedom. Vague definition of "policies" opens the door to all kinds of deviations. > These policies include using /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure > that users’ freedoms cannot be stripped off, when
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
* 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 other programs it runs, I think it is better > if it is self contained. I don't see it as a problem that GNU > maintainers outside their GNU work might not fully adhere to the social > contract as long as we can trust each other to do when we are working > together on the GNU project itself. FSF is not overseeing GNU project, it is supporting it. Richard Stallman is person who could "ratify" it, and social contract is not necessary for GNU, that was already discussed and resolved so far I know, multiple times on this list. Tell me if I am wrong. I am surprised that you and few other people forcefully wish to impose something that is not necessary and that was said not to be necessary, and behind the back of Richard Stallman, head of the GNU project. Finally, your writings pretend to speak as officially authorized by GNU project, which it is not, and then again, tell me if I am wrong. In any company business, one would have to have legal authorization to speak on behalf any entity or group or person. Did you get any authorization by RMS for those writings of you? Jean
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hello! 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 better: > > The GNU Project adopts policies that encourage and enable developers > to actively defend user freedom. These policies include using > /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users’ freedoms cannot > be stripped off, when appropriate. Sure, LGTM! Thanks, Ludo’.
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 better: > > > > The GNU Project adopts policies that encourage and enable developers > > to actively defend user freedom. These policies include using > > /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users’ freedoms cannot > > be stripped off, when appropriate. > > Sure, LGTM! Thanks. Attached is an updated version and a diff with this change and a few other small nitpicks mainly aimed at making the text more concise. - Put the introduction text in one paragraph. - Add "all" users for which the Four Essential Freedoms should hold. - Remove extra explanations from the Four Essential Freedoms. They are self-evident and make the text longer than necessary. - Replace the paragraph we discussed above. - Remove the precise policy how to ensure consistency. That can be put in an actualy policy document. - Replace and reword 'has extended' to 'extends', which is shorter. Cheers, MarkGNU Social Contract These are the core commitments of the GNU Project to the broader free software community. The GNU Project provides a software system that respect users' freedoms. * The GNU Project respects users' freedoms The GNU Project provides software that guarantees to all users the /Four Essential Freedoms/, without compromise: 0. The freedom to run the program as they wish, for any purpose. 1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does their computing as they wish. 2. The freedom to redistribute copies so they can help others. 3. The freedom to distribute copies of their modified versions to others. The GNU Project adopts policies that encourage and enable developers to actively defend user freedom. These policies include using /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users’ freedoms cannot be stripped off, when appropriate. Besides upholding the Four Essential Freedoms, the GNU Project pays attention and responds to new threats to users' freedom as they arise. * The GNU Project provides a consistent system The GNU Project develops an operating system, the /GNU System/, as well as a set of applications. Each software component developed by the GNU Project is referred to as a /GNU package/. GNU package developers work together to ensure consistency across packages. * The GNU Project collaborates with the broader free software community Free software extends beyond the GNU Project, which works with companion free software projects that develop key components of the GNU System. The GNU Project aims to extend the reach of free software to new fields. * The GNU Project welcomes contributions from all and everyone The GNU Project wants to give everyone the opportunity of contributing to its efforts on any of the many tasks that require work. It welcomes all contributors, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, level of experience, or any other personal characteristics. It commits to providing a harassment-free experience for all contributors. --- social-contract.org.orig 2020-01-02 13:10:29.360557593 +0100 +++ social-contract.org 2020-01-02 13:29:38.764604876 +0100 @@ -1,28 +1,23 @@ GNU Social Contract -This document states the core commitments of the GNU Project to the -broader free software community. - -The purpose of the GNU Project is to provide software and systems that +These are the core commitments of the GNU Project to the broader free +software community. The GNU Project provides a software system that respect users' freedoms. * The GNU Project respects users' freedoms -The GNU Project provides software that guarantees to users the +The GNU Project provides software that guarantees to all users the /Four Essential Freedoms/, without compromise: 0. The freedom to run the program as they wish, for any purpose. 1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does their computing as they wish. 2. The freedom to redistribute copies so they can help others. 3. The freedom to distribute copies of their modified versions to others. - By doing this they can give the whole community a chance to benefit - from their changes. -Access to the source code is a precondition for this. - -Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the advancement -of free software, all software written by the GNU Project is distributed -under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that developers cannot strip off -users' freedom from GNU software. + +The GNU Project adopts policies that encourage and enable developers +to actively defend user freedom. These policies include using +/copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users’ freedoms cannot be +stripped off, when appropriate. Besides upholding the
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 came with a request for feedback.
The latest version of the GNU Social Contract can be found here:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-11/msg00358.html
There were some minor wording suggestions since on the list.
> In response to that request, earlier on-list feedback, and expressed
> support for having a couple of
> succinct documents that describe the structure and mission of the GNU
> project, I composed a version
> based on Andreas Elke's draft that attempts to address some of the
> problems that were raised.
Thanks. But I think your version mixes why, what and how a little.
The social contract says what users and the free software community can
expect from the GNU project, but doesn't prescribe how GNU volunteers
working on it do it, or how the project is structured precisely. It
looks like your document and the social contract could be separate
documents because they don't really conflict. That might make it more
clear what you are precisely proposing.
> This amended version:
>
> - is closer to the situation as it currently exists and as such
> should need no additional agreement
> or undersigning of existing maintainers since it should describe the
> status quo.
Maybe you could state what in the GNU Social Contract doesn't describe
the status quo?
> - retains the position of trust and authority of the FSF instead of
> placing it with the GNU
> maintainers (thereby working around the hitherto unaddressed problem
> that GNU maintainers--outside of
> adhering the the licensing of their package--need to have no affinity
> or even an interest in Free Software).
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 other programs it runs, I think it is better
if it is self contained. I don't see it as a problem that GNU
maintainers outside their GNU work might not fully adhere to the social
contract as long as we can trust each other to do when we are working
together on the GNU project itself.
> - guarantees GNU maintainers can continue to work on the project as a
> loosely associated group of hackers
> if they so desire even though a more regimented approach can be
> implemented within each seperate component
> or package.
The GNU Social Contract doesn't mention Maintainers, or any other
volunteer role. Could you say which parts of the GNU Social Contract
would block hackers working together on the GNU project in a loose or
rigid fashion?
> Comments and questions are, of course, more than welcome.
Thanks,
Mark
GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
Hi,
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 came with a request for feedback.
In response to that request, earlier on-list feedback, and expressed support
for having a couple of
succinct documents that describe the structure and mission of the GNU project,
I composed a version
based on Andreas Elke's draft that attempts to address some of the problems
that were raised.
This amended version:
- is closer to the situation as it currently exists and as such should need no
additional agreement
or undersigning of existing maintainers since it should describe the status quo.
- retains the position of trust and authority of the FSF instead of placing it
with the GNU
maintainers (thereby working around the hitherto unaddressed problem that GNU
maintainers--outside of
adhering the the licensing of their package--need to have no affinity or even
an interest in Free Software).
- guarantees GNU maintainers can continue to work on the project as a loosely
associated group of hackers
if they so desire even though a more regimented approach can be implemented
within each seperate component
or package.
Comments and questions are, of course, more than welcome.
regards,
Andreas
GNU - Principles and Guidelines
This document states the obligations of the GNU Project and the core principles
the project is based on.
* The GNU system
The purpose of the GNU Project is to create and maintain a body of software
(the GNU Operating System, or GNU system) that respects the software users's
freedom,
where "users's freedom" is defined by the four essential software freedoms of
which the
definition is maintained by the Free Software Foundation (FSF).
The four essential software freedoms are:
0. The freedom to run the program as they wish, for any purpose.
1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
their computing as they wish. Access to the source code is a precondition
for this.
2. The freedom to redistribute copies so they can help others.
3. The freedom to distribute copies of their modified versions to others.
By doing this they can give the whole community a chance to benefit
from their changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Unless the FSF deems a different license more beneficial to the advancement of
free software
in a particular instance, all GNU maintainers are urged to distribute their GNU
packages under
copyleft licenses with prejudice towards a current (or later) version of one of
the GNU
copyleft license family.
* The GNU Project provides a consistent system
Each software component developed by the GNU Project is referred to as a GNU
package. GNU package
developers should work together to ensure consistency across packages. GNU
packages should follow
the design and development guidelines of the GNU Project.
* The GNU Project and the free software community
The GNU project stakeholders are all users of the GNU system as represented by
the FSF. As such, an
FSF-sponsored maintainer for the GNU system as a whole (the Chief GNUisance)
will ensure the GNU Project
adheres to FSF guidelines pertaining to the GNU project in particular and
software freedom in general.
* GNU Maintainers and the GNU Project
GNU maintainers have no obligations towards the GNU project or the FSF outside
those set forth in the
"Information for Maintainers of GNU Software" document.
Outside of technical matters and a general disposition in favour of software
freedom, the GNU Project
as a single identifiable entity holds or propagates no opinions as its own.
* Contributing to GNU
The GNU Project encourages contributions from anyone who wishes to advance the
development of the GNU
system, regardless of gender, race, ethnic group, physical appearance,
religion, cultural background,
and any other demographic characteristics, as well as personal political views.
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.) > > Oh, weird. Maybe the moderators were both on vacation. I just got multiple of your messages to the list. > > On Fri, 2019-12-20 at 12:28 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> Mark Wielaard skribis: > > Agreed. But I think I didn't explain very well what my concrete > > suggestion was. So this is what I am actually suggesting: > > > > Replace this text: > > > >Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the > >advancement of free software, all software written by the GNU > >Project is distributed under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure > >that developers cannot strip off users' freedom from GNU software. > > > >With this: > > > >The GNU Project prefers policies that encourage and enable > >developers to actively defend users' Freedom. Which includes > >distributing GNU software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to > >ensure that users' freedoms cannot be strip off. > > OK. (with s/Which/This/) > > >This leaves off when/how we precisely define these policies (when not > >to use copyleft, or LGPL or some exception, and when to require > >copyright assignment/bundling or not). But does make clear that the > >first priority is defending user freedom. > > I see, especially in light of your other comments about copyright > holders. > > It seems to me that the wording you propose somewhat softens the > preference for copyleft, though. How about: > > The GNU Project adopts policies that encourage and enable developers > to actively defend user freedom. These policies include distributing > GNU software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users’ > freedoms cannot be stripped off, unless the GNU Project deems that a > different choice furthers the advancement of user freedom. > > Anyway, I guess we’re really nitpicking at this point, overall we’re > saying the same thing! 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 better: The GNU Project adopts policies that encourage and enable developers to actively defend user freedom. These policies include using /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users’ freedoms cannot be stripped off, when appropriate. But not being a native speaker, maybe this is too short. It is good that we have this discussion publicly, now we at least have an archive of the discussions which hopefully explains the background when people try to interpret it in the future. Thanks, Mark
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hi Mark, 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.) Oh, weird. > On Fri, 2019-12-20 at 12:28 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Mark Wielaard skribis: >> > I agree. But it feels like we can describe this more concise >> > without >> > having the explain the exact policy we are following. For example >> > could we just state here: "The GNU Project prefers to distribute >> > software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users' >> > freedoms cannot be strip off."? >> >> I think such a document has to be self-contained, and that’s why I think >> it’s good to concisely define copyleft and its intent here. >> >> Outsiders reading the document may not know what “copyleft” means; yet >> we want them to have a good grasp of what we’re trying to achieve. >> >> WDYT? > > Agreed. But I think I didn't explain very well what my concrete > suggestion was. So this is what I am actually suggesting: > > Replace this text: > >Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the >advancement of free software, all software written by the GNU >Project is distributed under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure >that developers cannot strip off users' freedom from GNU software. > >With this: > >The GNU Project prefers policies that encourage and enable >developers to actively defend users' Freedom. Which includes >distributing GNU software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to >ensure that users' freedoms cannot be strip off. OK. (with s/Which/This/) >This leaves off when/how we precisely define these policies (when not >to use copyleft, or LGPL or some exception, and when to require >copyright assignment/bundling or not). But does make clear that the >first priority is defending user freedom. I see, especially in light of your other comments about copyright holders. It seems to me that the wording you propose somewhat softens the preference for copyleft, though. How about: The GNU Project adopts policies that encourage and enable developers to actively defend user freedom. These policies include distributing GNU software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users’ freedoms cannot be stripped off, unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the advancement of user freedom. Anyway, I guess we’re really nitpicking at this point, overall we’re saying the same thing! >> I’m aware of this, but it is a policy for copyright assignment to the >> FSF; it’s not a policy to avoid copyright “held by corporations”. The >> motivation stated in why-assign.html is that assignment allows the FSF >> “to enforce the GPL most effectively” and doesn’t mention corporations. > > Right, but the point is to be able to enforce defending user freedoms > effectively. And leaving copyrights with corporations instead of the > actual developers or the FSF makes it so we cannot effectively do that. Yes. >> Regarding the pros and cons of copyright assignment, we could discuss at >> length. :-) However, regardless of what we think of copyright >> assignment, I believe the social contract should be positioned at a >> higher level. IOW, I view copyright assignment as a policy issue, and >> not as a defining principle. (Note that currently copyright assignment >> is not mandated for new packages, and in practice only a fraction of GNU >> packages require it.) > > I believe using a copyleft license (and which one), and having a > strategy to effectively use it to defend user freedom are both policy > issues. The defining principle is that we favor policies (using > copyleft licensing) and strategies (keep copyright with the active > developer/FSF that will enforce copyleft) that maximize user freedom. Right, that clarifies to me the purpose of the rewording above. Thank you! Ludo’.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hi Mark! Mark Wielaard skribis: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 03:33:20PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: [...] >> I think copyleft is a “salient feature” of GNU, compared to many other >> free software projects, and indeed, GNU has its own licenses for that >> purpose. So to me, copyleft has its place in the social contract, >> rather than in a separate policy. We still need to leave room for the >> rare exceptions (Speex, ncurses), but there should be a clear stance in >> favor of copyleft licenses IMO. >> >> WDYT? > > I agree. But it feels like we can describe this more concise without > having the explain the exact policy we are following. For example > could we just state here: "The GNU Project prefers to distribute > software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users' > freedoms cannot be strip off."? I think such a document has to be self-contained, and that’s why I think it’s good to concisely define copyleft and its intent here. Outsiders reading the document may not know what “copyleft” means; yet we want them to have a good grasp of what we’re trying to achieve. WDYT? >> > What are other policies that would/should follow from the social >> > issues? Or should maybe be in the contract itself? >> > >> > For example one core policy seems to be that we prefer the copyright to >> > be held individuals or the FSF (instead of being held by corporations) >> > so that the user freedoms are actually upheld when copyleft is used. >> >> I don’t think there’s such a policy right now, is there? > > There certainly is for various (older?) GNU projects. At least all > that I contribute to have such a policy. It is explained here: > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html > And the FSF itself has a larger explanation here: > https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2014/spring/copyright-assignment-at-the-fsf I’m aware of this, but it is a policy for copyright assignment to the FSF; it’s not a policy to avoid copyright “held by corporations”. The motivation stated in why-assign.html is that assignment allows the FSF “to enforce the GPL most effectively” and doesn’t mention corporations. > The reason I want to call this out is because when you don't have a > policy to keep copyright with the actual developers or assigned to a > foundation that comes up for user freedom you might accidentially > loose a way to defend user freedom for GNU software. > > If you pretend that who holds the copyrights is no big deal then, for > "popular" projects, you might slowly but surely see that the > copyrights will be held by corporations employing the developers. This > is a problem because corporations in general don't have any incentive > to defend user freedom. They don't want to upset their partners and > customers when they don't pass through the freedoms required by the > license. And they will just ignore the issue. It isn't that companies > are evil, it is just that they don't care (it isn't in their business > interest to care). But that also means they are often more than happy > to move the responsibility (assign the copyright) so that the issue is > out of their hands (companies do like a level playing field). I don’t believe “corporate takeover” is a realistic threat, at least not in the majority of cases. In my view, there are two situations: 1. Projects with many stakeholders, including companies. In those situations, a company may hold parts of the copyright, but it’d have to rewrite the whole project to really “take it over”. That’s practically impossible and useless. 2. Projects developed in-house by a company and “open sourced” (sic). Those projects may be free software but are, for all practical purposes, under the control of a single company from the start. That’s why I don’t think corporate takeover, among all the threats to user freedom, deserves a special mention in the social contract. Regarding the pros and cons of copyright assignment, we could discuss at length. :-) However, regardless of what we think of copyright assignment, I believe the social contract should be positioned at a higher level. IOW, I view copyright assignment as a policy issue, and not as a defining principle. (Note that currently copyright assignment is not mandated for new packages, and in practice only a fraction of GNU packages require it.) >> > Is that something that should be in the social contract? Does it >> > follow from what is in it now? Or should we add something to make the >> > (abstract) idea clear? (e.g. The GNU Project prefers policies that >> > encourage and enable developers to actively defend the users' >> > Freedom.) >> >> I think it’s implicit that project policies cannot contradict the >> higher-level goals set forth by the social contract. > > But does the current text of the social contract really sufficiently > clear that we will try to actively defend user's freedoms? For example > by the above policy. I think it does. What modification would
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 describe this more concise > > without > > having the explain the exact policy we are following. For example > > could we just state here: "The GNU Project prefers to distribute > > software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users' > > freedoms cannot be strip off."? > > I think such a document has to be self-contained, and that’s why I think > it’s good to concisely define copyleft and its intent here. > > Outsiders reading the document may not know what “copyleft” means; yet > we want them to have a good grasp of what we’re trying to achieve. > > WDYT? Agreed. But I think I didn't explain very well what my concrete suggestion was. So this is what I am actually suggesting: Replace this text: Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the advancement of free software, all software written by the GNU Project is distributed under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that developers cannot strip off users' freedom from GNU software. With this: The GNU Project prefers policies that encourage and enable developers to actively defend users' Freedom. Which includes distributing GNU software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users' freedoms cannot be strip off. This leaves off when/how we precisely define these policies (when not to use copyleft, or LGPL or some exception, and when to require copyright assignment/bundling or not). But does make clear that the first priority is defending user freedom. > > > I don’t think there’s such a policy right now, is there? > > > > There certainly is for various (older?) GNU projects. At least all > > that I contribute to have such a policy. It is explained here: > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html > > And the FSF itself has a larger explanation here: > > https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2014/spring/copyright-assignment-at-the-fsf > > I’m aware of this, but it is a policy for copyright assignment to the > FSF; it’s not a policy to avoid copyright “held by corporations”. The > motivation stated in why-assign.html is that assignment allows the FSF > “to enforce the GPL most effectively” and doesn’t mention corporations. Right, but the point is to be able to enforce defending user freedoms effectively. And leaving copyrights with corporations instead of the actual developers or the FSF makes it so we cannot effectively do that. > > The reason I want to call this out is because when you don't have a > > policy to keep copyright with the actual developers or assigned to a > > foundation that comes up for user freedom you might accidentially > > loose a way to defend user freedom for GNU software. > > > > If you pretend that who holds the copyrights is no big deal then, for > > "popular" projects, you might slowly but surely see that the > > copyrights will be held by corporations employing the developers. This > > is a problem because corporations in general don't have any incentive > > to defend user freedom. They don't want to upset their partners and > > customers when they don't pass through the freedoms required by the > > license. And they will just ignore the issue. It isn't that companies > > are evil, it is just that they don't care (it isn't in their business > > interest to care). But that also means they are often more than happy > > to move the responsibility (assign the copyright) so that the issue is > > out of their hands (companies do like a level playing field). > > I don’t believe “corporate takeover” is a realistic threat, at least not > in the majority of cases. I don't think we should call this "corporate takeover". It is about using copyleft effectively. I believe as GNU project we should not just say we use copyleft, but also be willing to actually use/enforce it to defend user freedom when necessary. Companies might not be against user freedom, nor be against copyleft to ensure it. But they are not setup to actually defend user freedom. So the threat isn't a takeover by one specific corporation. But that by leaving copyright with (multiple) corporations instead of the active developers or the FSF means we cannot effectively use copyleft as a tool to defend user freedom. > In my view, there are two situations: > > 1. Projects with many stakeholders, including companies. In those > situations, a company may hold parts of the copyright, but it’d > have to rewrite the whole project to really “take it over”. That’s > practically impossible and useless. > > 2. Projects developed in-house by a company and “open sourced” (sic). > Those projects may be free software but are, for all practical > purposes, under the control of a
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 this GNU mission statement. And discuss with the > > broader community whether it actually says what we want it to (what in > > it makes it real GNU and not some generic "open source" thing)? > > Good point; though it wouldn’t be bad either if the social contract was > similar to that of a free software project with similar goals. I agree. And it would also be good if our social contract could be a template for others. I do actually think this version does a good job to show what is different about GNU by placing user freedom front and center. But I wouldn't be surprised we missed something when a larger group of people look at it. > > For example I think this is one of those things: > > > >> Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the > >> advancement > >> of free software, all software written by the GNU Project is distributed > >> under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that developers cannot strip > >> off > >> users' freedom from GNU software. > > > > But it also looks like a "policy" issue, that shouldn't really be in > > the social contract itself. This feels more like something that should > > follow from the mission statement/social contract in the context of > > working on actual software. > > I think copyleft is a “salient feature” of GNU, compared to many other > free software projects, and indeed, GNU has its own licenses for that > purpose. So to me, copyleft has its place in the social contract, > rather than in a separate policy. We still need to leave room for the > rare exceptions (Speex, ncurses), but there should be a clear stance in > favor of copyleft licenses IMO. > > WDYT? I agree. But it feels like we can describe this more concise without having the explain the exact policy we are following. For example could we just state here: "The GNU Project prefers to distribute software under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that users' freedoms cannot be strip off."? > > What are other policies that would/should follow from the social > > issues? Or should maybe be in the contract itself? > > > > For example one core policy seems to be that we prefer the copyright to > > be held individuals or the FSF (instead of being held by corporations) > > so that the user freedoms are actually upheld when copyleft is used. > > I don’t think there’s such a policy right now, is there? There certainly is for various (older?) GNU projects. At least all that I contribute to have such a policy. It is explained here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html And the FSF itself has a larger explanation here: https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2014/spring/copyright-assignment-at-the-fsf The reason I want to call this out is because when you don't have a policy to keep copyright with the actual developers or assigned to a foundation that comes up for user freedom you might accidentially loose a way to defend user freedom for GNU software. If you pretend that who holds the copyrights is no big deal then, for "popular" projects, you might slowly but surely see that the copyrights will be held by corporations employing the developers. This is a problem because corporations in general don't have any incentive to defend user freedom. They don't want to upset their partners and customers when they don't pass through the freedoms required by the license. And they will just ignore the issue. It isn't that companies are evil, it is just that they don't care (it isn't in their business interest to care). But that also means they are often more than happy to move the responsibility (assign the copyright) so that the issue is out of their hands (companies do like a level playing field). > > Is that something that should be in the social contract? Does it > > follow from what is in it now? Or should we add something to make the > > (abstract) idea clear? (e.g. The GNU Project prefers policies that > > encourage and enable developers to actively defend the users' > > Freedom.) > > I think it’s implicit that project policies cannot contradict the > higher-level goals set forth by the social contract. But does the current text of the social contract really sufficiently clear that we will try to actively defend user's freedoms? For example by the above policy. Cheers, Mark
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hi Mark, 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 this GNU mission statement. And discuss with the > broader community whether it actually says what we want it to (what in > it makes it real GNU and not some generic "open source" thing)? Good point; though it wouldn’t be bad either if the social contract was similar to that of a free software project with similar goals. > For example I think this is one of those things: > >> Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the advancement >> of free software, all software written by the GNU Project is distributed >> under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that developers cannot strip >> off >> users' freedom from GNU software. > > But it also looks like a "policy" issue, that shouldn't really be in > the social contract itself. This feels more like something that should > follow from the mission statement/social contract in the context of > working on actual software. I think copyleft is a “salient feature” of GNU, compared to many other free software projects, and indeed, GNU has its own licenses for that purpose. So to me, copyleft has its place in the social contract, rather than in a separate policy. We still need to leave room for the rare exceptions (Speex, ncurses), but there should be a clear stance in favor of copyleft licenses IMO. WDYT? > What are other policies that would/should follow from the social > issues? Or should maybe be in the contract itself? > > For example one core policy seems to be that we prefer the copyright to > be held individuals or the FSF (instead of being held by corporations) > so that the user freedoms are actually upheld when copyleft is used. I don’t think there’s such a policy right now, is there? > Is that something that should be in the social contract? Does it > follow from what is in it now? Or should we add something to make the > (abstract) idea clear? (e.g. The GNU Project prefers policies that > encourage and enable developers to actively defend the users' > Freedom.) I think it’s implicit that project policies cannot contradict the higher-level goals set forth by the social contract. Thanks, Ludo’.
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 it real GNU and not some generic "open source" thing)? For example I think this is one of those things: > Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the advancement > of free software, all software written by the GNU Project is distributed > under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that developers cannot strip off > users' freedom from GNU software. But it also looks like a "policy" issue, that shouldn't really be in the social contract itself. This feels more like something that should follow from the mission statement/social contract in the context of working on actual software. What are other policies that would/should follow from the social issues? Or should maybe be in the contract itself? For example one core policy seems to be that we prefer the copyright to be held individuals or the FSF (instead of being held by corporations) so that the user freedoms are actually upheld when copyleft is used. Is that something that should be in the social contract? Does it follow from what is in it now? Or should we add something to make the (abstract) idea clear? (e.g. The GNU Project prefers policies that encourage and enable developers to actively defend the users' Freedom.) Cheers, Mark
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hi :) On Sat 09 Nov 2019 18:44, Andreas Enge writes: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 09:46:56PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Thanks, Andreas, for this new version! Some comments below. > > They are integrated into the attached new version. For good measure, > I have capitalised "GNU System" as you did and thrown in a few italics > as suggested. > > Andreas I finally took a look and this document looks good to me. I guess a next step would be to specifically elicit feedback from all GNU stakeholders such as maintainers. One nit, regarding the first line :) For me the document is essentially a contract with each other, rather than to any abstract third party. Even in the absence of a "broader free software community" with whom we could profess a contract (and what would they agree to in return?), we would be doing these things. Andy
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hi! I don’t think I replied before, but this last version LGTM! I have nothing against adding “5. Reserved for future use”. :-) Thanks, Ludo’. Andreas Enge skribis: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 09:46:56PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Thanks, Andreas, for this new version! Some comments below. > > They are integrated into the attached new version. For good measure, > I have capitalised "GNU System" as you did and thrown in a few italics > as suggested. > > Andreas > > GNU Social Contract > > This document states the core commitments of the GNU Project to the > broader free software community. > > The purpose of the GNU Project is to provide software and systems that > respect users' freedoms. > > * The GNU Project respects users' freedoms > > The GNU Project provides software that guarantees to users the > /Four Essential Freedoms/, without compromise: > 0. The freedom to run the program as they wish, for any purpose. > 1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does > their computing as they wish. > 2. The freedom to redistribute copies so they can help others. > 3. The freedom to distribute copies of their modified versions to others. > By doing this they can give the whole community a chance to benefit > from their changes. > Access to the source code is a precondition for this. > > Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the advancement > of free software, all software written by the GNU Project is distributed > under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that developers cannot strip off > users' freedom from GNU software. > > Besides upholding the Four Essential Freedoms, the GNU Project pays attention > and responds to new threats to users' freedom as they arise. > > > * The GNU Project provides a consistent system > > The GNU Project develops an operating system, the /GNU System/, as well as > a set of applications. Each software component developed by the GNU Project > is referred to as a /GNU package/. GNU package developers work together to > ensure consistency across packages. GNU packages should follow the design > and development guidelines of the GNU Project. > > > * The GNU Project collaborates with the broader free software community > > Free software has extended beyond the GNU Project, which works with > companion free software projects that develop key components of the > GNU System. The GNU Project aims to extend the reach of free software > to new fields. > > > * The GNU Project welcomes contributions from all and everyone > > The GNU Project wants to give everyone the opportunity of contributing to > its efforts on any of the many tasks that require work. It welcomes all > contributors, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, > level of experience, or any other personal characteristics. It commits to > providing a harassment-free experience for all contributors.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:21 AM Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 12:44 PM Andreas Enge wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 09:46:56PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > > Thanks, Andreas, for this new version! Some comments below. > > > > They are integrated into the attached new version. For good measure, > > I have capitalised "GNU System" as you did and thrown in a few italics > > as suggested. > > This looks great! +1 from me. > > I like that we have 4 straight forward items. > > Cognitively I might like 5 items. Humans tend to like 3, 5, or 7 items. > > You can count 5 on your hand. > > Some cultures really like 5 item lists. Some cultures dislike the > number 4 and find it bad luck. 5. Reserved for future use! Just put it into the contract and leave it for future use ;-) Cheers, Carlos.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 12:44 PM Andreas Enge wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 09:46:56PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Thanks, Andreas, for this new version! Some comments below. > > They are integrated into the attached new version. For good measure, > I have capitalised "GNU System" as you did and thrown in a few italics > as suggested. This looks great! +1 from me. I like that we have 4 straight forward items. Cognitively I might like 5 items. Humans tend to like 3, 5, or 7 items. You can count 5 on your hand. Some cultures really like 5 item lists. Some cultures dislike the number 4 and find it bad luck. Cheers, Carlos.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
On 11/16/2019 06:18 AM, Andreas wrote: > Does he not agree with decisions being made in public or discussions > being public, or both? I can't speak for other people. All I know is what RMS and the FSF have publicly said as per the links I posted. > The current situation, as I understand it, is that there is a group of > about 30 people, many of them active GNU maintainers, that are not > happy with GNU. This, and everything else you remark, has been discussed here. I find it difficult to reply without repeating what has already been said. -- Dora Scilipoti GNU Education Team gnu.org/education
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
On Sat, 2019-11-16 at 02:34 -0500, Dora Scilipoti wrote: > On 11/14/2019 04:32 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > > > > It has been discussed with him and he has been told that these kind > > of > > discussions and decisions need to be made in public. > > And you have been told very clearly that he does not agree. Does he not agree with decisions being made in public or discussions being public, or both? > You have also been told, publicly, what he intends to do. > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-10/msg5.html > > Please do not insist. The current situation, as I understand it, is that there is a group of about 30 people, many of them active GNU maintainers, that are not happy with GNU. Any of them stepping back as a maintainer would be a loss for GNU, but fortunately so far none of them have felt the need to do so. There appears to be a set of demands that should ostensibly address the situations that cause the unhappiness of this group. I'd much rather have these designs be drawn up with public input than hastily put together over private channels and only then presented wholesale with only the options of accepting or rejecting it in whole, which might make some maintainers feel they have to reconsider their involvement with the project depending on the outcome. So far, nothing irreversible has happened, and I think that's a good result, even if at times the discussion has taken a course that has not been comfortable for everyone involved. -Andreas
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
On 11/14/2019 04:32 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > It has been discussed with him and he has been told that these kind of > discussions and decisions need to be made in public. And you have been told very clearly that he does not agree. You have also been told, publicly, what he intends to do. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-10/msg5.html Please do not insist. Likewise when we > asked the FSF where to publicly discuss GNU decision-making processes > and the future relationship of the FSF and GNU they suggested this > mailinglist. So here we are. There must have been a misunderstanding. As far as I know, the FSF never called for a public discussion of its relationship with GNU. It did call for comments, which are not public: "Messages sent to [email protected] and [email protected] will be privately shared between the FSF and GNU leadership..." https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-and-gnu And so did RMS: "As head of the GNU Project, I will be working with the FSF on how to structure the GNU Project's relationship with the FSF in the future. Suggestions can be sent to [email protected]. " https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-10/msg4.html -- Dora Scilipoti GNU Education Team gnu.org/education
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
On 2019-11-15 11:20, [email protected] 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. I haven't seen you CC RMS, and infact -- it seems that you are trying to evade any kind of input from him completely. Pardon me; why would anyone in a mailing list debate extend the Cc: list in this manner? Furthermore, I would assume that RMS keeps tabs on "gnu-misc-discuss". (If not via an actual subscription, then at least by monitoring the archives, which are public for anyone to browse.)
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
> That is clearly false. I've asked repeatedly if for example RMS, the > person who can actually decide on topics like governance, is included > in these discussions -- this has been answered with abundant silence. Maybe because there is nothing to say? Richard is the deciding factor of the GNU project. He is not a stakeholder, nor are you someone who decides how this project makes decisions. >>From what he wrote on a private mailing list, he is aware of this public exchange. And yet, you ignore it. It was explictly asked, and requested, to keep these discussions on internal lists.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
> 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. I haven't seen you CC RMS, and infact -- it seems that you are trying to evade any kind of input from him completely. If such decisions are to be made in public, or not -- is his perogative. How the decision making process of this project is to be done, handle, is for RMS to decide. What do you find unclear about this?
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 when we asked the FSF where to publicly discuss GNU decision-making processes and the future relationship of the FSF and GNU they suggested this mailinglist. So here we are. Cheers, Mark
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:19:45AM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > That is clearly false. I've asked repeatedly if for example RMS, the > person who can actually decide on topics like governance, is included > in these discussions -- this has been answered with abundant silence. Maybe because there is nothing to say? Richard Stallman, like all other GNU stakeholders, is evidently welcome to join this public discussion. So far he has not spoken out, but not because anybody has excluded him. >From what he wrote on a private mailing list, he is aware of this public exchange. Andreas
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
> 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 managed. So please leave it to RMS, the GAC, etc. instead. > > This is not how you make decisions, or drive a fruitful decision > making process. Nobody is excluded, all GNU maintainers and developers are welcome to discuss these GNU governance issues here. That is clearly false. I've asked repeatedly if for example RMS, the person who can actually decide on topics like governance, is included in these discussions -- this has been answered with abundant silence. This shows a lack of understanding, and a total disregard for how this project is governed. You've repeatedly made the assumption that this is a community driven project, and that volunteers have a deciding factor, this is clearly false. The GNU project is not democratic, for good reasons, and this isn't complicated at all to understand. Asking for a loyalty pledge would be a radical change to how things are done, which now has gone from that the GNU project makes a pledge to individual members (see your message, and Ludovic'). You can't even seem to agree on what this summary is supposed to say, or mean. All in all, this should first be discussed with RMS before brought to public discourse.
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 managed. So please leave it to RMS, the GAC, etc. instead. > > This is not how you make decisions, or drive a fruitful decision > making process. Nobody is excluded, all GNU maintainers and developers are welcome to discuss these GNU governance issues here. And the list is even open to non-GNU-volunteers. Not everybody might choose to participate in this early stage though. And it is certainly a difficult process because governance for a volunteer organization like GNU is just really, really hard to get right. Especially when you are trying to do it collectively and publicly. But given that, I believe we are actually making good progress. We have to start somewhere and the proposed GNU "social contract" already saw a couple of important revisions (also based on your own feedback). It might take a couple of more iterations to get to something that can actually be adopted by developers, maintainers, and GNU packages. And that only provides the core mission statement. After that the hard work of actually defining roles and responsibilities, the governance structure, procedures, working groups, etc. starts. I hope by that time more people will get involved so we can make these decisions more collectively. Cheers, Mark
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
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 managed. So please leave it to RMS, the GAC, etc. instead. This is not how you make decisions, or drive a fruitful decision making process.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
You brought up code of conduct texts, those are not the same wording, or intent as the the GNU Kindness guidelines. I think that it is quite clear that you, and Ludovic are not interested in a discussion, you continiouly refuse to answer pertinant questions, you continouly ignore what our _current_ policies state. So you might as well drop this subjet on this list, since there is no hope that this summary will be adopted by the GNU project, as Brandon also already explained before. And now you start to belittle me, and resort to name calling...
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
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 Stallman, yet you focus on GNU project. Your email consists mainly of attacking Ludo and defending rms, two things that Mike recently reiterated are off-topic for the list. I'm placing you under moderation right now so we can avoid more of this coming to the list. Everyone (myself included): please refrain from further personal attacks/defense. -- -brandon
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
* Ludovic Courtès [2019-11-11 15:44]: > I think the whole “us vs. them” discourse, plus telling that “they” have > ulterior motives, is uncalled for. Once again, your scenario that “they” > are trying to publicly shame the GNU Project is not only insulting: it’s > implausible because “they” *are* part of GNU, and for a long time. 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 Stallman, yet you focus on GNU project. You are publicly shaming GNU project, Dr. Stallman, Guix, and yourself. That is the fact supported by so many media news that have badly and wrongly misinterpreted the statement you made. You have chosen to wrong Dr. Stallman for behavior in public, published in public, published on his doman GNU.ORG, that is public shamings by definition. You are in house of Dr. Stallman, pointing to public that Dr. Stallman did something terribly wrong and that he ruined his house. Insulting to you or not, that is the fact, it changes nothing. There is also fact that nothing from above you will not publicly admit to be true, and with that type of attitude of course that you will face the walls in your attempts to bring any new action. In general, your words mean less than birds' singing on the tree, which are in fact beautiful and pleasant to listen to. But also not practical for anything in life or GNU. > Some GNU hackers have been wanting GNU to be community-run. What we’re > doing here is trying to build consensus on how we define GNU and our > commitment to it. It shouldn’t be too difficult because, as has been > noted, this draft just summarizes points very well explained > elsewhere. Your way of running Guix is not "community run" Guix. It is your way and you got community around you. There is Ludovic and few trusted people around Guix, and there is no such thing as "community run" Guix. Your draft is hollow, it is repeating in poor words what is elsewhere mentioned and thus lacking substance, it is totally not necessary as free software philosophy cannot be summarized to those few paragraphs. Please see Alfred's answers here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-11/msg00351.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-11/msg00352.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-11/msg00355.html Quote of Alfred's words: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-11/msg00352.html "Have you discussed this with RMS? No. So by that alone, it doesn't look good -- you're trying to force maintainers to your world view with a total disregard for their opinions." -- Thanks, Jean Louis
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
* Mark Wielaard [2019-11-11 14:50]: > 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 group of leaders, then it is completely unnecessary. If you believe > > GNU should be community-run, then you'll want to see a social contract; > > I think this is a good observation. It is one step that is necessary > for making sure GNU really is a Free Software movement based on shared > values, away from what some might see as just based on on a cult-of- > personality. Your statement seem not to be made to foster GNU contributions. Wasn't your question already answered by Alfred just before 2 days: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-11/msg00355.html "But lets please drop this subject here, there is little to pursue unless you activley involve people who make decisions for the GNU project, i.e. RMS." You denigrate Dr. Richard Stallman as "cult-of-personality" and you try to go "around" the founder of the GNU project by introducing your politics and trying to "take over" GNU by introducing doubts and denigrations such as "cult of personality". Your question about "social contract" have already been explained here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-11/msg00360.html > > if you think it should be run as it currently is, then it's > > impossible to see a use for it. > > > > Given that nothing has changed in how GNU is being run, it appears > > that the cart is being placed well before the horse. > > There might be different perceptions on how GNU is actually run in > practice. Some might say it already is completely > community-run. Some might claim there is one person who is > ultimately responsible for all decisions. It is probably somewhere > in between. With different people believing different things about > their roles and responsibilities. And that is why I want to have > more clearly written down what the structure and mission of the GNU > project is. What matters are contributions to GNU project. Founder Dr. Stallman is ultimately responsible for creation and any other important decisions, and it is known that he never works completely alone. Read again here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-11/msg00355.html Believes or perception is not important for the person wishing to contribute to GNU project, that person may ask right people and will get clear answers. > Because I think it is bad to have a governance structure that people > don't agree on. Please do not generalize when you speak for yourself. You are using "people" like it is some kind of public or big number, while it is far from that. Be specific in your expressions, as being specific is friendly and would avoid introduction of fears, uncertainties and doubts. > I thought we had agreed not to make things personal in generic > governance discussion threads. You say shame rms and the GNU project > as if they are one and the same thing. That might be how we see things > differently. Personally I don't believe they are the same thing. > also not sure who you mean with they. But if you mean me personally, > then no, I don't want to shame rms by trying to formulate what I think > we (as in we GNU hackers together) believe is the mission of the GNU > project. In fact I hope he will agree that it correctly describes what > we all believe in. I do think rms is an important voice to hear in > this discussion. If he doesn't agree with it, then we might have to > reword things a bit. It is already clear that there is not much of mutual agreement, so why don't you speak to Dr. Stallman? More communication does not hurt. This way you speak into air while your questions have been already answered. Clarify your issues directly. I understand that after all the unjustified public shamings you have got problems on that, but hey, just pull yourself and try it. It should be very obvious, communicated and set clear, that GNU project is founded by Dr. Stallman. You have to understand that there will be no way around the founder. Put yourself together and communicate to founder without using proxies and this type of nuisance. Jean
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hello, "Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <[email protected]> skribis: > By the way, "contract" seems like a misnomer, because a contract is > a signed-off agreement between two parties (or more) in which they > exchange something of value; the contract requires a contribution > from at least two parties. I found Andreas’ explanation of what is meant by “social contract” and how it differs from a civil law contract to be clear. Anyhow, note that the term is not new and its meaning in English should be unambiguous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract >From WordNet: Overview of noun social_contract The noun social contract has 1 sense (first 1 from tagged texts) 1. (2) social contract -- (an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society; individual surrenders liberty in return for protection) > A statement of promises to behave in some ways toward some > group (such as a "community"), who makes no reciprocal promises and > isn't a party to the document is rather a "pledge", or > "solemn promise" or such. “Pledge” is also a good word, though my understanding is that it does not capture the social commitment that “social contract” entails. Thanks, Ludo’.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hi Brandon, Brandon Invergo skribis: > Given that nothing has changed in how GNU is being run, it appears that > the cart is being placed well before the horse. However, I would be > shocked if they didn't already expect rms not to step down and therefore > to reject their Social Contract out-of-hand. Given that it is > nevertheless still being written (in public) under conditions where it > will be rejected with almost certainty, I wouldn't be surprised if they > are in fact counting on this to happen. That would give another > opportunity to publicly shame rms and the GNU project as it actually is: > "Look at this beautiful document that rms refused to implement for GNU! > The fact that he *disagrees* with these points shows that he is not fit > to lead GNU anymore!". Nevermind that the rejection is due to its utter > superfluousness given the structure of the GNU project and is not due to > disagreement with the contents. I think the whole “us vs. them” discourse, plus telling that “they” have ulterior motives, is uncalled for. Once again, your scenario that “they” are trying to publicly shame the GNU Project is not only insulting: it’s implausible because “they” *are* part of GNU, and for a long time. Some GNU hackers have been wanting GNU to be community-run. What we’re doing here is trying to build consensus on how we define GNU and our commitment to it. It shouldn’t be too difficult because, as has been noted, this draft just summarizes points very well explained elsewhere. The next step, as I see it, is to get feedback from maintainers, to begin with, to see whether they would be willing to commit to such a pledge. Hopefully we will agree that this cannot harm the project. Personally I think it can only make it stronger. > With that said, I am fully in support of having a couple of succinct > documents that describe the structure and mission of the GNU project. > Richard has also expressed interest in that. I just don't see any need > of enacting them as the basis of a formal pledge. OK. Let’s focus on what we share, and let’s work together on completing this document. Thanks, Ludo’.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
On 11/11/19 4:20 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: But if you mean me personally, > then no, I don't want to shame rms by trying to formulate what I think > we (as in we GNU hackers together) believe is the mission of the GNU > project. In fact I hope he will agree that it correctly describes what > we all believe in. Perhaps this sentence best illustrates what I see as the crux of the impasse: when you say "what we all believe in", you assume everyone involved in GNU believes the same thing, yet this is clearly not the case. If different people have different beliefs, then how can such a document correctly describe "what we all believe in"? How can you expect all volunteers to sign it?
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 group of leaders, then it is completely unnecessary. If you believe > GNU should be community-run, then you'll want to see a social contract; I think this is a good observation. It is one step that is necessary for making sure GNU really is a Free Software movement based on shared values, away from what some might see as just based on on a cult-of- personality. > if you think it should be run as it currently is, then it's > impossible to see a use for it. > > Given that nothing has changed in how GNU is being run, it appears > that the cart is being placed well before the horse. There might be different perceptions on how GNU is actually run in practice. Some might say it already is completely community-run. Some might claim there is one person who is ultimately responsible for all decisions. It is probably somewhere in between. With different people believing different things about their roles and responsibilities. And that is why I want to have more clearly written down what the structure and mission of the GNU project is. Because I think it is bad to have a governance structure that people don't agree on. > However, I would be > shocked if they didn't already expect rms not to step down and therefore > to reject their Social Contract out-of-hand. Given that it is > nevertheless still being written (in public) under conditions where it > will be rejected with almost certainty, I wouldn't be surprised if they > are in fact counting on this to happen. That would give another > opportunity to publicly shame rms and the GNU project as it actually is: > "Look at this beautiful document that rms refused to implement for GNU! > The fact that he *disagrees* with these points shows that he is not fit > to lead GNU anymore!". Nevermind that the rejection is due to its utter > superfluousness given the structure of the GNU project and is not due to > disagreement with the contents. I thought we had agreed not to make things personal in generic governance discussion threads. You say "shame rms and the GNU project" as if they are one and the same thing. That might be how we see things differently. Personally I don't believe they are the same thing. I am also not sure who you mean with "they". But if you mean me personally, then no, I don't want to shame rms by trying to formulate what I think we (as in we GNU hackers together) believe is the mission of the GNU project. In fact I hope he will agree that it correctly describes what we all believe in. I do think rms is an important voice to hear in this discussion. If he doesn't agree with it, then we might have to reword things a bit. > With that said, I am fully in support of having a couple of succinct > documents that describe the structure and mission of the GNU project. > Richard has also expressed interest in that. I just don't see any need > of enacting them as the basis of a formal pledge. That is good to hear. Then we can hopefully openly work together on them, even if we might for now differ on how we might see them used in a future GNU governance structure. Cheers, Mark
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
On 2019-11-10 08:40, Ludovic Courtès wrote: Hello, "Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <[email protected]> skribis: By the way, "contract" seems like a misnomer, because a contract is a signed-off agreement between two parties (or more) in which they exchange something of value; the contract requires a contribution from at least two parties. I found Andreas’ explanation of what is meant by “social contract” and how it differs from a civil law contract to be clear. My point isn't that it just differs from civil law. The word "contract" in all other uses derives the basic concept from the civil law usage. For instance "interface contract" between program modules: mutual requirements are imposed on caller and callee. From WordNet: Overview of noun social_contract The noun social contract has 1 sense (first 1 from tagged texts) 1. (2) social contract -- (an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society; individual surrenders liberty in return for protection) According to that definition, these documents don't look like social contracts. They are promises to behave in some way to a "community" that isn't itself agreeing to the social contract. It includes users who are not members of the project and just run the programs without so much as reading the social contract. If they don't redistribute anything, they don't even have to read the license. “Pledge” is also a good word, though my understanding is that it does not capture the social commitment that “social contract” entails. Well, "social pledge" would do that, probably.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hello Alfred, are you making fun of me? In your message I am referring to, you say this: On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 04:06:42PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > This is quite different than what we our guidelines say, it would be > best to use that text instead: > The GNU Project encourages contributions from anyone who wishes to > advance the development of the GNU system, regardless of gender, race, > ethnic group, physical appearance, religion, cultural background, and > any other demographic characteristics, as well as personal political > views. Now when I mention that same text you bring up, as well as similar texts and ask: >What would people with more experience in this matter suggest? you reply (so you have more experience in this matter?): On Sat, Nov 09, 2019 at 01:23:24PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Neither, the GNU project won't have a code of conduct, or any such > similar texts. This was quite explictly stated. I find it difficult to qualify this exchange of messages as anything but trolling. Would it be "best to use that [first] text", or "neither"? If you say one thing in one posting, and the opposite thing in the next one, I do not see how to have a meaningful discussion. Notice also that this is not a code of conduct, as I already explained before, since it does contain neither a procedure for reporting harassing behaviour nor possible sanctions. Anyway, I think I will not continue adding lines to what ends up resembling a play of Theatre of the Absurd, and likely just ignore your messages in the future. Andreas
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
What would people with more experience in this matter suggest? Neither, the GNU project won't have a code of conduct, or any such similar texts. This was quite explictly stated.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hello, On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 04:06:42PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >The GNU Project wants to give everyone the opportunity of contributing to >its efforts on any of the many tasks that require work. It welcomes all >contributors, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, >level of experience, or any other personal characteristics. It commits to >providing a harassment-free experience for all contributors. > This is quite different than what we our guidelines say, it would be > best to use that text instead: > The GNU Project encourages contributions from anyone who wishes to > advance the development of the GNU system, regardless of gender, race, > ethnic group, physical appearance, religion, cultural background, and > any other demographic characteristics, as well as personal political > views. replying to your and also to Andreas R.'s posting with a similar content. Indeed both versions are quite similar. I like the first sentence of the GSC version, since it is a bit more general than "development of the GNU system", so it includes all other tasks (webmastering, mailing list administration, package submission evaluation and so on). And I like the additional last sentence about a harassment-free environment. It is a bit more stringent and less non-committal. For the "regardless of" part, some of the nouns are the same, some appear in one and not the other. I am wary about "personal political views", which are not quite on the same level as the others, being a choice rather than an inherent characteristic (actually, just like "level of experience"; maybe this should be dropped). And it could be used in opposition to the others: "Well, I am racist and homophobe, these are just my personal political views, so I should be allowed to express them." The "Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct" has: "regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation". Maybe a bit long for us? The Libreplanet code of conduct speaks about "discrimination on the basis of such things as gender, race, and sexuality" Maybe too short? "such things" is also not a nice formulation. What would people with more experience in this matter suggest? Andreas
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 09:46:56PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Thanks, Andreas, for this new version! Some comments below. They are integrated into the attached new version. For good measure, I have capitalised "GNU System" as you did and thrown in a few italics as suggested. Andreas GNU Social Contract This document states the core commitments of the GNU Project to the broader free software community. The purpose of the GNU Project is to provide software and systems that respect users' freedoms. * The GNU Project respects users' freedoms The GNU Project provides software that guarantees to users the /Four Essential Freedoms/, without compromise: 0. The freedom to run the program as they wish, for any purpose. 1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does their computing as they wish. 2. The freedom to redistribute copies so they can help others. 3. The freedom to distribute copies of their modified versions to others. By doing this they can give the whole community a chance to benefit from their changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the advancement of free software, all software written by the GNU Project is distributed under /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure that developers cannot strip off users' freedom from GNU software. Besides upholding the Four Essential Freedoms, the GNU Project pays attention and responds to new threats to users' freedom as they arise. * The GNU Project provides a consistent system The GNU Project develops an operating system, the /GNU System/, as well as a set of applications. Each software component developed by the GNU Project is referred to as a /GNU package/. GNU package developers work together to ensure consistency across packages. GNU packages should follow the design and development guidelines of the GNU Project. * The GNU Project collaborates with the broader free software community Free software has extended beyond the GNU Project, which works with companion free software projects that develop key components of the GNU System. The GNU Project aims to extend the reach of free software to new fields. * The GNU Project welcomes contributions from all and everyone The GNU Project wants to give everyone the opportunity of contributing to its efforts on any of the many tasks that require work. It welcomes all contributors, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, level of experience, or any other personal characteristics. It commits to providing a harassment-free experience for all contributors.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
> A social contract is only a necessity in a community-run organization > because it helps prevent the organization from moving off-course. > (...) > If you believe > GNU should be community-run, then you'll want to see a social contract; I agree with this part, and this is indeed my motivation to work on it. What is so frightening in having GNU be community run? This has been explained else where, so there is little point in bringin up it again, in short is boils down to that a community is incapable of making moral and ethical decisions. Which is also why the idea, at least for now, is to have a small trusted core group that decides on the policies of the GNU project. But lets please drop this subject here, there is little to pursue unless you activley involve people who make decisions for the GNU project, i.e. RMS.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hello! On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 04:36:52PM +, 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. > (...) > If you believe > GNU should be community-run, then you'll want to see a social contract; I agree with this part, and this is indeed my motivation to work on it. What is so frightening in having GNU be community run? To me this looks like the logical implementation of a volunteer based organisation, in particular an organisation that has as goals the freedom and self-empower- ment of the users of a computer system. Then why should the people who implement this not also be self-empowered? > if you think it should be run as it currently is, then it's impossible > to see a use for it. With this I disagree. A social contract has a use independently of the governance model, to define the goals of the organisation and also what the people working towards these goals are expected to heed. Even in an autocratic organisation this makes sense. (Now Alfred claims that main- tainers, for instance, have a purely technical role. But even then, in this technical function, they are expected to heed the principles that we have been outlining in the social contract; notwithstanding that I find it insulting to treat participants in a voluntary organisation as dispensable workforce.) So I would think that we could agree on the social contract independently of what we would like as governance model for GNU. (Except that, of course, if you do not want any change at all in the governance model, then you have a motivation for also blocking this document.) > That would give another > opportunity to publicly shame rms and the GNU project as it actually is: > "Look at this beautiful document that rms refused to implement for GNU! > The fact that he *disagrees* with these points shows that he is not fit > to lead GNU anymore!". I think you are going a bit overboard here. Independently of Richard's fitness for leading GNU (on which I will not comment right now, the goal in this thread is not to discuss individual persons), I think a more community run model for GNU will be beneficial. Also I disagree that discussing GNU in public amounts to shaming. Not everything works well, but there is no shame in admitting this in public. GNU is a wonderful project, and we are interested in improving it and making it work better; obviously we have different opinions on how this can be achieved, but this is perfectly normal, and I see no problem for an organisation working in the public interest to have such discussions in public. Andreas
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
> What is the exact _goal_ of this text? We discussed it several times before, notably in these messages: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-10/msg00011.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-10/msg00081.html If the goal is to get all maintainers to up hold the values of the GNU project, then you have clearly misunderstood the point of being a GNU maintainer. Apart from that, it looks good to me! What do people think? Have you discussed this with RMS? No. So by that alone, it doesn't look good -- you're trying to force maintainers to your world view with a total disregard for their opinions.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
You yet again refrained from answering specific questions, and instead when off on a tangent. I think this now shows clearly what your intention are, they aren't about having a discussion, it isn't about trying to understand how this project works first before suggesting a change, or trying to discuss topics with those who run the project on level terms. So either, nothing is new; then why this resistance to having people commit to it? Or it is new, then why the resistance to writing it? The difference is you are trying to make maintainers, who have never agreed to anything specific other than technical aspects, to agree to something else -- something that they have explicitly not been required to agree with! You've not even disucssed this with the people running the project, who actually understand the nuances of their own decisions. The resistance here is not because of disagreement with what your document says (which could serve as a short summary -- but you are asking for far more), but how you are going about trying to force it through, with a total disregard for everyone else involved. >>From what I understand, you are opposed to a self-organised GNU Project and instead prefer an organisation where Richard Stallman takes all decisions at his own discretion, without being accountable to anybody, contributors to the project and users alike. This is a possible position, but which is indeed contrary to the purpose of the social contract. So instead of claiming not to understand the goal of the social contract, it would be intellectually more honest to state that you are against the goal. After which, there is indeed little point in continuing the discussion. This shows a clear misunderstanding, and I think at this point, intentional, on how the GNU project is governed, RMS doesn't take "all decisions at his own discretion" -- he doesn't work in a vacuum. Each GNU project is infact, and has always been, self governing in its own realm of responsibilities -- namley technical. Volunteers do technical work at their own accord, and at their own whim. Since I think we agree that there is little point in disucssing this further, this document becomes automatically on the chopping block and is I think entierly unsuitable since it totally misrepresents the GNU project and its goals with its intent and but maybe not so much with its wording.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
With that said, I am fully in support of having a couple of succinct documents that describe the structure and mission of the GNU project. Richard has also expressed interest in that. I just don't see any need of enacting them as the basis of a formal pledge. Here here!
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Le vendredi 8 novembre 2019, 19:08:02 CET Thompson, David a écrit : > I read [last Brandon’s speculation] a few times, but I am unable to see how this qualifies as "kind communication." Interesting analysis. Could you further develop on why? I don’t see how.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:37 AM Brandon Invergo wrote: > > Given that nothing has changed in how GNU is being run, it appears that > the cart is being placed well before the horse. However, I would be > shocked if they didn't already expect rms not to step down and therefore > to reject their Social Contract out-of-hand. Given that it is > nevertheless still being written (in public) under conditions where it > will be rejected with almost certainty, I wouldn't be surprised if they > are in fact counting on this to happen. That would give another > opportunity to publicly shame rms and the GNU project as it actually is: > "Look at this beautiful document that rms refused to implement for GNU! > The fact that he *disagrees* with these points shows that he is not fit > to lead GNU anymore!". Nevermind that the rejection is due to its utter > superfluousness given the structure of the GNU project and is not due to > disagreement with the contents. I read this a few times, but I am unable to see how this qualifies as "kind communication." - Dave
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
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 does anything of the sort, it is a partial summary > of the project. It doesn't bring anything new to the table, or moves > anything forward, so far it is a TL;DR note... 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 group of leaders, then it is completely unnecessary. If you believe GNU should be community-run, then you'll want to see a social contract; if you think it should be run as it currently is, then it's impossible to see a use for it. Given that nothing has changed in how GNU is being run, it appears that the cart is being placed well before the horse. However, I would be shocked if they didn't already expect rms not to step down and therefore to reject their Social Contract out-of-hand. Given that it is nevertheless still being written (in public) under conditions where it will be rejected with almost certainty, I wouldn't be surprised if they are in fact counting on this to happen. That would give another opportunity to publicly shame rms and the GNU project as it actually is: "Look at this beautiful document that rms refused to implement for GNU! The fact that he *disagrees* with these points shows that he is not fit to lead GNU anymore!". Nevermind that the rejection is due to its utter superfluousness given the structure of the GNU project and is not due to disagreement with the contents. With that said, I am fully in support of having a couple of succinct documents that describe the structure and mission of the GNU project. Richard has also expressed interest in that. I just don't see any need of enacting them as the basis of a formal pledge. -- -brandon
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
> From what I understand, you are opposed to [..] > instead prefer an organisation where Richard Stallman takes all decisions at > his own discretion, without being accountable to anybody, > contributors to the > project and users alike. This is why I suggested figuring out a charter of the current model of governance first and why drawing up a social contract or any other form of binding document might be premature at this point in time. A reasonable assumption from a historical perspective would be that the chief GNUisance is the maintainer of the GNU project as a whole and a representative of the FSF with the goal to ensure the GNU system is Free Software as per the FSF's definition. If so, the Chief GNUisance can be held accountable, especially now that the head of the FSF and the chief GNUisance are no longer the same person. Without a proper model of the current form of governance in place, even if one draws up the most satisfying social contract, there will be no way to ratify it, other than to declare yourself the new government of GNU and the new document the law. I hope it's obvious that is not a very desirable situation. People opposing new policy being drawn up without solid explanations or even an generally accepted way to acquire a mandate for it, might not necessarily disagree with the new policy, but only the ad-hoc way it's being implemented. -Andreas R.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 02:58:42PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >It is >not something you can give to people and tell them "look, this is >our project, and these are the points you are expected to heed when >you join us". > That is what we did when the the project was started, that is what we > did for many many many years after. That is infact how I learnt what > GNU was, does, how to get involved, and more importantly _why_ > (something your summary completely lacks). How has that changed so > fundamentally that the founding document of this project is now > something you cannot give people to read? Please do not twist my words in my mouth; I did not say we cannot give this to people to read. I said it is not the type of document that GNU stakeholders can pledge to, or that we can give to the public as explaining our commitments. Let me give a few random quotes and it should be clear why (apart from its length): "Why I Must Write GNU" - I do not know, do GNU stakeholders need to write GNU? Maybe they want to. Or they want to moderate a mailing list. What would this mean as a pledge? Who is "I", actually, apart from the historical author? "I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and money." Not something that it would be meaningful to sign as a new GNU maintainer, right? "So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor commands, a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator, a linker, and around 35 utilities." You who spent a certain time trying to take apart our text, comparing wording of the fourth point with a similar sentence in the kind communication guide- lines and complaining that they were not exactly the same, would certainly frown at sending this out to new people joining, given how wrong it is now? As I said above, it is a historical document. Also, there is no need to mention Unix, as the manifesto (in its historical situation) does to great lengths; since GNU/Linux is working well, all proprietary Unices are essentially dead, since about 20 years ago I would guess. So only we elderly people still know what a "Unix" is, and it is not important any more. Anyway, it is idle discussing the social contract with you, since you are fundamentally against it, and then you advance fallacious arguments going in circles. First, you claim that no special commitment is required from maintainers, which may be true currently. I reply that to remedy this, we are working on a social contract that maintainers are expected to commit to. Second, you claim that nothing of this is new, since it can be scraped from various parts of the GNU website. Then I reply that what is new is that we are working on a (short) document that GNU stakeholders are expected to commit to, that distills the essentials of what GNU is about. Third, you claim that no special commitment is required from maintainers. (da capo ad libitum) So either, nothing is new; then why this resistance to having people commit to it? Or it is new, then why the resistance to writing it? >From what I understand, you are opposed to a self-organised GNU Project and instead prefer an organisation where Richard Stallman takes all decisions at his own discretion, without being accountable to anybody, contributors to the project and users alike. This is a possible position, but which is indeed contrary to the purpose of the social contract. So instead of claiming not to understand the goal of the social contract, it would be intellectually more honest to state that you are against the goal. After which, there is indeed little point in continuing the discussion. Andreas
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hi all, Thanks, Andreas, for this new version! Some comments below. [email protected] (Alfred M. Szmidt) skribis: > What is the exact _goal_ of this text? We discussed it several times before, notably in these messages: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-10/msg00011.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-10/msg00081.html >Apart from rare historical exceptions, all software written by the GNU > Project >is distributed under copyleft licenses, designed to ensure that developers >cannot strip off users' freedom from GNU software. > > This would exclude those cases where we might want to distribute > something under a non-copyleft license for strategical reasons. I agree with Alfred. For that reason, I think the other phrasing you proposed, Andreas, would be more appropriate: Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the advancement of free software, all software... >* The GNU Project provides a consistent system > >The GNU Project develops, in the form of GNU packages, an operating system >and a set of applications, the GNU system. GNU package developers work >together to ensure consistency across packages. GNU packages should follow >the design and development guidelines of the GNU Project. > > The GNU system isn't just GNU packages, […] I agree that there’s maybe some ambiguity in the first sentence. Perhaps something like this: The GNU Project develops an operating system, the “GNU System”, as well as a set of applications. Each software component developed by the GNU Project is referred to as a “GNU package”. ? Nitpick: for clarity, I would use quotes (or italics) for every new term being defined (as in the example above.) Apart from that, it looks good to me! What do people think? Thanks, Ludo’.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Andreas Enge wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 04:06:42PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >> What is the exact _goal_ of this text? > > I think it should be a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for > stakeholders in the GNU project to take part in its governance. As it seems, that youʼve changed your mind at some point and no longer believe, that your ideological-driven ‘contract’ shall cover all GNU contributors, but shall be used to build some sort of elite within GNU, Iʼd like to append my list of concrete suggestions to make GNU more inclusive [0], drafted at you request, with one more important point: * (1′) Do not openly classify volunteers basing on ideas they uphold. Those, who find themselves to be legal second-class citizens of GNU because they do not share some RMSʼs views promoted to local credo, will not be very happy about that, even if they are not going to claim any leadership. [0] <[email protected]> signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
"Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <[email protected]> wrote: > By the way, "contract" seems like a misnomer > A statement of promises to behave in some ways toward some group (such as a > "community"), who makes no reciprocal promises and isn't a party to the > document is rather a "pledge", or "solemn promise" or such Given that current proposals are actually not statements of promises, but statements of _facts_: “GNU is a consistent operating system”, “GNU collaborates with the broader free software community”, “GNU welcomes contributions from all and everyone”, et cetera; words _“confession of faith”_ suit even better. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
I thought I had answered this question in the other thread on Enlightenment, but you disagree, so I will give a few more explanations on my point of view here. For me, the GNU Social Contract is a first step towards defining a governance model for the GNU Project. That governance model is already defined, in the form of RMS. Have you discussed how RMS wants to govern? It summarises the main purpose of the project, and as such, as you rightfully noticed, its content should not come as a surprise. I think it should be a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for stakeholders in the GNU project to take part in its governance. You still do not answer how exactly it is different from the documents that we already have. You have still not annswered why you have come up with your own paragraph for "The GNU Project welcomes contributions from all and everyone" instead of what is already part of the guidelines that the GNU project already has. The term "social contract" seems to lead to confusion. So let me repeat that it is not meant as a contract in the sense of civil law, signed by two parties; but as a moral engagement of people invested in GNU (maintainers, web masters and so on) in their relationship to each other, As has been explained numerous times before, and is getting tiresome by now -- maintainers and web masters only agree to a technical position, they do not have to have a moral engagement in any shape or form. but also to the outer world (for instance, users of the GNU system must be sure that they are getting only free software from the project). How is this not already explained by the various web pages, guidelines, philosophical texts, etc, etc, etc, that we have? What part of them makes it unclear what the goals of this project are? Be it to people participating in the GNU project, or people looking from the outside? How is this different from the dub email that you get when you become a maintainer? Your summary doesn't really add anything in this regard, and the current documents that exist explain it in better detail. When you mention the GNU manifesto, it is a much longer text, rather of historical interest, and also a personal account. It is not something you can give to people and tell them "look, this is our project, and these are the points you are expected to heed when you join us". That is what we did when the the project was started, that is what we did for many many many years after. That is infact how I learnt what GNU was, does, how to get involved, and more importantly _why_ (something your summary completely lacks). How has that changed so fundamentally that the founding document of this project is now something you cannot give people to read? That it is a personal account, is because it was a personal call, and important to mention -- since that is the basis of the four freedoms, they are for the user, that makes it personal. Yet again you say that GNU contributors must heed to its philosophical nature, this is not true. 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 does anything of the sort, it is a partial summary of the project. It doesn't bring anything new to the table, or moves anything forward, so far it is a TL;DR note...
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
By the way, "contract" seems like a misnomer, because a contract is a signed-off agreement between two parties (or more) in which they exchange something of value; the contract requires a contribution from at least two parties. A statement of promises to behave in some ways toward some group (such as a "community"), who makes no reciprocal promises and isn't a party to the document is rather a "pledge", or "solemn promise" or such. The requirement to make a pledge can be a contract clause, of course.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hello, On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 04:06:42PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Is it meant as a short summary of what the GNU project does? I could > see how it would serve such purpose, but then it isn't a contract. If > it is a contract, who is agreeing to it? The GNU project? In that > case, those goals are already written in the GNU manifesto, no? > What is the exact _goal_ of this text? I thought I had answered this question in the other thread on Enlightenment, but you disagree, so I will give a few more explanations on my point of view here. For me, the GNU Social Contract is a first step towards defining a governance model for the GNU Project. It summarises the main purpose of the project, and as such, as you rightfully noticed, its content should not come as a surprise. I think it should be a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for stakeholders in the GNU project to take part in its governance. The term "social contract" seems to lead to confusion. So let me repeat that it is not meant as a contract in the sense of civil law, signed by two parties; but as a moral engagement of people invested in GNU (maintainers, web masters and so on) in their relationship to each other, but also to the outer world (for instance, users of the GNU system must be sure that they are getting only free software from the project). When you mention the GNU manifesto, it is a much longer text, rather of historical interest, and also a personal account. It is not something you can give to people and tell them "look, this is our project, and these are the points you are expected to heed when you join us". 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. Andreas
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hello, On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 12:36:52AM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: > > I do not see how the aim of creating a harassment-free environment could be > > construed as making GNU a less welcoming place... > In other words, the only real aim of your ‘social contract’ is to impose that > last paragraph about ‘harassment’ on everyone, while all the software freedom > stuff is just a decoration that should not be taken seriously? sorry, this is plain nonsense. The document contains four points. You and other question the last point. In a reply, I defend the last point. How you can logically conclude that the first three points are "decoration" is beyond me. You may disagree with this point, other points or even the whole idea of the document (I understood this from another one of your messages), but please do not derail the debate with nonsensical arguments. Andreas
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
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 than to try to force an archaic meaning on their words. The former progresses the discussion, the latter diverts it. Anyway, you've already made exactly the same argument to exactly the same people not too long ago, so I'm sure they remember it. -- -brandon
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, it is fine. I don't see a lot of fat in the text, mostly substance. -- 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: A GNU “social contract”?
Le mercredi 6 novembre 2019, 22:11:03 CET Andreas a écrit : > On Wed, 2019-11-06 at 19:31 +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > > > > > > Let me quote once more the paragraph that we are supposedly > > > > discussing: > > > * GNU welcomes contributions from all and everyone > > > We want to give everyone the opportunity to contribute to our > > > efforts > > > on any of the many tasks that require work. We welcome all > > > contributors, > > > regardless of their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, level of > > > experience, or any other personal characteristics. We commit to > > > providing > > > a harassment-free experience for all our contributors. > > What is wrong with: > > "The GNU Project encourages contributions from anyone who wishes to > advance the development of the GNU system, regardless of gender, race, > ethnic group, physical appearance, religion, cultural background, and > any other demographic characteristics, as well as personal political > views." from the kind communications guidelines? > > If you think having a social contract is a good idea, it might be more > palatable to compose it of excerpts and paragraphs already available in > the philosophy section of gnu.org and streamline those into one > coherent document, indicating from which essays the various parts > originate. > > That way you end up with a consistent summary of the important ideas > many GNU supporters already more-or-less agree on, and getting any > adoption should prove far easier. I like this idea. Also you could divide that in two modules, one about software freedom, and another about kindness (that could be signed separately). Then you would try to make people sign that to publicly show they support and behold GNU philosophy, so to provide a more formalized and explicit way of possibly untrusting specific people for newcomers, or easing the job of selecting discrimination among people for responsibilities, maybe even outside of GNU (for instance for Debian, which agrees on a lot coming from GNU). But signature won’t be expected for being a GNU contributor, developer or project maintainer (but could be of help for formalizing a possibly more public process about helping/joining current teams Brandon listed, and advising the chief GNUisance).
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
* Dmitry Alexandrov <[email protected]> [2019-11-07 03:07]: > > I do not see how the aim of creating a harassment-free environment could be > > construed as making GNU a less welcoming place... > > In other words, the only real aim of your ‘social contract’ is to > impose that last paragraph about ‘harassment’ on everyone, while all > the software freedom stuff is just a decoration that should not be > taken seriously? That is exactly what I see. It is agenda of those people who published the public shamings page, so it is further continuance and blatant attempt of corruption of already well organized GNU policies. "Social contract" has etymology coming from France, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract, "In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. 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 their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order" Thus it is "other type of politics" that is trying to enter the GNU project. The only politics for GNU project is free software politics. Introduction of Rousseau's concepts of social contract represent introduction of middle-age French politics into US based, freedom of speech based project named GNU. GNU is and was ahead of the future, it should not go back to French middle-age principles as described above. More food for thoughts from: https://medium.com/@MichaelRobertCaditz/hobbess-error-and-problems-with-social-contract-theory-%D6%98-bec8bf7ae13c "One, our only obligations are those defined in the social contract to which we’ve agreed. There are no moral obligations which are separate from (or override) our contractual obligations. A problem with this assumption is that it eliminates the distinction between morality and law; they become one in the same. But, we know that laws can be immoral." -- the above summarizes exactly what is the problem with the subtle agenda of defectors, they wish to impose new rules and by doing so, they would cause more damage and discourage contributions to GNU. There are reasons why GNU project is neutral and should remain neutral to any kind of other politics, including policing behavior of other people by means of social contracts. More quotes from: https://medium.com/@MichaelRobertCaditz/hobbess-error-and-problems-with-social-contract-theory-%D6%98-bec8bf7ae13c Two, social contracts are not inclusive of all. As Waller states, “If you can’t join in the contract, and you can’t live up to the demands of the contract, then you aren’t part of the moral community” and the above clarifies the contradiction to the purpose that GNU project is welcoming contributions from everybody. If it starts imposing "social contract", it would start changing direction of not being any more neutral, it would start becoming new type of Thoughtpolice. More food for thought: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism-contemporary/ "Social contract" is not any type of contract, it is coercion as it implies the consent. Consent is not mutual. That type of ruling is not of any use in GNU. Would GNU be a project of middle-age France, I would say that is best they could do at the time, and Social Contract was one of their solutions. Etymology does matter. Fundamental principles of terms like "social contract" do matter. We are in 21st century. Not in middle-age. GNU project need no social contract, it is funny seeing people editing a "social contract" implying this way to the public that it is some kind of official GNU stance, while it is not. Jean
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Andreas Enge wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 01:56:15AM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> Instead of making GNU more welcoming place by lessening the burden of >> formalities, you in fact propose GNU to withdraw deeper into itself by >> inventing ideology-driven ‘contracts’. And in order to add an insult to >> injury — to cover it with Western buzzwords like ‘inclusiveness’. :-\ > > Ideology? Hm. Ideology, doctrine, religion — call the thing, that made you think that a GNU developer has to be condemned for using a Macbook, whatever you find best. Actually, ‘Church of Emacs’ suits exceptionally well, so from now on I will refer to it as that. > I do not see how the aim of creating a harassment-free environment could be > construed as making GNU a less welcoming place... In other words, the only real aim of your ‘social contract’ is to impose that last paragraph about ‘harassment’ on everyone, while all the software freedom stuff is just a decoration that should not be taken seriously? > Neither how the word "inclusiveness" could be interpreted as an insult. Indeed, next to a proposition to exclude all dissenters, it could and should be rather interpreted as hypocrisy. > Nor whether we need to distinguish "Western" Of course, you do need to distinguish it, as long as you care to keep GNU a universally inclusive project. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
On Wed, 2019-11-06 at 19:31 +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > > > Let me quote once more the paragraph that we are supposedly > discussing: > > > > * GNU welcomes contributions from all and everyone > > We want to give everyone the opportunity to contribute to our > > efforts > > on any of the many tasks that require work. We welcome all > > contributors, > > regardless of their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, level of > > experience, or any other personal characteristics. We commit to > > providing > > a harassment-free experience for all our contributors. What is wrong with: "The GNU Project encourages contributions from anyone who wishes to advance the development of the GNU system, regardless of gender, race, ethnic group, physical appearance, religion, cultural background, and any other demographic characteristics, as well as personal political views." from the kind communications guidelines? If you think having a social contract is a good idea, it might be more palatable to compose it of excerpts and paragraphs already available in the philosophy section of gnu.org and streamline those into one coherent document, indicating from which essays the various parts originate. That way you end up with a consistent summary of the important ideas many GNU supporters already more-or-less agree on, and getting any adoption should prove far easier. -Andreas
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
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 that I (and probably others) have no time > to read. Speaking entirely as a reader and not a moderator: agreed. Finding a way to make your point in as few words as possible is an essential skill, but it takes practice. If you find that you are tending to produce stream-of-consciousness / free-association style texts, I encourage you to slow down, figure out the precise "killer points" you want to make and say the minimum necessary to convey those points. If your email is long, don't send it yet. Chop away at it to remove the fat so that your real point is unmistakable. If your text instead simply exhausts your reader, they won't know what you are even trying to argue. Then they'll tend to a) get progressively more annoyed with you and / or b) start to outright ignore your responses. -- -brandon
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Is it meant as a short summary of what the GNU project does? I could see how it would serve such purpose, but then it isn't a contract. If it is a contract, who is agreeing to it? The GNU project? In that case, those goals are already written in the GNU manifesto, no? What is the exact _goal_ of this text? Apart from rare historical exceptions, all software written by the GNU Project is distributed under copyleft licenses, designed to ensure that developers cannot strip off users' freedom from GNU software. This would exclude those cases where we might want to distribute something under a non-copyleft license for strategical reasons. Not a GNU project case, but a good example, when RMS argued that Ogg/Vorbis would be better served under a permissive license than a copyleft license, as a means to replace MP3. * The GNU Project provides a consistent system The GNU Project develops, in the form of GNU packages, an operating system and a set of applications, the GNU system. GNU package developers work together to ensure consistency across packages. GNU packages should follow the design and development guidelines of the GNU Project. The GNU system isn't just GNU packages, there are many non-GNU packages that also make up the GNU system, that the GNU project doesn't develop. * The GNU Project welcomes contributions from all and everyone The GNU Project wants to give everyone the opportunity of contributing to its efforts on any of the many tasks that require work. It welcomes all contributors, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, level of experience, or any other personal characteristics. It commits to providing a harassment-free experience for all contributors. This is quite different than what we our guidelines say, it would be best to use that text instead: The GNU Project encourages contributions from anyone who wishes to advance the development of the GNU system, regardless of gender, race, ethnic group, physical appearance, religion, cultural background, and any other demographic characteristics, as well as personal political views.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Hello, so here is a new version. Besides minor editorial changes, I did the following: On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 12:27:19PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > I think we should avoid “we” because it’s ambiguous. Instead, I very > much prefer either “the GNU Project” or maybe “members of the Project” > where appropriate, but “members” is undefined. - Replaced back "we" by "the GNU Project" everywhere. Indeed I remember complaining myself when people used a very vague "we"... > We could define “member” as someone who signed the social contract, but > that’s probably not enough: a group of people could make a hostile > takeover by signing it en masse. So there needs to be some form of > cooptation to avoid that, as is commonly done in organizations. > I guess that leads to a new sub-task: defining the procedure to become a > “member” of the project. - Dropped the paragraph about current members having agreed to the social contract. This ends up being a circular definition, the social contract defining members as people adopting the social contract... I think the document stands by itself, and then it can get adopted. > > All software written by us is distributed under copyleft licenses, designed > > to ensure that developers cannot strip off users' freedom from GNU software. > Like others wrote, this should be stated as a preference: > The GNU Project preferably distributes software it develops under … - For further discussion, added a more restrictive paragraph: "Apart from rare historical exceptions...", which would mean there will not be any others in the future. By your arguments, that is too strong (concerning GCC support libraries and autoconf snippets, for instance). On the other hand, I am a bit wary of a "should" clause - when there is no firm principle, where do we draw the line? If it is only "preferable", why not adopt llvm rather than gcc if this feels convenient? The problem here is to make a clear distinction between GNU and "open source". Another possible formulation: "Unless the GNU Project deems that a different choice furthers the advancement of free software, all software..." This would assume that a formal decision (by some governing board, whatever it will be) is required for choosing a non-copyleft license. > Also, it may be better to avoid the term “copyleft” unless we define it. There is a pseudo-definition following it: "designed to ensure that developers cannot strip off users' freedom". I am fine leaving it as a technical term, with this additional explanation. > > * GNU provides consistent systems > Side note: in the first version, I tried to use “GNU” to refer to the > software, and “the GNU Project” to refer to the collective. It might be > worth preserving that distinction for clarity. This was a bit confusing, I think, in your original version; so I wrote "GNU Project" in all the headings, since I think they refer to the project and not only the software. I also (pseudo-)defined "the GNU system". > > We develop an operating system and a set of applications, in the form of > > GNU packages. GNU package developers work together to ensure consistency > > across packages. GNU packages follow the design and development guidelines > > of the GNU Project. > > Perhaps s/follow/should follow/ to better reflect current reality. Done. > > Free software has extended beyond the GNU Project, and we work with > > companion free software projects that develop key components of our system. > > s/our system/the GNU operating system/ (to make it sound less > possessive.) "the GNU system" as defined above. On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 05:13:22PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > So you would drop this paragraph, or just the examples? > Just the examples. The idea is important. I just don't know the right > words to express it generically. "If people technically have free > software, but cannot practically exercise the freedoms they should > have, then we should take action." does seem too generic. Okay. I dropped the examples (DRM etc.), and kept the other text. I think it makes sense as a more general mission statement: The FEF (Four Essential Freedoms, I added capitals) as the firm basics, and then whatever it needs. On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 12:27:19PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Should we do a v2.1 based on this and feedback others gave? > What do people think? Here it is! Another round of feedback? Andreas GNU Social Contract This document states the core commitments of the GNU Project to the broader free software community. The purpose of the GNU Project is to provide software and systems that respect users' freedoms. * The GNU Project respects users' freedoms The GNU Project provides software that guarantees to users the Four Essential Freedoms, without compromise: 0. The freedom to run the program as they wish, for any purpose. 1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does their computing as
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Le mercredi 6 novembre 2019 19:31:17 CET, vous avez écrit : > 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 that I (and probably others) have no time > to read. 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 welcome anymore). > How on earth do you end up associating "we welcome contributors" Not this but “harassment-free” > with > "censorship", "exclusion", "banning", "feminism" or "feminism-agnosticism"? Because harassment is often associated with sexism, and a policy to be enforced need some action, as you state after: > Notice that the social contract is a statement of principles. Clearly if > we want to provide a harassment-free environment, some procedure will have > to be decided at some point in time in case harassment occurs; but this is > not the goal of this document. > Of course you are free to send your stream of consciousness to this list, > but if you wish to have an impact on the topic at hand, I would suggest to > make concrete suggestions on wording, or paragraphs to remove or to add. The subject contains a question mark, and I already previously spoke against the very concept of a “GNU social contract”. I preferred not repeating myself but as this may have been done to a different sub-thread I’m coming to think Dora was right and with such lengthy discussions repetition unfortunately becomes necessary…
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
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 that I (and probably others) have no time to read. Let me quote once more the paragraph that we are supposedly discussing: > * GNU welcomes contributions from all and everyone > We want to give everyone the opportunity to contribute to our efforts > on any of the many tasks that require work. We welcome all contributors, > regardless of their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, level of > experience, or any other personal characteristics. We commit to providing > a harassment-free experience for all our contributors. Your contribution to this topic contains the following: On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 07:02:53PM +0100, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: > Doing so through censorship and exclusion could. > (...) > But you also could ban too much potential harassers in regard to harassed > people and not be productive enough in this concern. > (...) > Look: we could even speculate that there are already so much more men than > women coming, that it is not worth defending the later! How horrible, > saddening and pessimistic toward humankind… > (...) > Personally I support it, but I don’t think exclusion or censorship is the > way. > (...) > “GNU Project is feminist and act as such” (“westernly”) might lower the whole > number of contributors or supporters from some countries > (much more than US) initially after revolution)). > (...) > It’s not to mean GNU Project is to declare itself “feminism-agnostic” How on earth do you end up associating "we welcome contributors" with "censorship", "exclusion", "banning", "feminism" or "feminism-agnosticism"? Notice that the social contract is a statement of principles. Clearly if we want to provide a harassment-free environment, some procedure will have to be decided at some point in time in case harassment occurs; but this is not the goal of this document. Of course you are free to send your stream of consciousness to this list, but if you wish to have an impact on the topic at hand, I would suggest to make concrete suggestions on wording, or paragraphs to remove or to add. Andreas
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Le mercredi 6 novembre 2019, 09:56:20 CET Andreas Enge a écrit : > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 01:56:15AM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: > > Instead of making GNU more welcoming place by lessening the burden of > > formalities, you in fact propose GNU to withdraw deeper into itself by > > inventing ideology-driven ‘contracts’. And in order to add an insult to > > injury — to cover it with Western buzzwords like ‘inclusiveness’. :-\ > Ideology? Hm. I think for the right-away following he might consider the way you held harassment, anti-harassment and its relationship to welcomness a whole ideology per se, but more about this later. > I do not see how the aim of creating a harassment-free > environment could be construed as making GNU a less welcoming place... Doing so through censorship and exclusion could. It depends from exclusion of (how many) who, how is this advertised, how is this temporary/definitive, etc. as well as how much harassment there is already and how many does that excludes. If in the end there are more potential harassers than actually harassed people, that is strictly the case. But you also could ban too much potential harassers in regard to harassed people and not be productive enough in this concern. Or cause self-censorship or people fearing to be banned though they would not, and you would have to compare this (hard to judge) number to the number of people who leaves because of harassment (less hard to judge… but that ought to be measured too… though it’s hard too…). You see, if you care only about being welcoming, anti-harassment is only a cold calculation… and it is actually expensive calculation (and measuring)! Look: we could even speculate that there are already so much more men than women coming, that it is not worth defending the later! How horrible, saddening and pessimistic toward humankind… But maybe what you want is not a place more generally welcoming but more “inclusive” in the very culturally specific meaning of “inclusive proportionally to actual demographics in the outside world”, so you’d consider worth defending a few women even if that means excluding more men. But then that’s linked to something that’s hardly not an ideology: anti- sexism. Personally I support it, but I don’t think exclusion or censorship is the way. We should just actively show our despise and counter-support for sexist behavior, possibly ignore it, protecting women when in legitimacy, etc. (if any people are pissed and/or leave because something is done by a woman, I think everybody is comfortable with that and keep supporting that woman in her role and legitimacy, rather than pretending she’s responsible, should hide, or leave). > Neither how the word "inclusiveness" could be interpreted as an insult. > Nor whether we need to distinguish "Western" from "Eastern", "Northern" > or "Southern"; maybe we should add "regardless of origins" :-) Different places have different cultures. Now look out and note, there are places where feminism is held in really negative views (think to India, China, Medium Orient, etc.): people supporting it may be put in *prison*. And yet women might defend their right or have support legally or popularly, but without using that term, or using different strategies than in our countries (I heard in Turkey, anarchists preferred describing themselves as “anarchist women” and “anti-autoritharian” because of that). “GNU Project is feminist and act as such” (“westernly”) might lower the whole number of contributors or supporters from some countries where feminism is seen as a “western” thing due to both local nationalist propaganda and generally imperialist propaganda that support the view that “West” or North/ rich countries are more feminist, equalitarian or simply just invented feminism (by putting much accent on women’s struggle in liberal countries such as France and US (where the very word “feminism” comes from, as well as liberalism) and hiding it when it comes from poorer countries (like Irak who was first country to make women vote, or Russia who made so much for women (much more than US) initially after revolution)). It’s not to mean GNU Project is to declare itself “feminism-agnostic” just as if it would officially declaim itself “climatosceptic” on the ground that it has nothing to do with free software and we should welcome climate-change denialists and anti-feminists, because that would worsen the case as we would set ourselves on lower ideological standards than mainstream though in highly- contributing western/north/rich countries. But we can support women and not exclude anybody at the same time. It was noted that sometimes antifeminist countries have better levels of women employment in CS and IT than liberal countries. Think of Saudi Arabia and Russia. I came to believe than positive support and material help have commonly bigger impact than wording and exclusive environment (Russia is a
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
> In the GNU project everyone is welcome, even people who do not share > the goals and philosophy of the GNU project. I do not think this makes sense, actually. As soon as we have a bit of responsibility in GNU (like being a maintainer, which is the role I know), we are also ambassadors of GNU. So I would expect us to uphold the GNU standards. The role of a GNU maintainer has always been purley technical, and the only responsibility that you need to exercise is to apply policies on the project you maintain. One neither speaks, or represents the project just by being a GNU maintainer, those who do speak for the project are for example listed on the speakers list (https://www.gnu.org/people/speakers.en.html). They are held to a higher standard, see https://www.gnu.org/people/speakers.html#becoming-speaker . Maybe finding some some better representation of people who wish to uphold the banner of the GNU project would be a nice idea, but I'm not sure how that could be done. Maybe https://www.gnu.org/people could be such a start, to be listed you'd need to agree to some fundamentals. But that would be a different thing from what is relevant for being a GNU maintainer. For instance, I would not find it acceptable that a GNU maintainer goes to FOSDEM to give a talk about their newest open source software on a Macbook, or using a Powerpoint presentation on their Windows machine. That isn't a very uncommon thing, and there are plenty of such cases, be it from not calling our system for GNU/Linux, to refering to the GNU project as open source software, to directly going against the Chief GNUisance. But and even so, they are still welcome as maintainers, since in the end it is a technical obligation not a philosophical one. Or is this your case? I personally support the goals of the GNU project, and its philosophy -- but there are plenty of maintainers that do not, nor care for either. And they make the project a better place even though they have a different view, since in the end ... they work on free software.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
Le mercredi 6 novembre 2019, 10:18:44 CET Andreas Enge a écrit : > Why not? The way you phrase it, it sounds as if using GNU software and > promoting GNU standards is such a burden that it becomes infeasible on top > of the "hard etc. work of maintaing (...) software". Quite the contrary, > I would say. Your view above seems too narrow to me: If there is only one > person in the world upholding the standards, as you seem to imply, we cannot > expect a universal movement for free software to succeed. And there would > not even be a point, actually - it is completely irrelevant how one person > out of 9 billions lives. TL;DR: there’s a huge difference between union of people sharing some of our ideas (even strongly) and intersection of it (people sharing all of them). The example of “FSF the party and GNU the armed hand” has been given. I also have an extreme-left-wing analogy: south-american anarchist /especifismo/. Here —commonly a minority— anarchist organization, instead of recruiting massively to protest and loosening its ideology (which only worked in part of Spain once in history… very too unsure about ideologies in Kurdistan and past Ukraine), will rather try to do everything inside “massive” non-ideological organizations (unions, neighborhood associations, etc.) that will welcome everybody (whatever the ideology, even (that’s important) non-anarchist, anti-communists… christians, right-wing people… etc. (these are part of society too!)). So these may already make up most of population, and the /especifista/ organization work so that these begin to implement practices approaching libertarian (anti-authoritarian: direct democracy, direct action) and communist (sharing and anti-property: “from each according per abilities to each according per needs”) practices, without necessarily having to declare themselves “communists” or “anarchists” (because that’s complicated… you won’t believe how many people actually find normal and totally acceptable communist and anarchist ideas but won’t ever accept the term… and how many islamists or christians may declare themselves as communists or even anarchists). That way the idea is that society change and even revolution can happen before everybody becomes anarchist, because anarchism is an historicized ideology putting together many ideas (communism, atheism, (direct) democracy, revocable imperative mandates, rationalism, materialism, class struggle, disobedience, workers movement, (general) strike, etc.) then considered as consistent. Thus it is possible to expect each of these ideas to become widely common accross society, while considering their intersection might not be (so you’d get majority of communists, majority of democrats, majority of atheists, etc. but not majority of atheist communists etc. democrats). We can separate ideological agreement, and practical implementation of that. Commonly, there are more people who will practically work in a direction (at least because of chance! you know: world is quite absurd, actually) than people agreeing to the original ideology. Yes, likely many will like free-software licenses, maybe even copyleft (fewer), maybe even *GPLs (even fewers) v3 (oh my), many will like the concept of collaborative sharing and working (note these might be different from the former), maybe might be against DRM (note it is *extremely common* across free software, especially when higher economical class are better represented, to have a classic —imho counter-productive (most lower class people won’t care actually so it may be a really effective and working strategy)— “respect the law” approach that will condemn “piracy” sharing morally (RMS and hence GNU (maybe FSF at a time?) won’t do that, except maybe on a pure strategical (and not moral) ground)), and a very few will be against SaaSS (no really, look at framacloud.org: these are all convinced librists fans of the concept of community collaborative development… rejecting big companies and commercial software… and yet promoting SaaSS). There’s also the problem of librists who just will dislike everything coming from a company (or any private entity): as really clearly did put it fellow Dmitry Alexandrov, that actually postpone free software goals to the realization of communism. Not even talking about libreboot and “smartphones” (I know we are a only a few around GNU, FSF, free-software and net- neutrality movement not to own a phone at all). If we want to keep the current high ideological standards of RMS… we won’t be 1-over-9- billions, we likely will be… maybe 11 (and I guess we have a bunch of those already in teams described by Brandon). You know what? we might be a *lot* more, just find the (non-trivial way) to make a lot more people aware of *all ideas* supported on / philosophy… And guess what? a lot would easily adhere (there are still people without a phone on this planet… guess what?
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
* Andreas Enge [2019-11-06 09:57]: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 01:56:15AM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: > > Instead of making GNU more welcoming place by lessening the burden of > > formalities, you in fact propose GNU to withdraw deeper into itself by > > inventing ideology-driven ‘contracts’. And in order to add an insult to > > injury — to cover it with Western buzzwords like ‘inclusiveness’. :-\ > > Ideology? Hm. I do not see how the aim of creating a harassment-free > environment could be construed as making GNU a less welcoming > place... There is no place in the world that can make it truly harassment-free as some people may always find ways to harass others. The aim of GNU Kind Communication Guidelines is to encourage contributions from everybody. That would include also contributions from people who may have different and opposing viewpoints, even type of behavior that you would not encourage. One practical way to create harassment free environment could be to retract your signature on the public shaming of the GNU project, and then transfer your thoughts, statements and signatures to the off-GNU and non-GNU related website. Harassment from Wordnet dictionary: * Overview of noun harassment The noun harassment has 2 senses (no senses from tagged texts) 1. harassment, torment -- (a feeling of intense annoyance caused by being tormented; "so great was his harassment that he wanted to destroy his tormentors") 2. harassment, molestation -- (the act of tormenting by continued persistent attacks and criticism) Obviously there are people who felt intense annoyance and have withdrawn their contribution to Guix because of that. Various software projects have been mentioned on your statement page, mentioning such as GNU Lilypond, GNU Mediagoblin, GNU libc, GCC, GNU Binutils and other projects to give appearance that whole project is taking stand to defame and harass RMS. The effect of that public shaming is that some people who do contribute or contributed to mentioned GNU projects are being discouraged. I have given you clear references of few of them who dared expressing themselves on the Guix IRC chat. Thus contributors feel harassed too, unspoken of how RMS feels about that. I am speaking only of contributors. Do you know that I have personally discovered that statement at the moment that I wanted to install Guix distribution? I found it extremely hateful and baseless. And I did make question and called for facts, and none of their facts justify that public shaming. It harasses RMS, we know that. But it also harasses contributors to those mentioned GNU projects. Your public shamings is totally opposite to what GNU project is made for. Remove it.
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 04:04:03AM +0100, Alexandre François Garreau wrote: > No you misunderstood the role, which is technical. So ambassading outside of > a project mailing-list is outside of this role. Like any GNU member comments > on per blog. > > Ambassadors of GNU are already listed in the GNU webpage listing whose who > are > validated as speakers to give talks about software freedom (and the specific > subject they might talk about). Here we disagree. GNU is not developed in a cave without connection to the outer world, with a few officially appointed ambassadors spreading the word. We have a public role, and whenever we go to conferences or hacker meetings, we get an opportunity to lead by example. If we want free software (and the GNU project) to succeed, we must use free software and speak about it. And I definitely do not need any official validation to do that. > Many already do that, and I even (sadly, I was as shocked as other people, > but > that’s not a reason to shut up people) observed that on some past GHMs. > Along > with promoting software that only works on proprietary OSes. To be fair, I have seen this only once. And as you say, we were all baffled, so it clearly was not something that people considered normal. > There are not GNU standards. There is GNU philosophy. And RMS moral > standards (by abide almost noone lives, or they’re very few and the > intersection with competent people is too tiny to be interesting). > > We can’t except all people contributing by doing the hard, continuous, long > and stable work of maintaining and coordinating development of software to > uphold any standard Why not? The way you phrase it, it sounds as if using GNU software and promoting GNU standards is such a burden that it becomes infeasible on top of the "hard etc. work of maintaing (...) software". Quite the contrary, I would say. Your view above seems too narrow to me: If there is only one person in the world upholding the standards, as you seem to imply, we cannot expect a universal movement for free software to succeed. And there would not even be a point, actually - it is completely irrelevant how one person out of 9 billions lives. Andreas
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 01:56:15AM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: > Instead of making GNU more welcoming place by lessening the burden of > formalities, you in fact propose GNU to withdraw deeper into itself by > inventing ideology-driven ‘contracts’. And in order to add an insult to > injury — to cover it with Western buzzwords like ‘inclusiveness’. :-\ Ideology? Hm. I do not see how the aim of creating a harassment-free environment could be construed as making GNU a less welcoming place... Neither how the word "inclusiveness" could be interpreted as an insult. Nor whether we need to distinguish "Western" from "Eastern", "Northern" or "Southern"; maybe we should add "regardless of origins" :-) Andreas
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
* Mark Wielaard [2019-11-05 23:57]: > 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 actually think this is great. Because this makes > you an interesting GNU maintainer. I didn't actually expect someone to > say that. So now I would love to hear your opinion on the draft GNU > social contract. > > So, if you were asked to agree to uphold something like the draft > social contract in your role as GNU maintainer would you then step > down? Would your answer change if it said something explicit about > whether or not you were to uphold it in your own time? I hope that our GNU Emacs Maintainer is left undisturbed, please, as my Emacs still has some serious bugs, and it would not be nice hindering the progress of the development. Despite the fact that John Wiegley signed the defamatory statement for public shaming of Dr. Richard Stallman: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ I would not like now that John Wiegley himself gets publicly shamed for reasons of using whatever open source terminology or using his Apple proprietary software. It does not matter. That is his free speech. He does good works in maintaining Emacs and for that he shall be respected. Please see: https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Free-Software-and-Open-Source 16.1 Free Software and Open Source The terms “free software” and “open source”, while describing almost the same category of software, stand for views based on fundamentally different values. The free software movement is idealistic, and raises issues of freedom, ethics, principle and what makes for a good society. The term open source, initiated in 1998, is associated with a philosophy which studiously avoids such questions. For a detailed explanation, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html. The GNU Project is aligned with the free software movement. This doesn’t mean that all GNU contributors and maintainers have to agree; your views on these issues are up to you, and you’re entitled to express them when speaking for yourself. However, due to the much greater publicity that the term “open source” receives, the GNU Project needs to overcome a widespread mistaken impression that GNU is and always was an “open source” activity. For this reason, please use the term “free software”, not “open source” or “FOSS”, in GNU software releases, GNU documentation, and announcements and articles that you publish in your role as the maintainer of a GNU package. A reference to the URL given above, to explain the difference, is a useful thing to include as well. Jean P.S. John, I do mean so. And I also think your signature there on the public shaming page is not serving any useful purpose, could you consider taking it down?
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
* Dmitry Alexandrov <[email protected]> [2019-11-05 23:57]: > Andreas Enge wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 11:13:57PM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: > >> > We want to give everyone the opportunity to contribute to our efforts on > >> > any of the many tasks that require work. We welcome all contributors… > >> > >> Many GNU subprojects value ‘recordkeeping’ (per Prof. Moglen [2]) and > >> ‘protection for FSF’ (per @[email protected] [3]) more than giving anyone an > >> opportunity to contribute. Are you calling for change in priorities? If > >> yes, I would appreciate it, if you name few concrete steps. > > > > No change of priorities, I think, but promoting non-discrimination and > > inclusiveness. The emphasis is on give *opportunity* to contribute (...) > > *regardless* of their gender etc. (...) *harassment-free* (...). It does > > not mean that bad contributions need to be accepted, or those where the > > copyright assignments are not done correctly, and so on. > > So thatʼs exactly what I was afraid of. > > Instead of making GNU more welcoming place by lessening the burden of > formalities, you in fact propose GNU to withdraw deeper into itself by > inventing ideology-driven ‘contracts’. And in order to add an insult to > injury — to cover it with Western buzzwords like ‘inclusiveness’. :-\ Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_exclusion#Social_inclusion "Social exclusion, marginalization or social marginalisation is the social disadvantage and relegation to the fringe of society. It is a term used widely in Europe and was first used in France." But GNU was never discriminatory. If anyone claims different, give me the facts. Jean
Re: A GNU “social contract”?
*Le mardi 5 novembre 2019, 21:58:42 CET Andreas Enge a écrit :* *> On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 11:49:03PM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:* *> > Andreas Enge wrote:* *> > > For instance, I would not find it acceptable that a GNU maintainer goes* *> > > to FOSDEM to give a talk about their newest open source software on a* *> > > Macbook> * *> > Why not? In any case, GNU Emacs maintainer John Wiegley* *> > <@[email protected]> did exactly that [0]. [0] $ mpv* *> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9yiJ7d5LeI* *> * *> I do not think so - the talk topic is about Nix, a GNU/Linux distribution.* *What’s you’re wrong in is that Nix is not a GNU/Linux distribution, but a package manager.*
