Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/29/20 7:35 AM, Andreas R. wrote: > I think this is essentially a reasonable and logical roadmap. Thank > you for taking the time to write it down. No it isn't. This is a roadmap to split from GNU, but it can not be a road map for GNU. This is only logical if you want to create a new orgaization which is NOT GNU, and then steal the GNU trademark. That is sort of what Bruce Perens did with "Open Source", but Bruce at least had the integrety to fess up about what he wanted to do,
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/29/20 7:35 AM, Andreas R. wrote: > ight. It is certainly a messy process, which doesn't always help > people trust that everybody is participating in good faith. There is no good faith. This is a power grab
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Hi Mark, > Right. It is certainly a messy process, which doesn't always help > people trust that everybody is participating in good faith. Some > structure would certainly help. So if the goal is to collectively > decide about the organization of the GNU project and create a project > that everyone can trust to defend their freedom, then here are the > steps I believe we have to do (not necessarily in this order, and some > might be done in parallel): > > - Document how different people believe things actually work now. > This is what we have been doing on this list for the some time. > It isn't easy because people honestly have completely different > views on how things are working currently. Partly because of the > dual role of the FSF President and the Chief GNUisance. > And things have obviously changed over the last 30 years, but > haven't really been documented properly and different subgroups > have gone their own way. GNU hackers who have an fencepost account > honestly have a completely different view of the organization > and processes than those who don't use fencepost. Similar to how > GNU projects around savannah have a completely different view of > the organization of GNU from those who use sourceware. And again for > those who use www.gnu.org and/or lists.gnu.org and those who use > their own hosting for communicating with users and other hackers. > > This is really, really, really hard because so much simply isn't > documented or discoverable unless you are intimately familiar > with one of the subgroups. And it is really easy to dismiss someone > saying how things work as just their opinion to advance their agenda > because you aren't familiar with another subgroup who has followed > their own processes over the last couple of decades. And it is really > easy to describe ones own experiences as the one and only truth. > Things easily get a bit heated. But lets try and be kind to each > other. > > - Describe what the core values are that we all share. Something we > all agree on that can form the basis for shared goals and > understanding. This is the draft of the GNU Mission or GNU Social > Contract we have been working on. Ideally this applies to any > governance structure we might come up with or even the current > one if we can agree on that. > > - Define the members (stakeholders) of the GNU project. Identify the > people actually doing the work pushing the mission forward and > who also endorse those core values. As a start this can be the > GNU maintainers, who can then identify others to who they delegate. > Acceptance of the GNU Social Contract can help with this. > > - Identify the different roles those members have and what kind of > team they are part of. Which rights and responsibilities are > needed to most effectively do the work for each role. What makes > them empowered to do their work properly. What is working and what > isn't working in the current structure. And what structure will > work for all members to trust each other to collectively work > on the mission. > > - Discuss with the FSF how we make any governance changes needed a > (legal) reality. The various discussion documents and proposals > we have been sending to the FSF are part of this. I think this is essentially a reasonable and logical roadmap. Thank you for taking the time to write it down. I'd like make note that in point 4 you state "As a start this can be GNU maintainers". This preempts the first point of figuring out the "who" and "how" and renders it pointless as well as invites people to reason backwards from your personally preferred outcome. This also applies to "Ideally this applies to any governance structure we might come up with or even the current one if we can agree on that." by presenting structural changes to governance as a fait accompli, even though that doesn't fairly represent the current situation. I think Andreas Enge summarised the main points in a more neutral fashion: > - Document how different people believe things actually work now. > - Describe what the core values are that we all share. > - Define the members (stakeholders) of the GNU project. > - Identify the different roles those members have and what kind of > team they are part of. Which rights and responsibilities are > needed to most effectively do the work for each role. What makes > them empowered to do their work properly. I think it would be a good idea to stick to this roadmap instead of pushing forward initiatives that try to push the whole discussion in a more partisan direction. cheers, Andreas R.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/25/20 9:43 PM, facebook wrote: > On 1/25/20 7:07 AM, Marcel wrote: >> GNU is an organization with a chief GNUisence at the helm, RMS. It >> didn't have to be that way, but it is that way. > > > > Yeah it did "have to be like that". It would not have survived for its > mission otherwise. > > > < ideological filters and see what they'd like to see, reflected back at > them.>> > > Yeah but this is not a Rorschach test. GNU actually IS something, which is a > Tech organization run my RMS whose purpose is to obtain and protect certain > political freedoms for society. It is not an organization created to > entertain developers, and it has zero fiduciary responsibility to the > volunteer community. > > And it is certainly not a democracy. > > > < interpretations.>> > > > Ummm - wrong. > > Your candle has burnt out, brother.^1 -- [1] In early times in Japan, bamboo-and-paper lanterns were used with candles inside. A blind man, visiting a friend one night, was offered a lantern to carry home with him. “I do not need a lantern,” he said. “Darkness or light is all the same to me.” “I know you do not need a lantern to find your way,” his friend replied, “but if you don’t have one, someone else may run into you. So you must take it.” The blind man started off with the lantern and before he had walked very far someone ran squarely into him. “Look out where you are going!” he exclaimed to the stranger. “Can’t you see this lantern?” “Your candle has burnt out, brother,” replied the stranger.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/25/20 7:07 AM, Marcel wrote: > GNU is an organization with a chief GNUisence at the helm, RMS. It > didn't have to be that way, but it is that way. Yeah it did "have to be like that". It would not have survived for its mission otherwise. <> Yeah but this is not a Rorschach test. GNU actually IS something, which is a Tech organization run my RMS whose purpose is to obtain and protect certain political freedoms for society. It is not an organization created to entertain developers, and it has zero fiduciary responsibility to the volunteer community. And it is certainly not a democracy. <> Ummm - wrong.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/23/20 5:10 PM, nylxs wrote:> On 1/23/20 12:47 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >> That's where the meat of the issue is for me. This is no different from >> a large tech company wanting to keep tight control over projects they >> may have spawned, sometimes at the detriment of the project, only >> because they don't trust the community to keep true to their goals. This is a false equivalence. The fact that volunteers are not in charge of the decisions doesn't make GNU "no different from a large tech company." > > Yeah so? > > GNU is not some communist manifesto that some like to think it is. In > fact, it is the opposite. Its goal is to assure the freedom of > individual entitlement to protect the basic freedoms that drive healthy > capitialist market economies, not to mention sceintific discover, and > social welfare as a whole. Accusing it of being like a large tech > company is positively naive. Of COURSE it is like a giant tech company. > It might well be the grandaddy of all tech compaines. > > And for what it is worth, so are political parties in representive > governments. They are invairably grinding machines. > Another argument riddled with logical fallacies and personal political interpretations. Different people, it seems, look at GNU through their own particular ideological filters and see what they'd like to see, reflected back at them. Nothing wrong with that, except that for some of you it seems to be a prerequisite for all others to think alike. GNU is an organization with a chief GNUisence at the helm, RMS. It didn't have to be that way, but it is that way. It doesn't always have to be that way, but it is not up to the volunteers to forcefully make it another way. Saludos libres, Marcel -- O snail Cimb Mount Fuji But slowly, slowly. - K. Issa
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/23/20 12:47 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > That's where the meat of the issue is for me. This is no different from > a large tech company wanting to keep tight control over projects they > may have spawned, sometimes at the detriment of the project, only > because they don't trust the community to keep true to their goals. Yeah so? GNU is not some communist manifesto that some like to think it is. In fact, it is the opposite. Its goal is to assure the freedom of individual entitlement to protect the basic freedoms that drive healthy capitialist market economies, not to mention sceintific discover, and social welfare as a whole. Accusing it of being like a large tech company is positively naive. Of COURSE it is like a giant tech company. It might well be the grandaddy of all tech compaines. And for what it is worth, so are political parties in representive governments. They are invairably grinding machines.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
> That is no different than a GNU maintainer buckling down on some > specific technical decision. Except that it's not how the glibc community worked since it rebooted in 2010-2011. I don't remember an instance in the last almost decade of my involvement that a maintainer buckled down in the manner you seem to find acceptable. Indeed, I don't find it at all reasonable how some glibc maintainers buckled down, ignored GNU polices that they agreed to follow -- you can take that as comment from a fellow glibc developer (even if only on paper). GNU maintainers take technical decisions, not decisions of policy. The GNU project is a project that is about software ethics and morals first and foremost. That includes objecting to absurd laws that can affect our work, and our tradition has always been to make jokes out of them.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 22/01/20 10:58 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > That is no different than a GNU maintainer buckling down on some > specific technical decision. Except that it's not how the glibc community worked since it rebooted in 2010-2011. I don't remember an instance in the last almost decade of my involvement that a maintainer buckled down in the manner you seem to find acceptable. You can claim that the community misunderstood the GNU projects goals, etc. but that does not divert from the fact that an entire community of developers felt powerless and alienated by that one act. > The GNU project is not community run, > and it would be bad for the GNU project if it was because the > community can have very diverging opinions on software freedom. That's where the meat of the issue is for me. This is no different from a large tech company wanting to keep tight control over projects they may have spawned, sometimes at the detriment of the project, only because they don't trust the community to keep true to their goals. Siddhesh
Re: A summary of some open discussions
That is no different than a GNU maintainer buckling down on some specific technical decision. The GNU project is not community run, and it would be bad for the GNU project if it was because the community can have very diverging opinions on software freedom.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
> We have started to recognize people as having release-upload rights, even if > they aren't formal maintainers (this is really fairly recent and so far has been > handled on a case-by-case basis). Is there a need to distinguish "releasers" and "maintainers"? I would say that once the glibc community trusts someone enough to make their releases, this person should obtain upload rights on the GNU ftp server. And then it would be logical to call this person a "maintainer", since uploading a new release is formally the most powerful act in maintaining a package (while practically, of course inspiring the development, organising the community and so on are also very important). Being a GNU maintainer has a very specific meaning, and a very specific responsibility role. It means that one needs to follow and implement GNU policies. So just because someone can upload a tarball (or push a commit), doesn't necesserily mean that one wants to take on that responsibility -- they might disagree with the GNU project but still be a valuable, appreciated and prolific contributor. We should also think about the number of maintainers in a redefined governance structure. Is there a need to restrict their number, or could each and every developer have the same maintainer responsability? If there is a fixed number, how could it be related to the size of the project? It seems natural to me that the GNU libc or GNU Guix should have more maintainers than GNU MPC, for instance. This is already decided on a case by case basis by RMS/GAC. As you say, some project have different needs than others.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Not everything has to be public from the start, if you are a GNU maintainer you should be already subscribed to the relevant mailing lists associated with this discussion. If not, please contact maintain...@gnu.org.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
I suggest you take a look at the drafted document "The Structure and Administration of the GNU Project", and move discussions to the related list. It summaries what has been the case in the GNU project for many years, what it means to be a GNU project, how the GNU project is managed, etc. It clarifies many misunderstandings you have about the GNU project as well.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 01:59:14AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Mike, > > On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 21:48 -0500, Mike Gerwitz wrote: > > Yes, this is what I meant. I've volunteered in an administrative role > > for the GNU Project for a number of years now---with the authority to > > appoint comaintainers to existing packages---and never has the FSF > > attempted to exercise any type of control over GNU's governance. > > > > FSF does have authority over things we delegate to them entirely, such as > > copyright assignments and trademark enforcement; system administration; > > and such. But that doesn't give them authority over our other procedures. > > Of course, if we got into a "fight" with the FSF that would be pretty > bad. I don't think anybody wants that. It would be outrageous. But that > the FSF never needed to explicitly use their authority doesn't mean > they don't have the final responsibility over the GNU project. And that > isn't a bad thing. We need each other. > You keep repeating this and it is just not true. No matter how bad you want the FSF to have oversite of GNU, they do not. GNU is an organization of volunteers lead of Richard Michael Stallman, and he has final say on all matters. the built GNU into its current form, and volunteers has no authority over its direction or controll, and neither does the FSF. If Richard chose to, he could ditch any participation of the FSF over GNU with a simple proclamation. Any Trademarks that the FSF holds would need to be handed to GNU, and copyright assignments are a formality of law to establish standing if a court case happens. But if of itself, GNU is protected in its code base by the GPL itself. Furthmore, for good reason is it the case that GNU is run under a single hand and not a Democracy. Simply put, GNU makes unpopular decisions that the majority of coders and corperate entities in the world not only disagree with, but they would LOVE to just see GNU evaporate, as well as the entire copyleft community. When folks volunteer for GNU, they do not pledge there allegence to Richard personally, they are simply contributing to his vision, which is clearly encuciated and enumerated. They no more plegdge allegnce to RMS's personage then a worker at a bank swear fidelity to the CEO of the bank. They are just making a contribution in exchange for some personal advatage, might it be for recieving gratitude, or just satisfaction of being involved in something, or for the personal education, or because they buy into the RMS vision for Free Software, lock stock and barrel. Regardless of the reward, that doesn't give any volunteer to make any governing decisions. Stallman has rightfully alway reserved that for himself. It is rightful, because he alone set forth this orgnaizaiton, and steered it, for over 3 decades. It is his baby in total. Attempts to remove him from it are imorral. Furthermore, Richard understood from the beginning that GNU would best be served by NOT requirin the kind of fidelity to himself or the Free Software ideal, although people are aqusing him of that, and accusing him wrongfully. In fact, GNU would take contributions and volunteers from any walk of life, gender, creed or political orientation in order each its goals. In order to do that, it would be essential for Richard to retain governace control. Otherwise the desenting and diverse volunteers to GNU projects would indeed corruption the GNU vision from the inside. and that is where we are current at, BTW. Folks need to do the right this and put this rebelion to rest and let richard do his job. > The FSF is our legal guardian, without the FSF GNU just wouldn't exist. > And the FSF is a public charity, which means we can rely on them to > function according to their mission. And their mission is basically our > mission too! Except that theirs is broader and more philosophical and > ours is focused on actually producing Free Software through working on > the GNU operating system. > > When we release the software we produced collectively the FSF takes on > some liability. And we should be really glad they do. As a GNU > Maintainer I have had some interesting discussions years back with > people at "big corp" who warned me that I should be really sure that > what I was releasing was "correct" because the consequences for me and > my employer might not be pleasant if I wasn't (which was double awkward > because they confused who my employer was just because I was the > maintainer that accepted patches from others who worked for that > employer...) It was really nice that I had the backing of the FSF (who > actually had arranged some discussions with legal counsel to make sure > we did know what we were doing) and could say that they should contact > the FSF if they had any "legal concerns" about the GNU package for > which I was responsible. But that does mean the FSF has to be sure we > don't do totally stupid things. They cannot take on unlimited > liabi
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Hi Federico, On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 10:35 +0200, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Mark Wielaard, 16/01/20 19:03: > > Sure, and the relationship is always evolving. These days the GNU > > project is actually one of the smaller programs the FSF runs. The last > > public form 990 states that the FSF spend ~$250 thousand of ~$1.25 > > million on the GNU project (most of the rest of the money goes to the > > education and outreach program and license education program). > > I agree that supporting GNU isn't necessarily the single most important > goal of the FSF now, but I think that the dollar cost of a program isn't > the best way to measure how big or important that program is, especially > for an organisation like FSF whose job is largely to support volunteers. > (I won't get into how you define "runs".) Totally agreed that dollar cost (or actually spend) is a somewhat arbitrary measurement. It was just meant to show that the FSF does a lot of other stuff and that we can (and should) discuss how those activities relate to the GNU project (especially since some of them are done through gnu.org even though they are officially different FSF programs from GNU). The dollar amount is even more arbitrary (and saying the FSF "runs" or "oversees" GNU also somewhat arbitrary) since various GNU projects actually have their own foundation to handle expenses, members and/or copyrights, like GNUnet e.V. or the GNOME foundation, some use different umbrella foundations for holding their assets, like Software in the Public Interest used by GNU TeXmacs and GNUstep. And the FSF didn't use to run conferences (they do now through LibrePlanet and SeaGL), so one of the bigger GNU conferences, the GNU Tools Cauldron, is still run by different volunteers/companies each year. So you could say that to define what it means to be GNU, we don't just need to talk to the FSF, but to some of these other foundations and organizations too. Cheers, Mark
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Mark Wielaard, 16/01/20 19:03: Sure, and the relationship is always evolving. These days the GNU project is actually one of the smaller programs the FSF runs. The last public form 990 states that the FSF spend ~$250 thousand of ~$1.25 million on the GNU project (most of the rest of the money goes to the education and outreach program and license education program). I agree that supporting GNU isn't necessarily the single most important goal of the FSF now, but I think that the dollar cost of a program isn't the best way to measure how big or important that program is, especially for an organisation like FSF whose job is largely to support volunteers. (I won't get into how you define "runs".) Federico
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/20/20 11:02 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > you seem to be equivocating waranty and liability. there is ZERO liability and zero claims... ZERO People make things up all the in order to create fear and loathing when working with software, or any other project. Show me a SINGLE peice of Free Software that was sunk or ended because of liability?
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/19/20 8:07 PM, facebook wrote: On 1/19/20 7:59 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: When we release the software we produced collectively the FSF takes on some liability. have you ever read the GPL?? There is no legal liability... you seem to be equivocating waranty and liability. The releaser of the GPL'd software is asserting that the software is indeed GPL'd. They are liable if it is not. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/19/20 7:59 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > When we release the software we produced collectively the FSF takes on > some liability. have you ever read the GPL?? There is no legal liability...
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Hi Mike, On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 21:48 -0500, Mike Gerwitz wrote: > Yes, this is what I meant. I've volunteered in an administrative role > for the GNU Project for a number of years now---with the authority to > appoint comaintainers to existing packages---and never has the FSF > attempted to exercise any type of control over GNU's governance. > > FSF does have authority over things we delegate to them entirely, such as > copyright assignments and trademark enforcement; system administration; > and such. But that doesn't give them authority over our other procedures. Of course, if we got into a "fight" with the FSF that would be pretty bad. I don't think anybody wants that. It would be outrageous. But that the FSF never needed to explicitly use their authority doesn't mean they don't have the final responsibility over the GNU project. And that isn't a bad thing. We need each other. The FSF is our legal guardian, without the FSF GNU just wouldn't exist. And the FSF is a public charity, which means we can rely on them to function according to their mission. And their mission is basically our mission too! Except that theirs is broader and more philosophical and ours is focused on actually producing Free Software through working on the GNU operating system. When we release the software we produced collectively the FSF takes on some liability. And we should be really glad they do. As a GNU Maintainer I have had some interesting discussions years back with people at "big corp" who warned me that I should be really sure that what I was releasing was "correct" because the consequences for me and my employer might not be pleasant if I wasn't (which was double awkward because they confused who my employer was just because I was the maintainer that accepted patches from others who worked for that employer...) It was really nice that I had the backing of the FSF (who actually had arranged some discussions with legal counsel to make sure we did know what we were doing) and could say that they should contact the FSF if they had any "legal concerns" about the GNU package for which I was responsible. But that does mean the FSF has to be sure we don't do totally stupid things. They cannot take on unlimited liability. So they do have a responsibility to monitor our processes. Also given that they are a public charity they have a responsibility to make sure the activities they support are fair, actually support their mission and are for the public good (they cannot "enrich" individuals). So again, they do have ultimate responsibility over our procedures. > I've had a personal relationship with a number of people at the FSF over > the years, including John Sullivan, and I've never gotten the impression > that they had desire to exercise control over GNU. In fact, a current > FSF employee is a GNU maintainer, and that employee is treated the same > as any other maintainer. Sure. The GNU Classpath maintainer before me was also an FSF employee and I have always had good relations with various FSF staff members. I don't believe any of them wants to exercise control. They all feel really responsible for the GNU project. And they just want to work together with, enable and empower the GNU volunteers who make it all happen. Given the new situation we just need to figure out how to do that. Hopefully the questions we sent the FSF will clarify how we can proceed with that. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-12/msg00026.html Cheers, Mark
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 13:01:58 +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 09:02:36PM +, Brandon Invergo wrote: >> We have started to recognize people as having release-upload rights, even if >> they aren't formal maintainers (this is really fairly recent and so far has >> been >> handled on a case-by-case basis). > > Is there a need to distinguish "releasers" and "maintainers"? I would say > that once the glibc community trusts someone enough to make their releases, > this person should obtain upload rights on the GNU ftp server. And then > it would be logical to call this person a "maintainer", since uploading a new > release is formally the most powerful act in maintaining a package (while > practically, of course inspiring the development, organising the community > and so on are also very important). The term "maintainer" has a particular meaning with the GNU Project, and maintainers have particular responsibilities, as outlined in the agreement that Brandon posted previously. -- Mike Gerwitz signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/17/20 7:01 AM, Andreas Enge wrote: > We should also think about the number of maintainers in a redefined > governance structure. There is no need for a redifened structure. Go build your own organization -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like 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 summary of some open discussions
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 02:17:57PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > RMS has already drafted a single document over how the GNU project > works, and what various entites exist, and how it is governed. So > your comments would be far better suited on the internal lists, since > that is where such discussions will happen, not here. Well, if people draft documents, it would be nice if they could share them here for public discussion. Governance by obscurity, for a project advancing users' freedom via free software and depending on a non-profit under public scrutiny, does not sound like a viable approach to me. Andreas
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 07:59:31PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > - Document how different people believe things actually work now. > - Describe what the core values are that we all share. > - Define the members (stakeholders) of the GNU project. > - Identify the different roles those members have and what kind of > team they are part of. Which rights and responsibilities are > needed to most effectively do the work for each role. What makes > them empowered to do their work properly. Thanks, Mark, for the detailed summary of what you think should happen. I share these goals. Andreas
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 09:02:36PM +, Brandon Invergo wrote: > We have started to recognize people as having release-upload rights, even if > they aren't formal maintainers (this is really fairly recent and so far has > been > handled on a case-by-case basis). Is there a need to distinguish "releasers" and "maintainers"? I would say that once the glibc community trusts someone enough to make their releases, this person should obtain upload rights on the GNU ftp server. And then it would be logical to call this person a "maintainer", since uploading a new release is formally the most powerful act in maintaining a package (while practically, of course inspiring the development, organising the community and so on are also very important). We should also think about the number of maintainers in a redefined governance structure. Is there a need to restrict their number, or could each and every developer have the same maintainer responsability? If there is a fixed number, how could it be related to the size of the project? It seems natural to me that the GNU libc or GNU Guix should have more maintainers than GNU MPC, for instance. Andreas
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/16/20 12:03 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > I simply mean that practically the FSF has the ultimate authority > over the GNU project No, it does not.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 16/01/20 11:03 pm, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Of course it means something! You are the glibc release manager. > Responsible for the next version of the core of the GNU system. Herding > 50+ hackers, making sure they behave and keep to the agreed upon > schedule and features. We just haven't documented what it means for you > to have all that responsibility. Normally at this point you would > already have been made a maintainer (in GNU terms, you are already in > glibc terms). But glibc is so big that it already has 9 GNU maintainers > (FSF project stewards in glibc terms). What needs to happen imho is > either simply add you as yet another project steward (GNU maintainer) > too, just to make you part of the official GNU project governance. Or > the FSF/GNU should recognize more official positions for people with > rights and responsibilities in the GNU project to make you feel more > empowered. Thank you for the kind words Mark. I already feel empowered within the glibc community. I've had less of a stake in the GNU project as a whole (other than the fact that the projects I deeply care about are part of it) and while I would love to be more involved (for those reasons), the current structure is not something that aligns with my perception of how Free software should be governed. Siddhesh
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 17/01/20 2:32 am, Brandon Invergo wrote: > We have started to recognize people as having release-upload rights, even if > they aren't formal maintainers (this is really fairly recent and so far has > been > handled on a case-by-case basis). Siddhesh, if this applies to you in your > current role, please get in touch at maintain...@gnu.org (ideally CC'ing one > or > more maintainers who can confirm). I believe I am part of that team since I have been able to sign, upload and announce releases for glibc for a while. > "Upload rights" isn't much of a title, though, so I would be interested to > hear > more about what a release manager does (although Mark gives some hints and I > think I can make a reasonable guess from the name). It's something that could > be > formalized / officially recognized if it's generalizable to other packages. In glibc this is what a release manager does: https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release Siddhesh
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 16/01/20 11:34 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Just because you are a GNU maintainer, does not mean that you are part > of any governance structure of the GNU project. In general, the GNU > project favors _less_ maintainers, because multiple ones makes it a > hassle to discuss matters of importance and take decisions -- this can > specifically be seen in glibc. I see that as glibc having been able to stand up to the GNU project (and that's an unfortunate dichotomy) thanks to more actual contributors being maintainers. > It is quite unfortunate that some glibc maintainers and contributors > have created this misunderstanding and continue to cause confusion on > how GNU projects are maintained by calling GNU maintainers for "FSF > stewards". They are GNU maintainers, so one should call them that. I believe this is because we want a way to recognize regular contributors who are heavily involved in project maintenance. We call them maintainers[1], so I suppose FSF stewards may be the way to differentiate them from maintainers. There may be a historical context that I am not aware about. Siddhesh
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 16/01/20 11:39 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Should I guess add that that as a GNU maintainer you also have a > responsibility towards the GNU project, to apply its policies, and > decisions. To wit, Of course, which is why even though I was once excited at the prospect of being an FSF steward, with RMS' doubling down on his authority on multiple occasions during conversations in the glibc community (and other factors that some of y'all see as malicious attempts to tarnish the gnuisance) over the years I am much less enthusiastic about that prospect. Siddhesh
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:23:26 -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > So while they provide infrastructure, and legal advice, etc, it is for > our needs. They do not do any type of oversight, or anything similar > that we follow the software freedom mission. That falls on the > responsibility of the Chief GNUisance. Yes, this is what I meant. I've volunteered in an administrative role for the GNU Project for a number of years now---with the authority to appoint comaintainers to existing packages---and never has the FSF attempted to exercise any type of control over GNU's governance. FSF does have authority over things we delegate to them entirely, such as copyright assignments and trademark enforcement; system administration; and such. But that doesn't give them authority over our other procedures. I've had a personal relationship with a number of people at the FSF over the years, including John Sullivan, and I've never gotten the impression that they had desire to exercise control over GNU. In fact, a current FSF employee is a GNU maintainer, and that employee is treated the same as any other maintainer. John Sullivan is on the GNU Advisory Committee. There he provides advise to rms, but it's just that---rms can choose whether or not he wishes to heed his advise. -- Mike Gerwitz signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 18:33 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Siddhesh, > > On Wed, 2020-01-15 at 23:19 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > I continue to express support for a more open governance model > > with the understanding that it probably means nothing since I > > am not a GNU maintainer. > > Of course it means something! You are the glibc release manager. > Responsible for the next version of the core of the GNU system. We have started to recognize people as having release-upload rights, even if they aren't formal maintainers (this is really fairly recent and so far has been handled on a case-by-case basis). Siddhesh, if this applies to you in your current role, please get in touch at maintain...@gnu.org (ideally CC'ing one or more maintainers who can confirm). "Upload rights" isn't much of a title, though, so I would be interested to hear more about what a release manager does (although Mark gives some hints and I think I can make a reasonable guess from the name). It's something that could be formalized / officially recognized if it's generalizable to other packages. Thanks, -brandon
Re: A summary of some open discussions
RMS has already drafted a single document over how the GNU project works, and what various entites exist, and how it is governed. So your comments would be far better suited on the internal lists, since that is where such discussions will happen, not here.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Hi Andreas, On Wed, 2020-01-15 at 11:32 +0100, Andreas R. wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:56:16AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 04:24:44AM -0500, Dora Scilipoti wrote: > > > > Since Brandon was delegated by the FSF president to > > > > appoint new (co-)maintainers [...] > > > > > > Correction: Brandon Invergo was delegated by Richard Stallman wearing > > > his Chief GNUisance hat, not as president of the FSF. > > > > We cannot really know because he used to wear both hats and depending > > on who you ask they'll tell you he made decissions as either Chief > > GNUisance or as FSF President. If you say it was as Chief GNUisance > > then it is a good question where that authority came from. > > As Chief GNUisance this should be quite obvious: because he started the > project. > > The unclear option would have been if his authority had been derived from > being > the president of the FSF, which is where the situation has changed. > > > And whether > > we still need a position like Chief GNUisance going forward. > > That doesn't logically follow and is basically a version of Cato's famous > "Furthermore, > I consider that X must be destroyed" [1] aimed at GNUisance's position. That feels like a very negative way to think about evolving project governance. As a project I believe we should think about and discuss what has worked for the people doing the work in the past 30 years, what works well, what doesn't work anymore, and figure out what will work best for the next 30 years. Given the changes to the project, the new (and old people) involved, and the the changes in authority, given or earned, it is only natural to think about and discuss this for any position in the project. I admit that is not always easy and sometimes a little painful. > Maybe it's time for those who desire change to post a clear set of goals and > a roadmap on how to establish those goals so this governance discussion can > continue in good faith. Right. It is certainly a messy process, which doesn't always help people trust that everybody is participating in good faith. Some structure would certainly help. So if the goal is to collectively decide about the organization of the GNU project and create a project that everyone can trust to defend their freedom, then here are the steps I believe we have to do (not necessarily in this order, and some might be done in parallel): - Document how different people believe things actually work now. This is what we have been doing on this list for the some time. It isn't easy because people honestly have completely different views on how things are working currently. Partly because of the dual role of the FSF President and the Chief GNUisance. And things have obviously changed over the last 30 years, but haven't really been documented properly and different subgroups have gone their own way. GNU hackers who have an fencepost account honestly have a completely different view of the organization and processes than those who don't use fencepost. Similar to how GNU projects around savannah have a completely different view of the organization of GNU from those who use sourceware. And again for those who use www.gnu.org and/or lists.gnu.org and those who use their own hosting for communicating with users and other hackers. This is really, really, really hard because so much simply isn't documented or discoverable unless you are intimately familiar with one of the subgroups. And it is really easy to dismiss someone saying how things work as just their opinion to advance their agenda because you aren't familiar with another subgroup who has followed their own processes over the last couple of decades. And it is really easy to describe ones own experiences as the one and only truth. Things easily get a bit heated. But lets try and be kind to each other. - Describe what the core values are that we all share. Something we all agree on that can form the basis for shared goals and understanding. This is the draft of the GNU Mission or GNU Social Contract we have been working on. Ideally this applies to any governance structure we might come up with or even the current one if we can agree on that. - Define the members (stakeholders) of the GNU project. Identify the people actually doing the work pushing the mission forward and who also endorse those core values. As a start this can be the GNU maintainers, who can then identify others to who they delegate. Acceptance of the GNU Social Contract can help with this. - Identify the different roles those members have and what kind of team they are part of. Which rights and responsibilities are needed to most effectively do the work for each role. What makes them empowered to do their work properly. What is working and what isn't working in the current structure. And what structure will work for all members to trust each other to collectively work
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Should I guess add that that as a GNU maintainer you also have a responsibility towards the GNU project, to apply its policies, and decisions. To wit, Being a package maintainer is a relationship between you personally and the GNU Project. The maintainer or maintainers are the ones who take the overall responsibility for the work done on the package, on behalf of the GNU Project. The maintainers generally make the specific decisions about the package, following the project's general standards and principles. Once in a rare while, perhaps once every few years, the GNU Project may make a concrete decision about the package -- about features or implementation methods for the code, or about text in accompanying files -- which you as maintainer should implement.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Just because you are a GNU maintainer, does not mean that you are part of any governance structure of the GNU project. In general, the GNU project favors _less_ maintainers, because multiple ones makes it a hassle to discuss matters of importance and take decisions -- this can specifically be seen in glibc. It is quite unfortunate that some glibc maintainers and contributors have created this misunderstanding and continue to cause confusion on how GNU projects are maintained by calling GNU maintainers for "FSF stewards". They are GNU maintainers, so one should call them that. A GNU maintainer is quite free to ask contributors to take on more responsibilities, as is done in many GNU projects. But at the end of the day, a GNU maintainer can decide to rescind that responsibility, or delegate it to someone else. Or the FSF/GNU should recognize more official positions for people with rights and responsibilities in the GNU project to make you feel more empowered. The GNU project already does that, with specific people having extra upload rights, being members of various committes, or other such groups.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Hi Siddhesh, On Wed, 2020-01-15 at 23:19 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > I continue to express support for a more open governance model > with the understanding that it probably means nothing since I > am not a GNU maintainer. Of course it means something! You are the glibc release manager. Responsible for the next version of the core of the GNU system. Herding 50+ hackers, making sure they behave and keep to the agreed upon schedule and features. We just haven't documented what it means for you to have all that responsibility. Normally at this point you would already have been made a maintainer (in GNU terms, you are already in glibc terms). But glibc is so big that it already has 9 GNU maintainers (FSF project stewards in glibc terms). What needs to happen imho is either simply add you as yet another project steward (GNU maintainer) too, just to make you part of the official GNU project governance. Or the FSF/GNU should recognize more official positions for people with rights and responsibilities in the GNU project to make you feel more empowered. Cheers, Mark
Re: A summary of some open discussions
At pleasure has a negative connotation in English, meaning that you do the bidding of someone else. This is simply not true in the relationship between the FSF and the GNU project, and has never been the csae. So what you say is a gross misinterpretation, the FSF does not dictate anything regarding the nature of the GNU project and was created long after the GNU project was started as a means to safe guard our interests. So while they provide infrastructure, and legal advice, etc, it is for our needs. They do not do any type of oversight, or anything similar that we follow the software freedom mission. That falls on the responsibility of the Chief GNUisance.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Hi Mike, On Wed, 2020-01-15 at 02:20 -0500, Mike Gerwitz wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 01:05:02 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > This was indeed what I meant. More specifically I said "GNU > > maintainers serve at the pleasure of the FSF" because that is what I > > really believe. I certainly joined GNU because I support the FSF > > mission. My copyright assignment is with the FSF. When I became a GNU > > maintainer I was added to some FSF internal lists that said "For ALL > > gnu programmers (volunteers included) and programmers of software that > > the FSF has included in GNU." As a GNU maintainer the FSF arranged I > > could talk to legal counsil (java used to have lots of tricky legal > > issues). The FSF sysadmins have always helped with any extra technical > > setups GNU projects need. I am a member of the FSF and donate money to > > the GNU project through the FSF. > > The relationship can be confusing; GNU and the FSF have been pretty > tightly coupled form the beginning (the FSF was created for GNU), but > there are important separations. Sure, and the relationship is always evolving. These days the GNU project is actually one of the smaller programs the FSF runs. The last public form 990 states that the FSF spend ~$250 thousand of ~$1.25 million on the GNU project (most of the rest of the money goes to the education and outreach program and license education program). So by supporting the FSF you are actually supporting not just the GNU project, but a lot more programs around Free Software. > Clarification about the relationship between GNU and the FSF will > hopefully come soon. Yes, it would be really good if the FSF publicly responded to some of the suggestions we made about the relationship between GNU and FSF: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-12/msg00026.html > But GNU maintainers do not serve at the pleasure of the FSF. Could you explain why you say that? Is it the word pleasure that you disagree with? I am not a native English speaker. With "at the pleasure of" I simply mean that practically the FSF has the ultimate authority over the GNU project given that it creates the legal structure/entity around the project. Without the FSF the GNU project would simply not exist since it holds all our assets, owns the trademark, most of the copyright, publishes the Free Software Definition and GPL licenses, enforces them, takes on the legal liability for software we release (and helps us when we screw up to fix up any legal issues we might have created for our users), provides some of the infrastructure (and some sysadmins) on which we do our work and provides oversight to make sure what we do is in accordance with their software freedom mission as a public charity. Only because they handle all that for us GNU volunteers can we say that we are the GNU project working together on the mission of Free Software. Cheers, Mark
Re: A summary of some open discussions
[Edited and reposted to adhere to guidelines] On 16/01/20 12:27 am, Jean Louis wrote: > Why don't you talk to Dr. Stallman? I trust he is involved in the conversation. Maybe not here but definitely through the FSF since I gather one of the questions in these threads is what FSF's role is in all this. > GNU project as such is probably mostly decentralized project among > many others. > > There is freedom, decentralize the software, do what you wish with it. > > Look: > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svg The GNU project as an officially documented structure is not decentralized; you have used that as an argument upthread. GNU project as far as operational maintenance is concerned is almost completely decentralized, which is the argument we are making to make the case for making it officially so. And you seem to be comfortable taking both sides depending on how it suits your argument at that specific moment. > You live too much in the USA. In other countries we have respect to > elder. You really need to stop guessing my nationality/residence and values. > Yes, RMS can decide. Finished. > > When are you to understand that finally? What are you discussing? It > is not yours to kick out RMS. Sure, I don't even claim authority to do that. I am expressing a wish as a regular contributor to the GNU project. It's a difference you either don't understand, or is something you're wary of because deep down you know that even though the GNU maintainer guide implies that contributors are not that important to the project, in real life they are. Siddhesh
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 15/01/20 11:49 am, Jean Louis wrote: > Software projects on this planet Earth are mostly started by private > individuals, and there are private companies starting software > projects. > > It is true that one who is not creator of such, normally cannot > participate in substantial changes of such software projects, > especially, it is impossible to just kick out the founder of the Sure, but it is possible to convince the founder that it is in the best interest of the project to officially decentralize it since that's how it has been operationally working anyway and also because that is the most effective way to grow the project. > project. It is ridiculous even to think of that, as that is indication > of criminal mind. It is like kicking out the home owner out of his own > home. OK, lets go the home owner analogy. Assuming that the grandfather is the home owner, this is like trying to convince the grandfather that it is in the best interest of the home itself that he relinquish unilateral control of the home to the family trust so that the entire family can contribute directly to the well-being of the home. Now the question of who the grandfather is or how to convince them is the question we're discussing right now. That is, is FSF the grandfather or RMS? Can the FSF unilaterally decide, will/should it decide that way or should/will they confer with RMS? None of this is an indication of a criminal mind. Siddhesh
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 15/01/20 11:04 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > You've misunderstood the relationship between contributors, and the > GNU project. The community, nor contributor, is a deciding party when > it comes to the maintaince of specific GNU projects. So a "community" > cannot take any decisions when it comes to the decisions inside of a > GNU project, it is fully up to the maintainer(s), with Chief GNUisance > having a final say. > > As a contributor you don't need to know how the internals of the GNU > project function, but if you are interested you should read the GNU > maintainer guidelines though, here is some relevant text: > > As a consequence, you cannot expect all contributors to support the > GNU Project, or to have a concern for its policies and standards. So > part of your job as maintainer is to exercise your authority on > these points when they arise. No matter how much of the work other > people do, you are in charge of what goes in the release. When a > crucial point arises, you should calmly state your decision and > stick to it. Fair enough. I continue to express support for a more open governance model with the understanding that it probably means nothing since I am not a GNU maintainer. > The GNU project clearly rejected the removal, as it happens sometimes, > in this case there was some disagreement between maintainers, and a > final decision was taken by Chief GNUisance. Not really. The maintainers (or FSF stewards as they're called in the glibc project) had agreement (albeit not unanimous) and the GNUisance overrode the majority decision. Siddhesh
Re: A summary of some open discussions
* Siddhesh Poyarekar [2020-01-15 19:23]: > On 15/01/20 11:49 am, Jean Louis wrote: > > Software projects on this planet Earth are mostly started by private > > individuals, and there are private companies starting software > > projects. > > > > It is true that one who is not creator of such, normally cannot > > participate in substantial changes of such software projects, > > especially, it is impossible to just kick out the founder of the > > Sure, but it is possible to convince the founder that it is in the best > interest of the project to officially decentralize it since that's how > it has been operationally working anyway and also because that is the > most effective way to grow the project. Why don't you talk to Dr. Stallman? GNU project as such is probably mostly decentralized project among many others. There is freedom, decentralize the software, do what you wish with it. Look: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svg > > project. It is ridiculous even to think of that, as that is indication > > of criminal mind. It is like kicking out the home owner out of his own > > home. > > OK, lets go the home owner analogy. Assuming that the grandfather is > the home owner, this is like trying to convince the grandfather that it > is in the best interest of the home itself that he relinquish unilateral > control of the home to the family trust so that the entire family can > contribute directly to the well-being of the home. You live too much in the USA. In other countries we have respect to elder. > Now the question of who the grandfather is or how to convince them is > the question we're discussing right now. That is, is FSF the > grandfather or RMS? Can the FSF unilaterally decide, will/should it > decide that way or should/will they confer with RMS? Yes, RMS can decide. Finished. When are you to understand that finally? What are you discussing? It is not yours to kick out RMS. Make your own project. Jean
Re: A summary of some open discussions
You've misunderstood the relationship between contributors, and the GNU project. The community, nor contributor, is a deciding party when it comes to the maintaince of specific GNU projects. So a "community" cannot take any decisions when it comes to the decisions inside of a GNU project, it is fully up to the maintainer(s), with Chief GNUisance having a final say. As a contributor you don't need to know how the internals of the GNU project function, but if you are interested you should read the GNU maintainer guidelines though, here is some relevant text: As a consequence, you cannot expect all contributors to support the GNU Project, or to have a concern for its policies and standards. So part of your job as maintainer is to exercise your authority on these points when they arise. No matter how much of the work other people do, you are in charge of what goes in the release. When a crucial point arises, you should calmly state your decision and stick to it. The GNU project clearly rejected the removal, as it happens sometimes, in this case there was some disagreement between maintainers, and a final decision was taken by Chief GNUisance.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:56:16AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 04:24:44AM -0500, Dora Scilipoti wrote: > > > Since Brandon was delegated by the FSF president to > > > appoint new (co-)maintainers [...] > > > > Correction: Brandon Invergo was delegated by Richard Stallman wearing > > his Chief GNUisance hat, not as president of the FSF. > > We cannot really know because he used to wear both hats and depending > on who you ask they'll tell you he made decissions as either Chief > GNUisance or as FSF President. If you say it was as Chief GNUisance > then it is a good question where that authority came from. As Chief GNUisance this should be quite obvious: because he started the project. The unclear option would have been if his authority had been derived from being the president of the FSF, which is where the situation has changed. > And whether > we still need a position like Chief GNUisance going forward. That doesn't logically follow and is basically a version of Cato's famous "Furthermore, I consider that X must be destroyed" [1] aimed at GNUisance's position. > Authority > in a volunteer organisation is always tricky. Which makes these > governance discussions so difficult. But is it really a governance discussion? Every line of inquiry into changing governance always seems to aim at an imminent removal of the chief GNUisance and questions and objections against this seem to be mostly ignored. If if recall correctly, even some signees of the GUIX Joint Statement have stated that their support wasn't about ousting rms, but simply expressing support for an honest discussion of a potential post-rms era. Maybe it's time for those who desire change to post a clear set of goals and a roadmap on how to establish those goals so this governance discussion can continue in good faith. Andreas R. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 01:05:02 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > This was indeed what I meant. More specifically I said "GNU > maintainers serve at the pleasure of the FSF" because that is what I > really believe. I certainly joined GNU because I support the FSF > mission. My copyright assignment is with the FSF. When I became a GNU > maintainer I was added to some FSF internal lists that said "For ALL > gnu programmers (volunteers included) and programmers of software that > the FSF has included in GNU." As a GNU maintainer the FSF arranged I > could talk to legal counsil (java used to have lots of tricky legal > issues). The FSF sysadmins have always helped with any extra technical > setups GNU projects need. I am a member of the FSF and donate money to > the GNU project through the FSF. The relationship can be confusing; GNU and the FSF have been pretty tightly coupled form the beginning (the FSF was created for GNU), but there are important separations. Clarification about the relationship between GNU and the FSF will hopefully come soon. But GNU maintainers do not serve at the pleasure of the FSF. -- Mike Gerwitz signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/14/20 2:04 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > 3. That censorship claim is ridiculous. the censorship is real
Re: A summary of some open discussions
* Siddhesh Poyarekar [2020-01-15 07:00]: > On 15/01/20 11:02 am, Jean Louis wrote: > > Which decision in particular? > > A decision to reinstate the patch that the glibc community had agreed on > and that RMS got reverted through a bad faith assumption of > consensus. Sorry, I do not know what you mean. If you refer to the censorship joke, RMS made final decision, it need not be by consensus. GNU is about jokes since its inception. If somebody does not like, can read jokes which one likes. > > Siddhesh, your sense for justice is different than sense of justice of > > RMS. Can you get the idea? > > > > For you is public opinion what matters most. For RMS is justice that > > matters most. > > > > RMS is pretty uncompromising person when it comes to justice issues. > > RMS' sense of justice and your take of my sense of justice are not the > topic of discussion, so even though I don't agree with both of those > assessments, I will not rebut it. > > > GNU project is not government. Comparing things which are not similar > > to each other is bad analogy. > > ... but I haven't compared the GNU project with governments, I have > compared it with Kingdoms :) > > Siddhesh Is nothing of that kind. Totally wrong.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
* Siddhesh Poyarekar [2020-01-15 07:09]: > >> ... but I haven't compared the GNU project with governments, I have > >> compared it with Kingdoms :) > >> > >> Siddhesh > > > > Is nothing of that kind. Totally wrong. > > > > Of course not with a military, bureaucrats and all that, at least not > that I'm aware of. But as a top down organisation that operates at the > explicit blessing of the one at the top, of course it is. You can say > that you don't like the analogy for whatever but you can't just claim > that it's incorrect. > > Siddhesh Software projects on this planet Earth are mostly started by private individuals, and there are private companies starting software projects. It is true that one who is not creator of such, normally cannot participate in substantial changes of such software projects, especially, it is impossible to just kick out the founder of the project. It is ridiculous even to think of that, as that is indication of criminal mind. It is like kicking out the home owner out of his own home. GNU project consists of many pieces of software and you are free to contribute and change and propose whatever you wish. Right now you are only making a point that you don't find it good that RMS is founder of the project, all that due to a joke, that is somehow waste of time. Jean
Re: A summary of some open discussions
* Siddhesh Poyarekar [2020-01-15 03:31]: > On 14/01/20 10:54 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > Such exagerations aren't useful, you nor anyone else was keept hostage > > for a year in a box and prohibited to work on the GNU C Library. > > Of course it is not hostage in the literal sense. It is in the sense > that a decision was prevented from being taken only because of one > person's whim despite the damage they could see happening to the project > as a result. Which decision in particular? Siddhesh, your sense for justice is different than sense of justice of RMS. Can you get the idea? For you is public opinion what matters most. For RMS is justice that matters most. RMS is pretty uncompromising person when it comes to justice issues. > > Whatever you might think, it is RMS's perogative to decide how the GNU > > project is managed, it is not a community run afair. This is quite > > clear when you agree to become a GNU maintainter. > > Perhaps it is for maintainers (or not) but it is definitely not for > contributors. The copyright assignment process does not mention that > the impression of autonomy in your GNU project has been explicitly > blessed by the chief gnuisance and can be taken away at any time based > on his will. Basically the difference between the queen of England and > the Kind of Saudi Arabia. OK maybe not as extreme as Saudi Arabia, but > basically someone who actually exercises their power. GNU project is not government. Comparing things which are not similar to each other is bad analogy. Jean
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/14/20 7:05 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > This was indeed what I meant. More specifically I said "GNU > maintainers serve at the pleasure of the FSF" b But they don't.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 15/01/20 11:33 am, Jean Louis wrote: > Sorry, I do not know what you mean. If you refer to the censorship > joke, RMS made final decision, it need not be by consensus. GNU is > about jokes since its inception. If somebody does not like, can read > jokes which one likes. I disagree, but like I said, this discussion risks derailing the current topic so lets stop. >> ... but I haven't compared the GNU project with governments, I have >> compared it with Kingdoms :) >> >> Siddhesh > > Is nothing of that kind. Totally wrong. > Of course not with a military, bureaucrats and all that, at least not that I'm aware of. But as a top down organisation that operates at the explicit blessing of the one at the top, of course it is. You can say that you don't like the analogy for whatever but you can't just claim that it's incorrect. Siddhesh
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 15/01/20 11:02 am, Jean Louis wrote: > Which decision in particular? A decision to reinstate the patch that the glibc community had agreed on and that RMS got reverted through a bad faith assumption of consensus. > Siddhesh, your sense for justice is different than sense of justice of > RMS. Can you get the idea? > > For you is public opinion what matters most. For RMS is justice that > matters most. > > RMS is pretty uncompromising person when it comes to justice issues. RMS' sense of justice and your take of my sense of justice are not the topic of discussion, so even though I don't agree with both of those assessments, I will not rebut it. > GNU project is not government. Comparing things which are not similar > to each other is bad analogy. ... but I haven't compared the GNU project with governments, I have compared it with Kingdoms :) Siddhesh
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 14/01/20 10:54 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Such exagerations aren't useful, you nor anyone else was keept hostage > for a year in a box and prohibited to work on the GNU C Library. Of course it is not hostage in the literal sense. It is in the sense that a decision was prevented from being taken only because of one person's whim despite the damage they could see happening to the project as a result. > Whatever you might think, it is RMS's perogative to decide how the GNU > project is managed, it is not a community run afair. This is quite > clear when you agree to become a GNU maintainter. Perhaps it is for maintainers (or not) but it is definitely not for contributors. The copyright assignment process does not mention that the impression of autonomy in your GNU project has been explicitly blessed by the chief gnuisance and can be taken away at any time based on his will. Basically the difference between the queen of England and the Kind of Saudi Arabia. OK maybe not as extreme as Saudi Arabia, but basically someone who actually exercises their power. Siddhesh
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Hi, On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 05:13:29PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 5:16 AM Brandon Invergo wrote: > > Mark Wielaard writes: > > > This is just a legal technicallity. The FSF has oversight > > > responsibility over the GNU project. That means that the FSF needs to > > > determine that GNU maintainers operate in a manner consistent with > > > FSF's exempt purposes, have the needed expertise and that their > > > activities can be monitored by the FSF board. So GNU Maintainers and > > > Steering committees are technically appointed by the FSF (previously > > > RMS when he was FSF president and board member) as stewards of GNU > > > packages. Basically GNU maintainers serve at the pleasure of the FSF. > > > > This is absolutely false. > > Which part? > > The FSF is a tax-exempt charity that has oversight responsibilities > for the work being done with the resources it owns. So at least that > part is true. > > The last two sentences are a reframing of the existing governance > structure based on the legal requirements placed on the FSF by its > tax-exempt status, which is why Mark uses the word "technically" not > "literally." You appear to have interpreted this as the literal > meaning, which is likely not Mark's intent. As Ludovic says, please > assume good intent. You can ask Mark what he meant by it before > calling all of it, incorrectly so, a falsehood. > > I agree with Ludovic and Andreas' comments downthread that when you > join a volunteer organization you join it to further the goals of the > organization. This was indeed what I meant. More specifically I said "GNU maintainers serve at the pleasure of the FSF" because that is what I really believe. I certainly joined GNU because I support the FSF mission. My copyright assignment is with the FSF. When I became a GNU maintainer I was added to some FSF internal lists that said "For ALL gnu programmers (volunteers included) and programmers of software that the FSF has included in GNU." As a GNU maintainer the FSF arranged I could talk to legal counsil (java used to have lots of tricky legal issues). The FSF sysadmins have always helped with any extra technical setups GNU projects need. I am a member of the FSF and donate money to the GNU project through the FSF. Cheers, Mark
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Hi Dora, On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 04:24:44AM -0500, Dora Scilipoti wrote: > > Since Brandon was delegated by the FSF president to > > appoint new (co-)maintainers [...] > > Correction: Brandon Invergo was delegated by Richard Stallman wearing > his Chief GNUisance hat, not as president of the FSF. We cannot really know because he used to wear both hats and depending on who you ask they'll tell you he made decissions as either Chief GNUisance or as FSF President. If you say it was as Chief GNUisance then it is a good question where that authority came from. And whether we still need a position like Chief GNUisance going forward. Authority in a volunteer organisation is always tricky. Which makes these governance discussions so difficult. Cheers, Mark
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Alfred M. Szmidt, le mar. 14 janv. 2020 12:24:57 -0500, a ecrit: > Whatever you might think, it is RMS's perogative to decide how the GNU > project is managed, it is not a community run afair. This is quite > clear when you agree to become a GNU maintainter. See Andreas Enge's comment about this on Mon, 6 Jan 2020 22:00:47 +0100 Apparently it was very far from clear for him. Samuel
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Such exagerations aren't useful, you nor anyone else was keept hostage for a year in a box and prohibited to work on the GNU C Library. Whatever you might think, it is RMS's perogative to decide how the GNU project is managed, it is not a community run afair. This is quite clear when you agree to become a GNU maintainter.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
> From: Siddhesh Poyarekar > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 12:38:13 +0530 > > On 14/01/20 6:50 am, nylxs wrote: > > So you guys should get together an create your own organization > > > > The last time a major fork happened in the GNU world was with egcs. A > little reading will give an indication of how that ended. OTOH, there was also the XEmacs fork, which started almost in the same time frame, and which ended very differently. If someone is going to read on the egcs affair, I suggest reading on XEmacs as well. My take from this is twofold: . forks are a terrible waste of our scarce resources . people should try harder to work with those with whom they disagree, and should emphasize the common instead of the disagreements
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 14/01/20 6:50 am, nylxs wrote: > So you guys should get together an create your own organization > The last time a major fork happened in the GNU world was with egcs. A little reading will give an indication of how that ended. Siddhesh
Re: A summary of some open discussions
* Siddhesh Poyarekar [2020-01-14 08:05]: > On 13/01/20 10:51 am, Jean Louis wrote: > > The big joke in the end is that few of those politically oriented, > > mostly French GNU members, again wish to censor the joke that was > > about censorship itself. > > 1. As someone in the middle of that whole debacle, I'd like to clarify > that I'm not French. In fact, I wonder how many glibc contributors we > have in France. I'll admit that I wouldn't be able to tell French from > Belgian, etc. given that, well, I'm not French. > > 2. As for the manual text, would it be appropriate for me to send emails > to this list about endangered Wildebeest? Why not? The list is about > GNUs after all! How about "Free Palestine" or "Free Kashmir"? Why not? > How about "Stop internet censorship"? The whole thing is a matter of > debate *only* because of the will of the chief GNUisance. GNU acronym itself is a joke. There is no point in discussing jokes, if you like it, it is good, if you got the point, fine, if not, also fine. > 3. That censorship claim is ridiculous. If anything, the current GNU > structure gives the chief gnuisance power and he abused it to keep all > of us hostage for a year. As you are not French, and also not kept captive by RMS in his cellar, you are also not a "hostage". Find other project to abuse. > 4. That thread ended up exposing much of what is wrong with the top-down > approach of maintenance. RMS threatened (and Alex executed on his > behalf) to use his veto power when clearly the majority of the glibc > community was against his viewpoint on the topic. Exactly. That is what founder of project decided. Opinion of majority is not necessary just opinion. Management of GNU projects are by majority not democratic. If you have a software project where you are project manager, you may decide to let people vote on it. Jean
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 13/01/20 10:51 am, Jean Louis wrote: > The big joke in the end is that few of those politically oriented, > mostly French GNU members, again wish to censor the joke that was > about censorship itself. 1. As someone in the middle of that whole debacle, I'd like to clarify that I'm not French. In fact, I wonder how many glibc contributors we have in France. I'll admit that I wouldn't be able to tell French from Belgian, etc. given that, well, I'm not French. 2. As for the manual text, would it be appropriate for me to send emails to this list about endangered Wildebeest? Why not? The list is about GNUs after all! How about "Free Palestine" or "Free Kashmir"? Why not? How about "Stop internet censorship"? The whole thing is a matter of debate *only* because of the will of the chief GNUisance. 3. That censorship claim is ridiculous. If anything, the current GNU structure gives the chief gnuisance power and he abused it to keep all of us hostage for a year. 4. That thread ended up exposing much of what is wrong with the top-down approach of maintenance. RMS threatened (and Alex executed on his behalf) to use his veto power when clearly the majority of the glibc community was against his viewpoint on the topic. Siddhesh
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/13/20 5:13 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > Which part? all of it
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/13/20 5:13 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > I agree with Ludovic and Andreas' comments downthread that when you > join a volunteer organization you join it to further the goals of the > organization. So you guys should get together an create your own organization
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 5:16 AM Brandon Invergo wrote: > Mark Wielaard writes: > > >> There is no such thing as a FSF steward, GNU maintainers are appointed > >> by RMS/GAC. The FSF has no say in the topic. You've keept > >> misrepresenting this over and over again. > > > > This is just a legal technicallity. The FSF has oversight > > responsibility over the GNU project. That means that the FSF needs to > > determine that GNU maintainers operate in a manner consistent with > > FSF's exempt purposes, have the needed expertise and that their > > activities can be monitored by the FSF board. So GNU Maintainers and > > Steering committees are technically appointed by the FSF (previously > > RMS when he was FSF president and board member) as stewards of GNU > > packages. Basically GNU maintainers serve at the pleasure of the FSF. > > This is absolutely false. Which part? The FSF is a tax-exempt charity that has oversight responsibilities for the work being done with the resources it owns. So at least that part is true. The last two sentences are a reframing of the existing governance structure based on the legal requirements placed on the FSF by its tax-exempt status, which is why Mark uses the word "technically" not "literally." You appear to have interpreted this as the literal meaning, which is likely not Mark's intent. As Ludovic says, please assume good intent. You can ask Mark what he meant by it before calling all of it, incorrectly so, a falsehood. I agree with Ludovic and Andreas' comments downthread that when you join a volunteer organization you join it to further the goals of the organization. Cheers, Carlos.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/13/20 12:21 AM, Jean Louis wrote: > * Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> [2020-01-13 > 02:10]: >> On 2020-01-11 21:52, Jean Louis wrote: >>> * Thompson, David [2020-01-10 10:53]: The problem is that when he chooses to step in, GNU is worse off because of it. See the glibc abort "joke", "kind communication guidelines" vs. code of conduct, etc. - Dave >>> >>> It is not abort joke, it never was "abort" joke. Media with you >>> included is twisting it and as media has certain keywords to pick up >>> and earn money on it, you think it is justified to blame anybody for a >>> joke? LOL. >>> >>> It is censorship joke: >>> https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Aborting-a-Program.html >> >> More than a censorship joke, it obviously uses metaphor of an imagined >> censorship about the abort function as government-imposed prohibitions >> on abortion. >> >> It's not a joke at all, but a coded political statement that stands in >> favor of women's right to choose, against conservative policies. > > The big joke in the end is that few of those politically oriented, > mostly French GNU members, again wish to censor the joke that was > about censorship itself. > > > This whole list is about censorship -- 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 summary of some open discussions
Jean Louis, le lun. 13 janv. 2020 06:21:18 +0100, a ecrit: > * Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> [2020-01-13 > 02:10]: > > On 2020-01-11 21:52, Jean Louis wrote: > > > It is censorship joke: > > > https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Aborting-a-Program.html > > > > More than a censorship joke, it obviously uses metaphor of an imagined > > censorship about the abort function as government-imposed prohibitions > > on abortion. > > > > It's not a joke at all, but a coded political statement that stands in > > favor of women's right to choose, against conservative policies. > > The big joke in the end is that few of those politically oriented, > mostly French GNU members, ?? This is nonsense. Who is French in the abortion joke removal thread?? > again wish to censor the joke that was about censorship itself. Read the thread again. Samuel
Re: A summary of some open discussions
* Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> [2020-01-13 02:10]: > On 2020-01-11 21:52, Jean Louis wrote: > > * Thompson, David [2020-01-10 10:53]: > > > > > > The problem is that when he chooses to step in, GNU is worse off > > > because of it. See the glibc abort "joke", "kind communication > > > guidelines" vs. code of conduct, etc. > > > > > > - Dave > > > > It is not abort joke, it never was "abort" joke. Media with you > > included is twisting it and as media has certain keywords to pick up > > and earn money on it, you think it is justified to blame anybody for a > > joke? LOL. > > > > It is censorship joke: > > https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Aborting-a-Program.html > > More than a censorship joke, it obviously uses metaphor of an imagined > censorship about the abort function as government-imposed prohibitions > on abortion. > > It's not a joke at all, but a coded political statement that stands in > favor of women's right to choose, against conservative policies. The big joke in the end is that few of those politically oriented, mostly French GNU members, again wish to censor the joke that was about censorship itself.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 2020-01-11 21:52, Jean Louis wrote: * Thompson, David [2020-01-10 10:53]: The problem is that when he chooses to step in, GNU is worse off because of it. See the glibc abort "joke", "kind communication guidelines" vs. code of conduct, etc. - Dave It is not abort joke, it never was "abort" joke. Media with you included is twisting it and as media has certain keywords to pick up and earn money on it, you think it is justified to blame anybody for a joke? LOL. It is censorship joke: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Aborting-a-Program.html More than a censorship joke, it obviously uses metaphor of an imagined censorship about the abort function as government-imposed prohibitions on abortion. It's not a joke at all, but a coded political statement that stands in favor of women's right to choose, against conservative policies.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
* Thompson, David [2020-01-10 10:53]: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 4:28 PM Brandon Invergo wrote: > > > > As does Richard. He largely only retains responsibility for > > project-wide decisions while the rest is delegated. In the overwhelming > > majority of cases he lets the maintainers, webmasters, etc. do their > > jobs independently. Many of the email exchanges I have with him end up > > with "DTRT" ("do the right thing", meaning, use my judgment). He very, > > very rarely intervenes in the development of individual packages (other > > than Emacs, of course). > > The problem is that when he chooses to step in, GNU is worse off > because of it. See the glibc abort "joke", "kind communication > guidelines" vs. code of conduct, etc. > > - Dave It is not abort joke, it never was "abort" joke. Media with you included is twisting it and as media has certain keywords to pick up and earn money on it, you think it is justified to blame anybody for a joke? LOL. It is censorship joke: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Aborting-a-Program.html GNU Kind Communication Guidelines vs. Code of Conduct is for me very clearly Individualism approach vs. Collectivism approach. You have learned in your life that all groups shall be run by Collectivism approach, starting from governments, schools, any kind of groups, there are everywhere some rules and if anybody break the rule that person shall be somehow responsible or get punished for it. Right? References: http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture39.shtml https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/02/individualism-collectivism/ With GNU Kind Communication Guideliness, I do not think that anybody got banned from mailing list way too early, probably many times person have been warned, and asked to improve the style. It is finally a guideline. 3. guidepost, guideline, rule of thumb -- (a rule or principle that provides guidance to appropriate behavior) It is not a code. Not a code of conduct. 1. (9) code, codification -- (a set of rules or principles or laws (especially written ones)) GNU project is based on RMS having such approach to let individuals participate individually, individual makes his own choices, think his own thoughts, is responsible for own choices. When imposing "Code of Conduct" you would be turning GNU fundamental principles upside down from Individualism to Collectivism. Because the Collectivism approach is all what you have learned, as since your kindergarden, people were imposing the rules onto you, school had rules you had to live with, your university and any other group, including governments. You have to understand that you are now in the group where you are not coerced into limits, and that this is not desire neither goal of this group. Individuals decide how much to contribute and in which manner, and GNU is not going to judge them, GNU is to guide them. " The first way is individualism, which states that each individual is acting on his or her own, making their own choices, and to the extent they interact with the rest of the group, it's as individuals. Collectivism is the second way, and it views the group as the primary entity, with the individuals lost along the way. Objectivism supports individualism in this sense. In a different sense, individualism is meant to be whether the individual is different from everyone else, or whether he makes up his own mind about things, or what-not. But in the individualist-collectivist sense of the term, individualism just means that the individual is a separate entity, making his own choices, thinking his own thoughts, and responsible for his own choices. Collectivism views it in some other way. It sees the group as the important element, and individuals are just members of the group. The group has its own values somehow different from those of the individual members. The group thinks its own thoughts. Instead of judging the group as a bunch of individuals interacting, it judges the group as a whole, and views the individuals as just members of the group." From: http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture39.shtml -- Thanks, Jean Louis
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/9/20 8:31 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > I can't parse this. then use bison or antler
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/8/20 4:37 AM, Andreas Enge wrote: >> All volunteer organizations are top down, even Debian... > That is clearly wrong, and well documented for Debian. Actually it is correct. Debian has governance and although it has elections and it is clearly top down It is designed with project leaders on top and in FACT when systemD was adopted, people were shocked that Debian can have coercive authority and they broke off and forked over distros BTW - Debian's governance sinks and is dysfunctional. It could NEVER do what GNU does because it gives too much power to the project leaders and it has become a cespool of special interests the Debian Technical Committee can, in the end, overule and govern the entire OS. And then there is the Debian Project Leader Meanwhile, go volunteer at the American Museum of Natural History and see if you can move the T-Rex around... Good luck with that. Go tell Linus Tovalds how to run the Linux Kernel... see how fa you get I see no reason at this point why Stallman doesn't just ban the dissenting project leaders. He is far more tolerant than I am, and far more than you are as well. Honestly, you have do a great deal of damage to a great man and a personal friend and I despise you for being a big bully. You should resign and make your own project elsewhere. -- 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 summary of some open discussions
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 4:28 PM Brandon Invergo wrote: > > As does Richard. He largely only retains responsibility for > project-wide decisions while the rest is delegated. In the overwhelming > majority of cases he lets the maintainers, webmasters, etc. do their > jobs independently. Many of the email exchanges I have with him end up > with "DTRT" ("do the right thing", meaning, use my judgment). He very, > very rarely intervenes in the development of individual packages (other > than Emacs, of course). The problem is that when he chooses to step in, GNU is worse off because of it. See the glibc abort "joke", "kind communication guidelines" vs. code of conduct, etc. - Dave
Re: A summary of some open discussions
* Andreas Enge [2020-01-06 22:01]: > Hello, > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 08:34:54PM +0100, Andy Wingo wrote: > > On Mon 06 Jan 2020 15:05, Brandon Invergo writes: > > > Ludovic Courtès writes: > > >> As a side note: I think authority is not something one should take for > > >> granted. We’re a group of volunteers, and each one of us has just as > > >> much authority as the others consent to give them. > > > > > > No. When you join an organization, you implicitly or explicitly agree > > > to work within the existing structure of that organization. > > > > More seriously, I think that when you join an organization, you > > implicitly or explicitly agree to work for the *goals* of that > > organization. > > this is a good argument with which I agree. > > An additional problem of GNU is that the organisation itself is > implicit. I do not see practical problem. I see your invented problems. And I do believe that when you are joining GNU or contributing some software, you cannot easily adapt to its already established policies. It is so in almost every organization, you would need to learn new policies and adapt, or either leave. > On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 02:05:54PM +, Brandon Invergo wrote: > > However, to say that as a volunteer one can > > simply start doing things differently, against the existing structure, > > because one's opinion changes amounts to subversion. > > Actually, what do you do when you find out that the existing structure > is detrimental to the goals pursued by the organisation you joined? That is generalization. GNU project is successful. RMS is successful person. Free software philosophy is spread by RMS and his efforts. Free software operating systems exist in this world by large number due to RMS's work. Please do not generalize. If you have specific problem to point out, please do so. But do not generalize, you are spreading doubts, fears and uncertaintes. > Our current structure has driven people away, and I suspect it prevents > others from joining, in a context where volunteer time is the > premium asset. Please do not generalize by telling "people away" -- be specific. For Guix system, there are specific few people that can be found on Guix IRC chat log, who said they will not contribute to Guix due to public shamings that started by Ludovic Courtès. So specifically for Guix, one can find that people have given up contributions due to their shameful behavior towards GNU project and its founder Dr. Richard Stallman. So which specific people "have been driven away" and by "which current structure" exactly and specifically? Rumor mongering is one thing, being specific requires guts. > Personally, I even think that our autocratic structure subverts our goals, > since I perceive a philosophical clash: How can we strive for empowering users > of our software and not at the same time empower the volunteers who do the > work so that they organise themselves, but instead expect them to follow > a (let us assume, benevolent) dictator for life? Volunteers are empowered and can contribute to GNU project, as you know, so please stop spreading fears, uncertainties and doubts. Everybody is welcome to contribute to GNU project. GNU project is not autocratic, that is word that cannot be used properly in the context of the GNU project. RMS is certainly not autocratic by his nature and character. RMS is founder of the GNU project and has final say. But he is not behaving in autocratic manner. Please stop with disrespect. See RMS's statement on www.stallman.org "I continue to be the Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project. I do not intend to stop any time soon." -- thus whatever you wish to propose, propose to RMS, and if it is rejected, stop with the disrespect. Can you find some other activity that will benefit you or others? Jean
Re: A summary of some open discussions
> From: Brandon Invergo > Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 21:28:02 + > > > Linus gives a lot of delegation. In the end he is the last merge point, > > but he completely trusts direct subtree maintainers, who can work the > > way they wish. > > As does Richard. He largely only retains responsibility for > project-wide decisions while the rest is delegated. In the overwhelming > majority of cases he lets the maintainers, webmasters, etc. do their > jobs independently. Many of the email exchanges I have with him end up > with "DTRT" ("do the right thing", meaning, use my judgment). He very, > very rarely intervenes in the development of individual packages (other > than Emacs, of course). Not even in Emacs, as a matter of fact. He posts quite rarely to emacs-devel, mostly to express his opinions regarding some issue that comes up in the discussions, but almost never says anything that would sound as intervention or enforcing his views.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
nylxs, le mer. 08 janv. 2020 14:05:46 -0500, a ecrit: > On 1/8/20 12:30 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > nylxs, le mer. 08 janv. 2020 10:19:26 -0500, a ecrit: > >> when systemD was adopted, > > The systemd question was not about adoption (adding it to the archive > > was really not a concern), but about whether to make it a default/only > > choice. Which is a collective concern, and thus was discusssed > > collectively. The leader can help the discussion to happen but in the > > end it's a vote which settled what the community wanted to do. > > Only if the "community" is top down the governance. I can't parse this. > >> [Debian] could NEVER do what GNU does because it gives too much power > >> to the project leaders > > ?? GNU gives *way* more power to its leader than Debian does to its > > leader. > > No - Debian gives too much power to the individual project leaders, not > the Debian Debian leader. Which individual project leaders? How do you think it "gives" to some, and not just to "all"? Developers can just do what they want with their package, only constrained by the policy which was agreed on collectively. Or do you precisely mean too much power to just everybody? But then it's not "power", but "freedom"? > >> the entire OS. > > Certainly not the entire OS. I have been for instance working in the > > accessibility team completely the way I wanted, creating whatever > > repositories, wikis, giving commit access like I wanted. At some point > > there was interaction with other pieces of the OS, so discussion was > > needed, and they happened directly with the corresponding teams. It > > never went through the technical committee or leader. It would only have > > been on an unsolved disagreement that we would have had to resort to the > > technical committee. > > which is one reason Debian continues to suck. They wait for people to > just do things, and then they complain, discuss and then they make a top > down decision. Sure. What else would you do in such a case? Are you here rejecting top-down? Or are you just saying "blah, see, it's top-down!!" Well, sure, sometimes you need some tie breaking. But if we can agree on using it as little as possible it's better. > All Volunteer organizations are top down. Maybe not the French > Communist party, or the 99% movement, but all the rest of them. Is *that* not a catchall statement.. > >> Meanwhile, go volunteer at the American Museum of Natural History and > >> see if you can move the T-Rex around... > >> Good luck with that. > > Which, to my opinion, is not a good thing. > > It is a ***GREAT*** thing, as a fact, anyone else's opinion not > withstanding. It means that the leadership is responsible 100% for the > direction of the institution, and it assures real standards. It > prevents a hostile takeover by flat-earthers. There is no need for such a thing to prevent hostile takeovers. What if the leadership happens to convert itself to flat-earth beliefs, even if the vast majority of the organization refuses that? > Nobody should want be part of an organization where the mice can take > over the boat. Sure. That's why you want collective discussions. Some mice have tried in Debian to keep non-systemd a requirement, and the community collectively decided that no, it was too much of a burden, so the mice now have to either find another place, or adapt. Hierarchical organizations, on the contrary, run the risk of seeing a mouse climbing the leadership steps and eventually, with the obtained power, driving the organization away from what the collective spirit is. Sure, the "RMS forever" solution avoids that kind of issue, since RMS can keep his focus. But æternal life still isn't a thing, so we will need somebody else at some point. Will that successor follow RMS' focus, or will that be a mouse? Community-driven focus is more robust to such a thing. > > Organizations which can't evolve go extinct. > > That is a meaningless catchall statement It's not a catchall, it's what you can see in various cases. Samuel
Re: A summary of some open discussions
I've been watching Debian for nearly 30 years ... I know exactly hwo it work and it is top down On 1/8/20 12:30 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Fixing some facts here. > > nylxs, le mer. 08 janv. 2020 10:19:26 -0500, a ecrit: >> On 1/8/20 4:37 AM, Andreas Enge wrote: All volunteer organizations are top down, even Debian... >>> That is clearly wrong, and well documented for Debian. >> Actually it is correct. Debian has governance and although it has >> elections and it is clearly top down > You don't seem to have any idea how Debian actually works. > >> It is designed with project leaders on top > Not really. There is a project leader, but in practice the leader has > little impact in everyday work: one can create webpages, wikis, new > services etc. at will. > >> when systemD was adopted, > The systemd question was not about adoption (adding it to the archive > was really not a concern), but about whether to make it a default/only > choice. Which is a collective concern, and thus was discusssed > collectively. The leader can help the discussion to happen but in the > end it's a vote which settled what the community wanted to do. Only if the "community" is top down the governance. > >> people were shocked that Debian can have coercive authority > It was not a question of coercion, but to decide collectively which way > we go. Which is what being part of a community is all about. Yes, it > means that people have to follow what was decided. That's also what a > community is about. > >> and they broke off and forked over distros > Yes, that's unfortunate, but that can't be helped with. Different goals, > thus different projects. > >> [Debian] could NEVER do what GNU does because it gives too much power >> to the project leaders > ?? GNU gives *way* more power to its leader than Debian does to its > leader. > No - Debian gives too much power to the individual project leaders, not the Debian Debian leader. >> the Debian Technical Committee can, in the end, overule and govern > No. It only settles a disagreement between two developers. It does not > govern, it just breaks ties. It is used as less as possible, only when > discussion didn't work in the end. > >> the entire OS. > Certainly not the entire OS. I have been for instance working in the > accessibility team completely the way I wanted, creating whatever > repositories, wikis, giving commit access like I wanted. At some point > there was interaction with other pieces of the OS, so discussion was > needed, and they happened directly with the corresponding teams. It > never went through the technical committee or leader. It would only have > been on an unsolved disagreement that we would have had to resort to the > technical committee. > which is one reason Debian continues to suck. They wait for people to just do things, and then they complain, discuss and then they make a top down decision. I don't want this garbage approach for GNU. All Volunteer organizations are top down. Maybe not the French Communist party, or the 99% movement, but all the rest of them. >> Meanwhile, go volunteer at the American Museum of Natural History and >> see if you can move the T-Rex around... >> Good luck with that. > Which, to my opinion, is not a good thing. It is a ***GREAT*** thing, as a fact, anyone else's opinion not withstanding. It means that the leadership is responsible 100% for the direction of the institution, and it assures real standards. It prevents a hostile takeover by flat-earthers. It allows for diving into controversial issues without having to worry about internal blow back from within. Nobody should want be part of an organization where the mice can take over the boat. GNU is lead by, created by, and the vision of Richard M Stallman as a platform for his explicit political and educational goals. If someone can't live with those goals, and that leadership, then they __need__ to leave. It's OK. Really, it is. There is Microsoft you can work for, or some open source something or other program... or if you love it so much... work for Debian. Libreboot? Are they in or out of GNU this week? Gnome? Ximinan? OpenSuse? Caldera Wikipedia is perfect for your aspirations. Nobody will hate you any __more__ for it. You are being invited, baited, goated, to just pick up and leave GNU and do your own thing. Like Mork from Ork said... Fly - Be Free https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/robin-williams-the-darkness-and-the-light-were-indivisible-9664527.html > Organizations which can't > evolve go extinct. That is a meaningless catchall statement to justify slandering Richard and trying to take GNU from him. It is not acceptable in an adult conversation. > >> Go tell Linus Tovalds how to run the Linux Kernel... see how fa you get > Linus gives a lot of delegation. So does Richard. > In the end he is the last merge point, > but he completely trusts direct subtree maintainers, who can work the > way they wish.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Samuel Thibault writes: > Yes, it means that people have to follow what was decided. That's also > what a community is about. > >> and they broke off and forked over distros > > Yes, that's unfortunate, but that can't be helped with. Different goals, > thus different projects. Exactly. Their goals weren't approved according to the structure of the project, they didn't like the result, and so they left (well, some did, others I hope stayed on and adapted). Nobody saw it as their responsibility to subvert the project to impose their goals. > Linus gives a lot of delegation. In the end he is the last merge point, > but he completely trusts direct subtree maintainers, who can work the > way they wish. As does Richard. He largely only retains responsibility for project-wide decisions while the rest is delegated. In the overwhelming majority of cases he lets the maintainers, webmasters, etc. do their jobs independently. Many of the email exchanges I have with him end up with "DTRT" ("do the right thing", meaning, use my judgment). He very, very rarely intervenes in the development of individual packages (other than Emacs, of course). -- -brandon
Re: A summary of some open discussions
None of the people you listed are in a position to take decisions regarding how the GNU project is organised.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
I think GNU is the only autocratic volunteer organisation I am contributing to, which, given its goals, is rather ironic. The goal is free software, and keeping the GNU system free -- it is not at all ironic that the structure is the way that it is. See Debian, they welcome non-free software and distribute it because of their semi-democratic setup.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Fixing some facts here. nylxs, le mer. 08 janv. 2020 10:19:26 -0500, a ecrit: > On 1/8/20 4:37 AM, Andreas Enge wrote: > >> All volunteer organizations are top down, even Debian... > > That is clearly wrong, and well documented for Debian. > > Actually it is correct. Debian has governance and although it has > elections and it is clearly top down You don't seem to have any idea how Debian actually works. > It is designed with project leaders on top Not really. There is a project leader, but in practice the leader has little impact in everyday work: one can create webpages, wikis, new services etc. at will. > when systemD was adopted, The systemd question was not about adoption (adding it to the archive was really not a concern), but about whether to make it a default/only choice. Which is a collective concern, and thus was discusssed collectively. The leader can help the discussion to happen but in the end it's a vote which settled what the community wanted to do. > people were shocked that Debian can have coercive authority It was not a question of coercion, but to decide collectively which way we go. Which is what being part of a community is all about. Yes, it means that people have to follow what was decided. That's also what a community is about. > and they broke off and forked over distros Yes, that's unfortunate, but that can't be helped with. Different goals, thus different projects. > [Debian] could NEVER do what GNU does because it gives too much power > to the project leaders ?? GNU gives *way* more power to its leader than Debian does to its leader. > the Debian Technical Committee can, in the end, overule and govern No. It only settles a disagreement between two developers. It does not govern, it just breaks ties. It is used as less as possible, only when discussion didn't work in the end. > the entire OS. Certainly not the entire OS. I have been for instance working in the accessibility team completely the way I wanted, creating whatever repositories, wikis, giving commit access like I wanted. At some point there was interaction with other pieces of the OS, so discussion was needed, and they happened directly with the corresponding teams. It never went through the technical committee or leader. It would only have been on an unsolved disagreement that we would have had to resort to the technical committee. > Meanwhile, go volunteer at the American Museum of Natural History and > see if you can move the T-Rex around... > Good luck with that. Which, to my opinion, is not a good thing. Organizations which can't evolve go extinct. > Go tell Linus Tovalds how to run the Linux Kernel... see how fa you get Linus gives a lot of delegation. In the end he is the last merge point, but he completely trusts direct subtree maintainers, who can work the way they wish. Samuel
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/8/20 4:37 AM, Andreas Enge wrote: >> All volunteer organizations are top down, even Debian... > That is clearly wrong, and well documented for Debian. Actually it is correct. Debian has governance and although it has elections and it is clearly top down It is designed with project leaders on top and in FACT when systemD was adopted, people were shocked that Debian can have coercive authority and they broke off and forked over distros BTW - Debian's governance sinks and is dysfunctional. It could NEVER do what GNU does because it gives too much power to the project leaders and it has become a cespool of special interests the Debian Technical Committee can, in the end, overule and govern the entire OS. And then there is the Debian Project Leader Meanwhile, go volunteer at the American Museum of Natural History and see if you can move the T-Rex around... Good luck with that. Go tell Linus Tovalds how to run the Linux Kernel... see how fa you get I see no reason at this point why Stallman doesn't just ban the dissenting project leaders. He is far more tolerant than I am, and far more than you are as well. Honestly, you have do a great deal of damage to a great man and a personal friend and I despise you for being a big bully. You should resign and make your own project elsewhere.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
* Andy Wingo [2020-01-06 20:35]: > On Mon 06 Jan 2020 15:05, Brandon Invergo writes: > > > Ludovic Courtès writes: > > > >> As a side note: I think authority is not something one should take for > >> granted. We’re a group of volunteers, and each one of us has just as > >> much authority as the others consent to give them. > > > > No. When you join an organization, you implicitly or explicitly agree > > to work within the existing structure of that organization. > > No. (Isn't a lovely discursive pattern? Sheesh.) > > More seriously, I think that when you join an organization, you > implicitly or explicitly agree to work for the *goals* of that > organization. > > At any given time, the strategy that an organization takes may no longer > correspond to its goals. In that case it is the responsibility of the > members of the organization to change it to better fit its needs. Let us put down those generalizations about "strategy that GNU organization takes" and be specific. Which specific strategy did GNU project take that no longer correspond to its goals? Be specific, stop accusations, provide facts. For any organization, if you think it is bad or good, it does not matter, if it is not yours, volunteers have no final say, it is GNU founder who has finaly say, please remember on www.stallman.org it is written "I continue to be the Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project. I do not intend to stop any time soon." GNU is not yours, volunteers have no final say, it is so in majority of software projects, nothing wrong about that. Can you please have some respect for doctor Stallman? > I am not sure why you think that a literal argument from authority will > succeed in convincing those GNU developers and maintainers that think a > different governance structure is a better strategy. You have all the freedom to think anything. Yet, without consulting with the GNU founder, Dr. Richard Stallman, your behavior is disrespectful. Jean
Re: A summary of some open discussions
* nylxs [2020-01-08 08:18]: > On 1/6/20 4:00 PM, Andreas Enge wrote: > > I can revert my decision and leave. This is an > > option, but like Andy I think that the goals of GNU are a worthy cause, and > > that it makes sense to struggle for a more participatory organisation to > > ensure the long-term success of GNU. > > > > Accept that never actually works and what it really means is that you > want to steal GNU because you are angry with RMS. All volunteer > organizations are top down, even Debian... > > GNU, the Linux Kernel, the Boy Scouts, etc > > I volunteer for the Museum of Natural Historyt and Public TV and I ZERO > say in either organziaiton. > > This is just a flat out power grab > > There is NO legitamacy to what you are doing. ZERO > > Oh - and BTW - I don't support you. I support Richard Stallman, and his > creation of the GNU and springboarding Free Software. > > I wouldn't follow you ANYWHERE. You have proven to work in bad faith > and to be untrustworthy. Thank you, that is well said. Jean
Re: A summary of some open discussions
* Thompson, David [2020-01-07 16:16]: > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 2:35 PM Andy Wingo wrote: > > > > On Mon 06 Jan 2020 15:05, Brandon Invergo writes: > > > > > Ludovic Courtès writes: > > > > > >> As a side note: I think authority is not something one should take for > > >> granted. We’re a group of volunteers, and each one of us has just as > > >> much authority as the others consent to give them. > > > > > > No. When you join an organization, you implicitly or explicitly agree > > > to work within the existing structure of that organization. > > > > No. (Isn't a lovely discursive pattern? Sheesh.) > > > > More seriously, I think that when you join an organization, you > > implicitly or explicitly agree to work for the *goals* of that > > organization. > > > > At any given time, the strategy that an organization takes may no longer > > correspond to its goals. In that case it is the responsibility of the > > members of the organization to change it to better fit its needs. > > +1 > > I look forward to a healthier GNU project as a result of these > important structural changes. > > Thanks to Andy, Mark, Ludovic, Carlos, and others who have been > putting so much effort into this. They have been damaging Guix and GNU project. If RMS would be really autocratic, they would be expelled as soon as they started with public shaming on Guix pages. What matters for RMS is not what somebody thinks or which political opinions they have, but rather if they are contributing to free software, that is priority, so RMS is letting you people be. That is not autocratic, that is kind. Somebody else would already sue your asses for millions of dollars. Jean
Re: A summary of some open discussions
* Brandon Invergo [2020-01-06 15:06]: > > Ludovic Courtès writes: > > > As a side note: I think authority is not something one should take for > > granted. We’re a group of volunteers, and each one of us has just as > > much authority as the others consent to give them. > > No. When you join an organization, you implicitly or explicitly agree > to work within the existing structure of that organization. That is exactly so, and one need not know the structure of governance of the organization. One can just know about the individual agreement between the person and organization. When saying organization, it need not be incorporated entity. Many groups and especially software projects are not incorporated. > There is nothing inherently wrong with trying, within those > confines, to effect change in the organization. However, to say > that as a volunteer one can simply start doing things differently, > against the existing structure, because one's opinion changes > amounts to subversion. Exactly. > In this case, the existing structure is that Richard is the leader of > the project. Richard granted me authority to appoint new maintainers > for existing projects. That authority is not contingent upon the > consent of other volunteers, because that simply is not how the project > is structured. > > I will remind you that GNU is not a government. "Consent of the > governed" arguments do not make sense in a voluntary organization. In > fact, consent is reversed from that of governments: the volunteers > participate at the consent of the organization. Exactly, thank you. Group of few people with bad intentions are trying to take over GNU project by imposing and by pretending it is some kind of government. While in the same time they run similar project like Guix, which is certainly not governed by its volunteers. Volunteers do not have finaly say in Guix. How about moving away attackes from GNU and continuing with contributions to Guix? Jean
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Dear Andreas, GNU project, which is about providing free operating system has its founder Dr. Richard M. Stallman. * Andreas Enge [2020-01-08 10:38]: > Actually, even in more traditionally organised French non-profits, > the president etc. are elected by a yearly assembly of all the > members; I think the same holds in Germany. This is imposed by law > as soon as one wants to register a non-profit. > > I think GNU is the only autocratic volunteer organisation I am > contributing to, which, given its goals, is rather ironic. GNU project is not a non-profit, thus apples cannot be compared to pears. You don't compare frogs to grandmothers. GNU project has its founder in US, and has no direct connections to France or French non-profits. You cannot compare German laws to American laws. GNU project is so far I know, not a registered entity, need not be. FSF is non-profit incorporated entity. FSF and GNU are not same. That you say "GNU is the only autocratic volunteer organisation" is pure nonsense, especially in software world where majority of software project founders have taken initiative to start the project, and they still retain the rights to choose what is going to be accepted and what not. I really wonder how you don't know that majority of software projects in general have its usually single project founder, more rarely few people, but contributors in majority of software projects do not have a final say. That you say that "GNU is the only autocratic volunteer organisation" also shows me that you are either blind or intentionally bringing doubts, fears and uncertainties. Dr. Richard M. Stallman is least "autocratic" among majority of software projects, don't you see that Stallman is not even raising his voice when you are throwing mud on GNU project? How can that be said to be bossy, dominating or dictatorial or despotic, tyrannic? It is not. Stop spreading fears, doubts and uncertainties. GNU project has its founder, there is statement on www.stallman.org where it says " I continue to be the Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project. I do not intend to stop any time soon." -- so please just stop derrogating and disrespecting GNU project. Can you do your own project? Can you do something useful that is not dividing people? Why are you spreading lies and propaganda here? Can you just spend your time in more efficient manner with some benefits for you or for some people, even going to swimming pool may give you relaxed time, may lessen your envy towards Stallman. Jean definition: The adj autocratic has 2 senses (no senses from tagged texts) 1. autocratic, bossy, dominating, high-and-mighty, magisterial, peremptory -- (offensively self-assured or given to exercising usually unwarranted power; "an autocratic person"; "autocratic behavior"; "a bossy way of ordering others around"; "a rather aggressive and dominating character"; "managed the employees in an aloof magisterial way"; "a swaggering peremptory manner") 2. authoritarian, autocratic, dictatorial, despotic, tyrannic, tyrannical -- (characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty; "an authoritarian regime"; "autocratic government"; "despotic rulers"; "a dictatorial rule that lasted for the duration of the war"; "a tyrannical government")
Re: A summary of some open discussions
* Ludovic Courtès [2020-01-06 14:01]: > Please assume good faith. The lesson here is that if long-time > contributors or maintainers do not know for sure how this all works, > perhaps we should see whether/how we can better document it. > > As a side note: I think authority is not something one should take for > granted. We’re a group of volunteers, and each one of us has just as > much authority as the others consent to give them. > > Thanks, > Ludo’ GuixSD is also managed by you Ludovic, and you and few people of your group in Guix, they have the authority to manage it, you don't just allow everybody to govern the Guix, so please stop with hypocrisy. Authority comes from founder in GNU project, same in the Guix. So could I take over Guix project and write myself some new social contract without your consent? So please Ludovic, stop with the hypocrisy. Jean
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 04:32:53PM -0500, nylxs wrote: > All volunteer organizations are top down, even Debian... That is clearly wrong, and well documented for Debian. Other examples are GNU Guix, where we try to implement a more participatory model (while there are still GNU maintainers). I think the GNU toolchain also has a not quite top-down model, but others know more about it. Or the non-profit organisations Guix Europe and Aquilenet, where we have done away with the traditional structure of president, vice- president and so on who can take all the decisions. You can find the Guix Europe bylaws here: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix/maintenance.git/tree/guix-europe/statuts Actually, even in more traditionally organised French non-profits, the president etc. are elected by a yearly assembly of all the members; I think the same holds in Germany. This is imposed by law as soon as one wants to register a non-profit. I think GNU is the only autocratic volunteer organisation I am contributing to, which, given its goals, is rather ironic. Andreas
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On 1/6/20 4:00 PM, Andreas Enge wrote: > I can revert my decision and leave. This is an > option, but like Andy I think that the goals of GNU are a worthy cause, and > that it makes sense to struggle for a more participatory organisation to > ensure the long-term success of GNU. Accept that never actually works and what it really means is that you want to steal GNU because you are angry with RMS. All volunteer organizations are top down, even Debian... GNU, the Linux Kernel, the Boy Scouts, etc I volunteer for the Museum of Natural Historyt and Public TV and I ZERO say in either organziaiton. This is just a flat out power grab There is NO legitamacy to what you are doing. ZERO Oh - and BTW - I don't support you. I support Richard Stallman, and his creation of the GNU and springboarding Free Software. I wouldn't follow you ANYWHERE. You have proven to work in bad faith and to be untrustworthy.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 2:35 PM Andy Wingo wrote: > > On Mon 06 Jan 2020 15:05, Brandon Invergo writes: > > > Ludovic Courtès writes: > > > >> As a side note: I think authority is not something one should take for > >> granted. We’re a group of volunteers, and each one of us has just as > >> much authority as the others consent to give them. > > > > No. When you join an organization, you implicitly or explicitly agree > > to work within the existing structure of that organization. > > No. (Isn't a lovely discursive pattern? Sheesh.) > > More seriously, I think that when you join an organization, you > implicitly or explicitly agree to work for the *goals* of that > organization. > > At any given time, the strategy that an organization takes may no longer > correspond to its goals. In that case it is the responsibility of the > members of the organization to change it to better fit its needs. +1 I look forward to a healthier GNU project as a result of these important structural changes. Thanks to Andy, Mark, Ludovic, Carlos, and others who have been putting so much effort into this. - Dave
Re: A summary of some open discussions
> Since Brandon was delegated by the FSF president to > appoint new (co-)maintainers [...] Correction: Brandon Invergo was delegated by Richard Stallman wearing his Chief GNUisance hat, not as president of the FSF. -- Dora Scilipoti GNU Education Team gnu.org/education
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Hi, On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 02:00:17PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Brandon Invergo skribis: > > Mark Wielaard writes: > > > >>> There is no such thing as a FSF steward, GNU maintainers are appointed > >>> by RMS/GAC. The FSF has no say in the topic. You've keept > >>> misrepresenting this over and over again. > >> > >> This is just a legal technicallity. The FSF has oversight > >> responsibility over the GNU project. That means that the FSF needs to > >> determine that GNU maintainers operate in a manner consistent with > >> FSF's exempt purposes, have the needed expertise and that their > >> activities can be monitored by the FSF board. So GNU Maintainers and > >> Steering committees are technically appointed by the FSF (previously > >> RMS when he was FSF president and board member) as stewards of GNU > >> packages. Basically GNU maintainers serve at the pleasure of the FSF. > > > > This is absolutely false. > > > > As a member of the package evaluation team and as an Assistant > > GNUissance (maintain...@gnu.org), I have personally been involved in > > many appointments of new maintainers at every step of the process, from > > first contact with GNU through to post-appointment bureaucracy and > > occasional check-ins. I also have the authority to appoint new > > maintainers of existing packages myself (only Richard can appoint > > maintainers of new packages). In fact, I personally appointed some new > > co-maintainers of Guix back in September, two weeks *after* Richard > > resigned as president of the FSF, which Ludovic can confirm. > > Yes, I confirm this. > > > I can categorically say that the FSF is not involved whatsoever in the > > appointment of new maintainers. > > That’s also my understanding. > > > Please do not spread misinformation about the GNU project. > > Please assume good faith. Yes. Both statements are true and nobody tries to deliberately spread misinformation. Since Brandon was delegated by the FSF president to appoint new (co-)maintainers it is reasonable to assume the FSF felt the procedures were good enough for their oversight responsibility. And most likely that still holds. IMHO having this documented and checking with the FSF this is still the case is a good thing. > The lesson here is that if long-time > contributors or maintainers do not know for sure how this all works, > perhaps we should see whether/how we can better document it. Agreed. > As a side note: I think authority is not something one should take for > granted. We’re a group of volunteers, and each one of us has just as > much authority as the others consent to give them. Indeed. Cheers, Mark
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Hello, On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 08:34:54PM +0100, Andy Wingo wrote: > On Mon 06 Jan 2020 15:05, Brandon Invergo writes: > > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> As a side note: I think authority is not something one should take for > >> granted. We’re a group of volunteers, and each one of us has just as > >> much authority as the others consent to give them. > > > > No. When you join an organization, you implicitly or explicitly agree > > to work within the existing structure of that organization. > > More seriously, I think that when you join an organization, you > implicitly or explicitly agree to work for the *goals* of that > organization. this is a good argument with which I agree. An additional problem of GNU is that the organisation itself is implicit. When I joined by proposing a software package, I learnt that my proposal was evaluated by a committee, with which I interacted, and that (if I remember well, it has been quite a while) the final word was with Richard Stallman; then I received an e-mail by Richard welcoming me as a GNU maintainer. So I would say that I implicitly agreed to Richard appointing (and potentially firing) the GNU maintainers. However, I was quite shocked to learn after I joined that GNU is essentially an autocratic structure, with Richard having the final say in almost everything: the maintainer guide; whether or not we would have a code of conduct, to cite a recent debate; from what I can gather from recent events, it extends to who is a moderator of GNU mailing lists and whether or not a group of GNU maintainers may obtain a wiki to draft documents. This is something I could not even agree to implicitly, since I was simply not aware of it and it is not published anywhere; maybe I was naive in assuming that a volunteer organisation with the goals of advancing user freedom would be organised like Debian with a more democratic structure, but indeed I did. You could argue that now since I found out about the poor organisation of GNU, I can revert my decision and leave. This is an option, but like Andy I think that the goals of GNU are a worthy cause, and that it makes sense to struggle for a more participatory organisation to ensure the long-term success of GNU. On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 02:05:54PM +, Brandon Invergo wrote: > However, to say that as a volunteer one can > simply start doing things differently, against the existing structure, > because one's opinion changes amounts to subversion. Actually, what do you do when you find out that the existing structure is detrimental to the goals pursued by the organisation you joined? Our current structure has driven people away, and I suspect it prevents others from joining, in a context where volunteer time is the premium asset. Formally, Brandon, your argument may be correct: When joining an organisation with a given structure (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the structure were clearly defined upfront), maybe you can be expected to act within that structure. Fundamentally, though, I agree with Ludovic: Within a volunteer organisation, the authority stems from the volunteers, who do the actual work (called "stakeholders" in another thread); if they decide to not grant authority, they can vote with their feet and leave, and the organisation collapses. Personally, I even think that our autocratic structure subverts our goals, since I perceive a philosophical clash: How can we strive for empowering users of our software and not at the same time empower the volunteers who do the work so that they organise themselves, but instead expect them to follow a (let us assume, benevolent) dictator for life? Andreas
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On Mon 06 Jan 2020 15:05, Brandon Invergo writes: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> As a side note: I think authority is not something one should take for >> granted. We’re a group of volunteers, and each one of us has just as >> much authority as the others consent to give them. > > No. When you join an organization, you implicitly or explicitly agree > to work within the existing structure of that organization. No. (Isn't a lovely discursive pattern? Sheesh.) More seriously, I think that when you join an organization, you implicitly or explicitly agree to work for the *goals* of that organization. At any given time, the strategy that an organization takes may no longer correspond to its goals. In that case it is the responsibility of the members of the organization to change it to better fit its needs. I am not sure why you think that a literal argument from authority will succeed in convincing those GNU developers and maintainers that think a different governance structure is a better strategy. Regards, Andy
Re: A summary of some open discussions
ps - To correct Alfred: the GAC is also not involved in the appointment of maintainers (unless Richard were to ask them for advice in specific cases). Thanks for the correction, I might have confused some of what GAC does today with what it did initially, or the GNU evaluation team.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
On Mon, 2020-01-06 at 14:05 +, Brandon Invergo wrote: > In fact, consent is reversed from that of governments: the volunteers > participate at the consent of the organization. And before anyone tries to misinterpret what I wrote, I will clarify "the volunteers participate at the consent of the *existing governance of the* organization." But, I hope that my intentions were clear from the rest of my email. -brandon
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Ludovic Courtès writes: > As a side note: I think authority is not something one should take for > granted. We’re a group of volunteers, and each one of us has just as > much authority as the others consent to give them. No. When you join an organization, you implicitly or explicitly agree to work within the existing structure of that organization. There is nothing inherently wrong with trying, within those confines, to effect change in the organization. However, to say that as a volunteer one can simply start doing things differently, against the existing structure, because one's opinion changes amounts to subversion. In this case, the existing structure is that Richard is the leader of the project. Richard granted me authority to appoint new maintainers for existing projects. That authority is not contingent upon the consent of other volunteers, because that simply is not how the project is structured. I will remind you that GNU is not a government. "Consent of the governed" arguments do not make sense in a voluntary organization. In fact, consent is reversed from that of governments: the volunteers participate at the consent of the organization. -- -brandon
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Hi Brandon, Brandon Invergo skribis: > Mark Wielaard writes: > >>> There is no such thing as a FSF steward, GNU maintainers are appointed >>> by RMS/GAC. The FSF has no say in the topic. You've keept >>> misrepresenting this over and over again. >> >> This is just a legal technicallity. The FSF has oversight >> responsibility over the GNU project. That means that the FSF needs to >> determine that GNU maintainers operate in a manner consistent with >> FSF's exempt purposes, have the needed expertise and that their >> activities can be monitored by the FSF board. So GNU Maintainers and >> Steering committees are technically appointed by the FSF (previously >> RMS when he was FSF president and board member) as stewards of GNU >> packages. Basically GNU maintainers serve at the pleasure of the FSF. > > This is absolutely false. > > As a member of the package evaluation team and as an Assistant > GNUissance (maintain...@gnu.org), I have personally been involved in > many appointments of new maintainers at every step of the process, from > first contact with GNU through to post-appointment bureaucracy and > occasional check-ins. I also have the authority to appoint new > maintainers of existing packages myself (only Richard can appoint > maintainers of new packages). In fact, I personally appointed some new > co-maintainers of Guix back in September, two weeks *after* Richard > resigned as president of the FSF, which Ludovic can confirm. Yes, I confirm this. > I can categorically say that the FSF is not involved whatsoever in the > appointment of new maintainers. That’s also my understanding. > Please do not spread misinformation about the GNU project. Please assume good faith. The lesson here is that if long-time contributors or maintainers do not know for sure how this all works, perhaps we should see whether/how we can better document it. As a side note: I think authority is not something one should take for granted. We’re a group of volunteers, and each one of us has just as much authority as the others consent to give them. Thanks, Ludo’.
Re: A summary of some open discussions
Mark Wielaard writes: >> There is no such thing as a FSF steward, GNU maintainers are appointed >> by RMS/GAC. The FSF has no say in the topic. You've keept >> misrepresenting this over and over again. > > This is just a legal technicallity. The FSF has oversight > responsibility over the GNU project. That means that the FSF needs to > determine that GNU maintainers operate in a manner consistent with > FSF's exempt purposes, have the needed expertise and that their > activities can be monitored by the FSF board. So GNU Maintainers and > Steering committees are technically appointed by the FSF (previously > RMS when he was FSF president and board member) as stewards of GNU > packages. Basically GNU maintainers serve at the pleasure of the FSF. This is absolutely false. As a member of the package evaluation team and as an Assistant GNUissance (maintain...@gnu.org), I have personally been involved in many appointments of new maintainers at every step of the process, from first contact with GNU through to post-appointment bureaucracy and occasional check-ins. I also have the authority to appoint new maintainers of existing packages myself (only Richard can appoint maintainers of new packages). In fact, I personally appointed some new co-maintainers of Guix back in September, two weeks *after* Richard resigned as president of the FSF, which Ludovic can confirm. I can categorically say that the FSF is not involved whatsoever in the appointment of new maintainers. Please do not spread misinformation about the GNU project. -- -brandon ps - To correct Alfred: the GAC is also not involved in the appointment of maintainers (unless Richard were to ask them for advice in specific cases).