Re: Cause for bans

[nipponmail]

Dear Ruben Safir,
If you're going to take legal action, take it. Don't just "threaten" 
forever. Your "threats" and unhappiness have no meaning if you do not 
take the next step (note: legal "threats" are not threats)
200 dollar filing fee, have one of your friends help you pro-bono. If 
you have a case, do it. And forward me the case number as I would like 
to watch (I mean that sincerely, I like to read as cases unfold). I 
don't like censorship either, or extraneous writings (such as social 
contracts) non-attorneys try to impose in-order to extend or modify the 
actual copyright licenses and practices that actual copyright holders 
and developers have decided upon.



On 2020-02-04 18:34, Ruben Safir wrote:

On 2/2/20 5:37 AM, Ales Cepek wrote:

I was not sure whether to endorse the GNU Social Contract or not, but
you definitely convinced me that I should. Thank you for removing my
doubts.



Thank You!


This is now enough evidence to bring to court for legal action. It
proves that the site is intentionally misrepresnting the GNU project 
and

that it succeeds in causing confusion, : IE it is a successful phishing
site.



Aleš Čepek

On 2/1/20 9:23 PM, facebook wrote:

https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct



This webpage is cause for banning of individuals from the GNU 
Project.

It is PHISHING of the GNU organization

and prclaims policies for GNU that didn't come from its official
governing structure.



These individuals need to be banned, regardless of what contribution
they make.  There is no justificiation for PHISHING the GNU name and
organiziation.  This is a serious legal and ethical violation that 
has
to be forcefully confronted.  Also, be aware, that failure to protect 
a

trade mark is cause for the government to rule against trademark
authorization and pocession.  They need to be zelously protected, or
they are legally lost.


Ruben






--
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http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive
http://www.coinhangout.com - coins!
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: Cause for bans

[John Darrington]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 10:51:24AM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote:
> 
> > I think that banning such people would make us guilty of the same crimes 
> > that
> > they have committed.
> 
> Please do not misrepresent this initiative.  It???s about making GNU
> stronger; you may disagree with the approach, but that doesn???t make it a
> ???crime??? in any sense of the word.

I use the word "crime" in a metaphorical sense as I am sure you realise.  I do
not suggest that you have broken any law,  but you certainly have and stll are
creating a devisive, unpleasant and downright dystopian atmosphere in our
community.

GNU was always based on mutual respect and willing coorperation.  But now, by
means of your Anti-Social Edict and other tools, you are trying to turn that
into a soviet style oligarchy, justified by some putative "holier than thou"
self-righteous dogma.

If you were succed in your quest, I would want to take no part in GNU and I'm
confident most of my fellow hackers feel the same.

J'

Re: Cause for bans

[Ruben Safir]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 10:51:24AM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> John Darrington  skribis:
> 
> > After all, the reason that these proposed "social contracts", "codes of 
> > conduct"
> > and their ilk have caused so many people to become very angry, is because 
> > of 
> > the way that they call for persons to be expelled if they disagree with 
> > whoever
> > is in control.
> 
> Just a note: we called for the discussion of a GNU Social Contract, not
> for that of a code of conduct.  It seems entirely responsible from
> people running the wiki to ensure that the wiki is not used to harass
> others, and the code of conduct is a way to state these rules upfront;
> but again, that really applies to work on the wiki space.
> 
> The draft of the Social Contract at
>  does not mention how people
> should be ???expelled??? if they ???disagree???.  On the contrary: it???s 
> about
> building a shared understanding of what some (hopefully most!) of us
> commit to as members of the Project.
> 
> We tried to make it clear in the email sent out to maintainers:
> 
>   https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-wiki/tree/code/sc-email.txt
> 
> > I think that banning such people would make us guilty of the same crimes 
> > that
> > they have committed.
> 
> Please do not misrepresent this initiative.  It???s about making GNU
> stronger; you may disagree with the approach, but that doesn???t make it a
> ???crime??? in any sense of the word.


This is not an initiative.  It is an attempt to bully the GNU leadership
to hand the organization to you.

> 
> I would like us to move forward: what do you think GNU will lose or gain
> as a project if its members endorse a document stating its core values?
> What would you add or remove to the values currently listed in the
> draft?  What other initiatives would you propose to improve cohesion?
> 
> The February 9th deadline that we set for an initial version of the
> Social Contract is approaching, and I think it???s a good time to focus on
> the core discussion of what GNU is to us and what our commitments are.
> 
> Thank you,
> Ludo???.
> 

Re: Cause for bans

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   The draft of the Social Contract at
    does not mention how people
   should be “expelled” if they “disagree”.  On the contrary: it’s 
about
   building a shared understanding of what some (hopefully most!) of us
   commit to as members of the Project.

What GNU maintainers commit to is being technical maintainers, this
has been the case since the inception of the project.  

Any notion of a social contract has alrady been rejected by the GNU
project; see email from head of the GNU project.  So any discussions
of such a thing on this list are not useful, I suggest you drop those
discussions here.

Re: Cause for bans

[Kim Lee]

Ludovic Courtes wrote:
> does not mention how people
>should be =E2=80=9Cexpelled=E2=80=9D if they =E2=80=9Cdisagree=E2=80=9D.  O=
>n the contrary: it=E2=80=99s about
>building a shared understanding of what some (hopefully most!) of us
>commit to as members of the Project.
>
>We tried to make it clear in the email sent out to maintainers:
>
>  https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-wiki/tree/code/sc-email.txt
>
>> I think that banning such people would make us guilty of the same crimes =
>that
>> they have committed.
>
>Please do not misrepresent this initiative.

 

this is the worst case fo the pot calling the kettle that ive head in all my borne days.  you and you're kronys set up fake websites claiming to be GNU MANAGEMENT telling exagerations and half thruthes and then have the guts to comme on heir and say to people Dont misprepresent!

You R doing the misrepresentaion!  u are decieving people. and then to have the cheek to say it to other people.

You are not GNU MANAGEMENT and if U were itd be the worst example ive ever known.  pls stop with this fake website it is not anything to do with GNU U R purveying falsehood by continuing with it.

 

Re: Cause for bans

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi John,

John Darrington  skribis:

> After all, the reason that these proposed "social contracts", "codes of 
> conduct"
> and their ilk have caused so many people to become very angry, is because of 
> the way that they call for persons to be expelled if they disagree with 
> whoever
> is in control.

Just a note: we called for the discussion of a GNU Social Contract, not
for that of a code of conduct.  It seems entirely responsible from
people running the wiki to ensure that the wiki is not used to harass
others, and the code of conduct is a way to state these rules upfront;
but again, that really applies to work on the wiki space.

The draft of the Social Contract at
 does not mention how people
should be “expelled” if they “disagree”.  On the contrary: it’s about
building a shared understanding of what some (hopefully most!) of us
commit to as members of the Project.

We tried to make it clear in the email sent out to maintainers:

  https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-wiki/tree/code/sc-email.txt

> I think that banning such people would make us guilty of the same crimes that
> they have committed.

Please do not misrepresent this initiative.  It’s about making GNU
stronger; you may disagree with the approach, but that doesn’t make it a
“crime” in any sense of the word.

I would like us to move forward: what do you think GNU will lose or gain
as a project if its members endorse a document stating its core values?
What would you add or remove to the values currently listed in the
draft?  What other initiatives would you propose to improve cohesion?

The February 9th deadline that we set for an initial version of the
Social Contract is approaching, and I think it’s a good time to focus on
the core discussion of what GNU is to us and what our commitments are.

Thank you,
Ludo’.

Re: Cause for bans

[Marcel]

Hi Aleš,

On 2/2/20 5:37 PM, Ales Cepek wrote:
I was not sure whether to endorse the GNU Social Contract or not, but 
you definitely convinced me that I should. Thank you for removing my doubts.


Aleš Čepek

On 2/1/20 9:23 PM, facebook wrote:

https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct



This webpage is cause for banning of individuals from the GNU Project.
It is PHISHING of the GNU organization

and prclaims policies for GNU that didn't come from its official
governing structure.



These individuals need to be banned, regardless of what contribution
they make.  There is no justificiation for PHISHING the GNU name and
organiziation.  This is a serious legal and ethical violation that has
to be forcefully confronted.  Also, be aware, that failure to protect a
trade mark is cause for the government to rule against trademark
authorization and pocession.  They need to be zelously protected, or
they are legally lost.


Ruben




What would be achieved in this particular instance by adopting a 
punitive document over a normative one?


For the record, as much as I believe Ruben's aggressive communication 
style serves him and his cause badly, I would prefer if he was not 
silenced.


But, as I understand from Alfred's response, he has found ways to post 
in spite of efforts to silence him. So, how would the "GNU Tools Wiki 
Code of Conduct" solve what seems to be a technical problem?


In any case, I would much prefer a volunteer community guided by a 
normative philosophy than one compelled into harmony by "Contracts" and 
"Enforcers".



Saludos Libres,

Marcel

Re: Cause for bans

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   I was not sure whether to endorse the GNU Social Contract or not,
   but you definitely convinced me that I should. Thank you for
   removing my doubts.

I do not blame you for becoming angry, but you have to recall that
faceb...@mrbrklyn.com has been evading moderation for a while by using
new email addresses etc.  And when we try do moderate the list, people
become upset, and when we don't .. well, same result.

While you're quite free to support this document, please don't
associate it with the GNU project -- calling it as such is misleading
since the GNU project has no intention of adopting it.

While I hope you decide on not supporting a document, all I really can
ask is if you can have understanding for the current situation.

Re: Cause for bans

[Ales Cepek]

I was not sure whether to endorse the GNU Social Contract or not, but 
you definitely convinced me that I should. Thank you for removing my doubts.


Aleš Čepek

On 2/1/20 9:23 PM, facebook wrote:

https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct



This webpage is cause for banning of individuals from the GNU Project.
It is PHISHING of the GNU organization

and prclaims policies for GNU that didn't come from its official
governing structure.



These individuals need to be banned, regardless of what contribution
they make.  There is no justificiation for PHISHING the GNU name and
organiziation.  This is a serious legal and ethical violation that has
to be forcefully confronted.  Also, be aware, that failure to protect a
trade mark is cause for the government to rule against trademark
authorization and pocession.  They need to be zelously protected, or
they are legally lost.


Ruben

Re: Cause for bans

[John Darrington]

> 
> This webpage is cause for banning of individuals from the GNU Project.??
> It is PHISHING of the GNU organization
> 
> and prclaims policies for GNU that didn't come from its official
> governing structure.
> 
> 
> These individuals need to be banned, regardless of what contribution
> they make.??


Whilst I personally think that the people to whom you are refering have been
and still are acting out or order, I don't think calling for them to be banned
is appropriate.

After all, the reason that these proposed "social contracts", "codes of conduct"
and their ilk have caused so many people to become very angry, is because of 
the way that they call for persons to be expelled if they disagree with whoever
is in control.

I think that banning such people would make us guilty of the same crimes that
they have committed.

The GNU Kind Communications Guidelines ask us not to take a harsh tone towards
participants.   Your email doesn't heed that advice.  Please try to moderate
your language when you post to this list.

J'