Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Ruben Safir]

Not - they are adding GNU to their names, at the behest of GNU, as a
matter of fact.

They are not claiming to be leaders of the GNU project and purposely 
breaking GNU policy.

Just because an organization allows you to use their trademark for a
purpose, that doesn't give someone permition to rip it off and then
claim they are GNU leadership



On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:57:47PM +0100, Alexandre François Garreau wrote:
> Le mercredi 12 février 2020, 19:50:49 CET Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) a 
> écrit :
> > On 2020-02-10 07:32, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > There were several pieces of feedback that were either not sent to the
> > > public list, or are still held up in moderation.
> > 
> > Maybe that contract should include a few clauses about not engaging
> > in deceptive and illegal behavior.
> 
> I disagree in regards to illegal. RMS and then GNU and FSF (at least by 
> the past) as well supported the view according  which obeying an unjust 
> rule is unjust.  They never prominently encouraged actively a blatant law-
> breaking, as I’ve rarely seen such ambitious initiatives in free-software 
> projects, beside warez, but changing that would be a loss, and a radical 
> change we shouldn’t take
> 
> There’s something present in several social movement, and in 
> free software and neuter/acentered internet as well that is called 
> “illegalism”.  It can be reconduced to civil disobedience. It is present 
> in anarchism.  This is a powerful tool, that’s part of «direct action” 
> (something you should be familiar with, given your behavior) that free-
> software movement should be encouraged to use against hard things such as 
> DRM, tivoization, deceptive/emprisoning hardware, surveillance, etc.
> 
> > You should not be using the GNU logo in that website or the word "gnu"
> > in the domain name.
> 
> Plenty of websites already do that.  See any GLUG or free-software distro 
> supportive of GNU, or even gnuplot’s website.  GNU is not really regarding 
> of brands.

-- 
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http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive 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: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le mercredi 12 février 2020, 19:50:49 CET Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) a 
écrit :
> On 2020-02-10 07:32, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > There were several pieces of feedback that were either not sent to the
> > public list, or are still held up in moderation.
> 
> Maybe that contract should include a few clauses about not engaging
> in deceptive and illegal behavior.

I disagree in regards to illegal. RMS and then GNU and FSF (at least by 
the past) as well supported the view according  which obeying an unjust 
rule is unjust.  They never prominently encouraged actively a blatant law-
breaking, as I’ve rarely seen such ambitious initiatives in free-software 
projects, beside warez, but changing that would be a loss, and a radical 
change we shouldn’t take

There’s something present in several social movement, and in 
free software and neuter/acentered internet as well that is called 
“illegalism”.  It can be reconduced to civil disobedience. It is present 
in anarchism.  This is a powerful tool, that’s part of «direct action” 
(something you should be familiar with, given your behavior) that free-
software movement should be encouraged to use against hard things such as 
DRM, tivoization, deceptive/emprisoning hardware, surveillance, etc.

> You should not be using the GNU logo in that website or the word "gnu"
> in the domain name.

Plenty of websites already do that.  See any GLUG or free-software distro 
supportive of GNU, or even gnuplot’s website.  GNU is not really regarding 
of brands.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   I didn't miss it. You have posted Richard's message a couple of times
   on various public lists and I have already replied twice explaining
   what I believe are some misunderstandings about this initiative. You
   can read my answers here:

That you think it is a misunderstanding, or not, isn't really what is
relevant.  What is relevant that this is the position of the GNU
project.  

The GNU project hasn't declared that your initiative isn't supported,
rather that it isn't an initiative by the GNU project nor an initative
that the GNU project will do.

So what has been said is the exact opposite of what you purport.  So
why don't you quote the statement verbatim?  Or do you not wish to
have a discussion which shows both sides fairly?

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Alfred,

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

I didn't miss it. You have posted Richard's message a couple of times
on various public lists and I have already replied twice explaining
what I believe are some misunderstandings about this initiative. You
can read my answers here:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00027.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2020-02/msg00115.html

Cheers,

Mark

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

You've ignored the easy solution, to cite the offical stance of the
GNU project instead.

I asked about it previously, it feel deafly silent, and since you
feelt that discussions should occur faster it shouldn't be unrealistic
to expect an quick answer as to why you're not willing to show what
the GNU project atually has to say on the matter.

I've attached it again in case you missed it.

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:26:51 -0500
From: "Richard Stallman (Chief GNUisance)" 
To: r...@gnu.org
Subject: What's GNU -- and what's not
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

The GNU Project is sending this message to each GNU package 
maintainer.

You may have recently received an email asking you to review a
document titled "GNU Social Contract" and then to endorse it or reject
it.  It does not entirely accord with the GNU Project's views.  It was
created by some GNU participants who are trying to push changes
on the GNU Project.

The message also proposed to "define" what it means to be a "member of
GNU", and cited a web page presented as a "wiki for GNU maintainers",
It may have given the impression that they were doing all those things
on behalf of the GNU Project.  That is not the case.  The document, 
the
wiki, and the proposed idea of "members" have no standing in the GNU
Project, which is not considering such steps.  The use of a domain not
affiliated with GNU reflects this fact.

GNU package maintainers have committed to do work to maintain and add
to the GNU system, but not anything beyond that.  We have never
pressed contributors to endorse the GNU Project philosophy, or any
other philosophical views, because people are welcome to contribute to
GNU regardless of their views.

To change that -- to impose such requirements -- would be radical,
gratuitous, and divisive, so the GNU Project is not entertaining the
idea.  Likewise, we will not ask package maintainers to be "members"
instead of volunteers.  If you contribute to GNU, you are already a
member of the GNU community.

The wiki that they set up "for GNU maintainers" represents them, not
the GNU Project.  People are always free to publish what they think
the GNU Project should do, but should not presume it will be accepted
or followed by the GNU Project.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 17.02.2020 0:57, Mark Wielaard wrote:

Yes, I see how that formulation is too strong and might be read like
that. I hadn't realized how it sounded. Thanks for pointing that out. I
have updated it to say that "The process followed by this initiative is
not supported by...".


Is there a place where I can look at the new phrasing?


Which I hope sounds more neutral and better
describes the core of the disagreement.


It sounds marginally better, but it doesn't address the core of my 
comment. Sounds like you're still saying that it's only Richard who does 
not support it. But all the rest of GNU do. Or are supposed to, for some 
reason.


And the latter implication is one of the reasons you're seeing all these 
negative responses.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Dmitry,

On Sat, 2020-02-15 at 19:31 +0200, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> On 15.02.2020 3:33, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >  This initiative is not supported by Richard Stallman.
> >  Nevertheless, we consider it a legitimate action by and for GNU
> >  maintainers to collectively define the core values we believe GNU
> >  stands for.
> 
> That makes it sound like Richard is the sole contrarian, and you five 
> (or however many) represent all the "good guys" GNU maintainers who are 
> endorsing this document.

Yes, I see how that formulation is too strong and might be read like
that. I hadn't realized how it sounded. Thanks for pointing that out. I
have updated it to say that "The process followed by this initiative is
not supported by...". Which I hope sounds more neutral and better
describes the core of the disagreement.

Thanks,

Mark

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-14 17:33, Mark Wielaard wrote:

The goal of the GNU Social Contract is to state the core values
GNU maintainers who have endorsed it are committed to uphold. It
is both an agreement among us, GNU contributors, and a pledge to
the broader free software community.


You and your cohorts are not adequately explaining this:

What is the difference between this document and the content of the
GNU licenses (and numerous other materials that speak to user freedoms),
GNU Coding Standards and the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

If someone endorses the document, what from the above are they
rejecting, if anything?


Additionally, we think it can be a first step towards formalizing
a transparent and collective governance of the GNU Project.


How so? What sentences in the the document speak to governance?

If your goal is to replace the governance, then why doen't your
website say that, and have documents that address themselves to
specific proposals regarding governance?

Document your proposed org chart, detailing who is to be responsible
foir what, and the flow of decision making and so on.

Instead of some half-assed indirection through some social contract
nonsense.

If you want transparency, start by being transparent.


This initiative is not supported by Richard Stallman.


Why would anyone support an unnecessary initiative?

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 15.02.2020 3:33, Mark Wielaard wrote:

 This initiative is not supported by Richard Stallman.
 Nevertheless, we consider it a legitimate action by and for GNU
 maintainers to collectively define the core values we believe GNU
 stands for.


That makes it sound like Richard is the sole contrarian, and you five 
(or however many) represent all the "good guys" GNU maintainers who are 
endorsing this document.


I get that there is an idea floating around that maybe RMS is not great 
at "social stuff", but what you've demonstrated here, probably with good 
intentions, is the Elephant in a China Shop approach to politics that 
befits a regular engineer (in a Dilbert sense).


Whereas Richard's views on this and related subjects have been 
repeatedly demonstrated to be quite refined, apparently over decades of 
dealing with them.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   This initiative is not supported by Richard Stallman.

That is quite false, you're free to do any kind of initiatives you
wish, so it is quite the opposite.  What the GNU project won't do is
to require volunteers to agree to any kind of document similar to
this.

So why not add the offical stance of the GNU project, verbatim,
instead of misrepresenting the GNU project in this manner?


Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 18:26:51 -0500
From: "Richard Stallman (Chief GNUisance)" 
To: r...@gnu.org
Subject: What's GNU -- and what's not

The GNU Project is sending this message to each GNU package 
maintainer.

You may have recently received an email asking you to review a
document titled "GNU Social Contract" and then to endorse it or reject
it.  It does not entirely accord with the GNU Project's views.  It was
created by some GNU participants who are trying to push changes
on the GNU Project.

The message also proposed to "define" what it means to be a "member of
GNU", and cited a web page presented as a "wiki for GNU maintainers",
It may have given the impression that they were doing all those things
on behalf of the GNU Project.  That is not the case.  The document, 
the
wiki, and the proposed idea of "members" have no standing in the GNU
Project, which is not considering such steps.  The use of a domain not
affiliated with GNU reflects this fact.

GNU package maintainers have committed to do work to maintain and add
to the GNU system, but not anything beyond that.  We have never
pressed contributors to endorse the GNU Project philosophy, or any
other philosophical views, because people are welcome to contribute to
GNU regardless of their views.

To change that -- to impose such requirements -- would be radical,
gratuitous, and divisive, so the GNU Project is not entertaining the
idea.  Likewise, we will not ask package maintainers to be "members"
instead of volunteers.  If you contribute to GNU, you are already a
member of the GNU community.

The wiki that they set up "for GNU maintainers" represents them, not
the GNU Project.  People are always free to publish what they think
the GNU Project should do, but should not presume it will be accepted
or followed by the GNU Project.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Alfred,

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:42:23PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Please rename the non-GNU social edict to something that else, since
> it does not reflect the stance of the GNU project.  You're perfectly
> free to host such a document, but is is untrue to say that this is a
> document supported by the GNU project.

Thanks for your feedback. I have added a little bit of background to
 that
hopefully clarifies the situation:

The goal of the GNU Social Contract is to state the core values
GNU maintainers who have endorsed it are committed to uphold. It
is both an agreement among us, GNU contributors, and a pledge to
the broader free software community.

Additionally, we think it can be a first step towards formalizing
a transparent and collective governance of the GNU Project.

This initiative is not supported by Richard Stallman.
Nevertheless, we consider it a legitimate action by and for GNU
maintainers to collectively define the core values we believe GNU
stands for.

Cheers,

Mark

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Please rename the non-GNU social edict to something that else, since
it does not reflect the stance of the GNU project.  You're perfectly
free to host such a document, but is is untrue to say that this is a
document supported by the GNU project.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-13 13:26, Daniel Pocock wrote:

I, Frederic Y. Bois, maintainer of package GNU MCSim, endorse version
1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at
.


By the way, I'm offended by the sexual innuendo in this domain
name.

It's not okay to use that language, even if invoked
in deprecating self-reference.

Cheers ...

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-14 02:04, John Darrington wrote:

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 09:26:03PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:

Could it be better to work from the ground up, to document the points
which almost everybody agrees on before talking about the points that
are controversial?


We have already done that.

It was discussed at length between all interested maintainers, and the 
result

has been formally codified here:

 https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html


Okay, so:

1. The first clause of the proposed "contract", dealing with freedoms,
   is entirely redundant in the face of the bulk of the software
   using some version of the GNU Public License.

2. The remaining technically oriented clauses are flawed.
   - not every GNU project needs to collaborate with non-GNU projects
   - consistency is a nice requirement but can actually conflict with
 conformance to external standards and such.
   Also, this area is basically already covered in a long and detailed
   GNU document:

   https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/

   (Hey, it even has something for me: I just noticed the words about
   the GNU projects not having to following external standards if they
   are bad.)

3. The last clause can be effectively replaced by a link to
   the above kind communication guidelines, which are better developed
   and make more specific recommendation about behaviors without
   promoting the unconditional inclusion of people based on their
   tribalistic traits regardless of how those people actually behave.

Thus, the entire document is redundant and pointless.

I'm leaning toward agreeing with Mr. Safir: this site and the document
are a sham set up as a pretext for some sort of bizarre takeover attempt
which will not work.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[John Darrington]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 09:26:03PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> 
> People are welcome to endorse the social contract (or any other
> document, like the Bible or the Koran) if they wish


Of course.

> 
> However, how is that relevant if some people endorse it and others don't?

It is not.

> 
> Could it be better to work from the ground up, to document the points
> which almost everybody agrees on before talking about the points that
> are controversial?

We have already done that.

It was discussed at length between all interested maintainers, and the result
has been formally codified here:

 https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html

and the reasons why the particular words were chosen and why some were not
are explained here:

 https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2018-10/msg1.html


There is no intention to change this, so further discusssion is moot. 
"Endorsing" (or not) some random set of people's other ideas is not
going to change anything.

J'

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Daniel Pocock]

> I, Frederic Y. Bois, maintainer of package GNU MCSim, endorse version
> 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at
> .


People are welcome to endorse the social contract (or any other
document, like the Bible or the Koran) if they wish

However, how is that relevant if some people endorse it and others don't?

Could it be better to work from the ground up, to document the points
which almost everybody agrees on before talking about the points that
are controversial?

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Frederic,

Mark Wielaard  skribis:

> On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 12:31 +0100, fredoma...@free.fr wrote:
>> As far as I can see, there has not been modification to the proposed
>> GNU Social Contract, and I happy to re-iterate my support to it.
>
> There were several pieces of feedback that were either not sent to the
> public list, or are still held up in moderation. We are still adding
> them all to https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback and after
> processing them all we hope to have the final 1.0 as soon as possible.
> Sorry for the delay.

We reached 1.0 yesterday a few hours after your message:

  https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract

Background on the discussions that took place at:

  https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback

You’re welcome to reiterate your support if that’s still fine with you!

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Andreas R.]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:12:04PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> "Andreas R."  writes:
> > The wiki has been described as a tool for *all* GNU maintainers, even
> > though it's only available to a certain subset of GNU maintainers
> > willing to agree to new stipulations that were never part of being a
> > GNU maintainer.
> 
> The wiki states "currently limited to GNU Maintainers".  It does not
> explicitly state that being a GNU maintainer is sufficient to guarantee
> access, although it does state "wiki for GNU Maintainers".  I see no
> ambiguity here, it's intended audience is GNU maintainers,
> non-maintainers are not invited yet.

Being accesible to _all_ GNU maintainers has been mentioned multiple times by 
the gnu.tools community leaders when referencing the wiki on this list:

"The wiki is free to use for all GNU Maintainers."[1]
"the wiki is open to all GNU maintainers"[2]

I'm sure it's a fairly harmless oversight, but it does skew potential 
participation towards those who are already in agreement with more
stringent social participation requirements.

> > Until this distinction becomes more clear, pointing out the difference
> > helps prevent misunderstanding.
> 
> Incessantly pointing out the difference, as the sole point of an entire
> email, does not add anything to the conversation.

Normally no, but in this case gnu.tools leadership has sent out a GNU project
wide email to all GNU maintainers with the instruction to mail their 
approval to this list[3].

It's not unreasonable to assume most GNU maintainers do not follow this
list and are unaware of the discussion and the various arguments around 
the document, and as such should be made aware of the fact that they are
not participating in an official GNU poll.

[1]https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00067.html
[2]https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00031.html
[3]https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-wiki/tree/code/sc-email.txt

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Andrej,

On Thu, 2020-02-06 at 18:35 +0100, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> On 01/02/2020 13:39, fredomatic wrote:
> > I, Frederic Y. Bois, maintainer of package GNU MCSim, endorse version
> > 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at
> > .
> 
> As the maintainer of GNU indent, I also fully agree with and endorse
> the proposed GNU Social Contract. It’s time the GNU project followed
> the lead of other free software projects and adopted one.

Thanks for your support.

Since the gnu-misc-discuss mailinglist moderation seems to inserts some
delay in delivery you might have written this endorsement while only
seeing the DRAFT. If so, please do review the 1.0 version now published
and the changes made based on the feedback received:
https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback

Thanks,

Mark

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Jean Louis]

* Ludovic Courtès  [2020-02-11 08:35]:
> Hello Frederic,
> 
> fredomatic  skribis:
> 
> > I, Frederic Y. Bois, maintainer of package GNU MCSim, endorse version
> > 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at
> > .
> 
> Thank you for your message.
> 
> As stated in the email you received, we are still on a review period
> until Feb. 9th, and the document may still change based on feedback.
> The endorsement period for this initial version of the Social Contract
> starts on Feb. 10th.  See the timeline at:
> 
>   https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-wiki/tree/code/sc-email.txt
> 
> Please share suggestions by Feb. 9th, and let us know whether you
> endorse the document on Feb. 10th!

Dear Ludo,

I do appreciate your work on Guix and Guix SD.

Yet here are comments related to your political activity. You have
published feedback here: https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback

The feedback is biased, as you have only published the feedback that
you like.

I don't think it is alright to use the mailing list, then to publish
the biased feedback, only one-sided feedback that you few people like
it -- and then not even reference it back to the mailing lists.

You should publish the feedback that RMS gave you on that and state
that "GNU Social Contract" is not GNU and not accepted or approved by
the GNU project.

This is also feedback -- you should publish it. Otherwise, you do not
represent what you are trying to say to represent. For example, your
gnu.tools is obviously "not welcoming contributions from everybody" --
as you have published only biased feedback.

Jean

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[DJ Delorie]

"Andreas R."  writes:
> The wiki has been described as a tool for *all* GNU maintainers, even
> though it's only available to a certain subset of GNU maintainers
> willing to agree to new stipulations that were never part of being a
> GNU maintainer.

The wiki states "currently limited to GNU Maintainers".  It does not
explicitly state that being a GNU maintainer is sufficient to guarantee
access, although it does state "wiki for GNU Maintainers".  I see no
ambiguity here, it's intended audience is GNU maintainers,
non-maintainers are not invited yet.

It states that the wiki is governed by a code of conduct.  In today's
legal climate, it's almost required to have such a thing when you invite
others to be contributors (such as GNU requiring a copyright assignment,
this wiki requires a CoC agreement).  The CoC does not seem onerous, it
basically says "don't be a jerk".  If your life goal is to be a jerk,
expect to be not welcome in all sorts of places, including GNU projects.

> Until this distinction becomes more clear, pointing out the difference
> helps prevent misunderstanding.

Incessantly pointing out the difference, as the sole point of an entire
email, does not add anything to the conversation.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-10 07:32, Mark Wielaard wrote:

There were several pieces of feedback that were either not sent to the
public list, or are still held up in moderation.


Maybe that contract should include a few clauses about not engaging
in deceptive and illegal behavior.

You should not be using the GNU logo in that website or the word "gnu"
in the domain name.

Maintaining some packages for the GNU project doesn't entitle
you to register domains with "gnu" in it, or use the GNU logo in
websites hosted at those domains any more than, say, working for Walmart
entitles you to register some *.walmart.* domain and use the Walmart 
logo.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

It is infact beyond clear, specially from a group insisting on calling
something "the GNU foobar", when that foobar has been rejected.  It
would be trivial for the people wanting this to call it something
else.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Frederic,

On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 12:31 +0100, fredoma...@free.fr wrote:
> As far as I can see, there has not been modification to the proposed
> GNU Social Contract, and I happy to re-iterate my support to it.

There were several pieces of feedback that were either not sent to the
public list, or are still held up in moderation. We are still adding
them all to https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback and after
processing them all we hope to have the final 1.0 as soon as possible.
Sorry for the delay.

Cheers,

Mark

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Andreas R.]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 12:14:20PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> > The wiki does not represent the views of the GNU project.  Nor will it
> > be hosted on GNU infrastructure, as was made quite clear by the head
> > of the GNU project.
> 
> I think we all agree on this, and repeating it is not adding anything to
> the conversation.  The wiki has clearly been described by its creators
> as a tool for the *maintainers*.  

The wiki has been described as a tool for *all* GNU maintainers, even though
it's only available to a certain subset of GNU maintainers willing to agree 
to new stipulations that were never part of being a GNU maintainer. 

The wiki's layout is ambiguous in its branding and text. This has been pointed
out and several posts have been made to this list that mistook gnu.tools
as an official channel. Thankfully the ambiguity is being addressed as the 
wiki in some descriptions now identifies itself as the gnu.tools community. 

Until this distinction becomes more clear, pointing out the difference helps
prevent misunderstanding.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[DJ Delorie]

a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> The wiki does not represent the views of the GNU project.  Nor will it
> be hosted on GNU infrastructure, as was made quite clear by the head
> of the GNU project.

I think we all agree on this, and repeating it is not adding anything to
the conversation.  The wiki has clearly been described by its creators
as a tool for the *maintainers*.  We all agree that official
communications go on gnu.org.  But as much as we all support RMS's
position as project head, tools that work for one person (RMS,gnu.org)
do not scale to the hundreds of maintainers (who use git,wikis,irc).

If it's important to you to declare that all communications not-from-RMS
"do not represent the views of the GNU project" you'll just spend all
your time posting on mailing lists, irc, and usenet; disclaiming every
message by every person working on any GNU package.

Disclaimer: This email does not represent the views of the GNU project.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

The wiki does not represent the views of the GNU project.  Nor will it
be hosted on GNU infrastructure, as was made quite clear by the head
of the GNU project.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-06 09:32, Andrej Shadura wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 01/02/2020 13:39, fredomatic wrote:

I, Frederic Y. Bois, maintainer of package GNU MCSim, endorse version
1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at
.

Thanks!

As the maintainer of GNU indent, I also fully agree with and endorse 
the

proposed GNU Social Contract. It’s time the GNU project followed the
lead of other free software projects and adopted one.


If were to examine, on every major project hosting site, every
project that has any sort of free software license file (GPL, MIT,
BSD, ...) in the root directory, I strongly suspect that the vast
majority of such repositories would be found without any
"social contract" document.

Therefore, if following the lead is what is important, perhaps the
project wielding these social contracts ought to be dropping them.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello Frederic,

fredomatic  skribis:

> I, Frederic Y. Bois, maintainer of package GNU MCSim, endorse version
> 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at
> .

Thank you for your message.

As stated in the email you received, we are still on a review period
until Feb. 9th, and the document may still change based on feedback.
The endorsement period for this initial version of the Social Contract
starts on Feb. 10th.  See the timeline at:

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

Please share suggestions by Feb. 9th, and let us know whether you
endorse the document on Feb. 10th!

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

> You have been mislead, the website you are refering to is unaffiliated
> with the GNU project, and does not represent the GNU project.

The web site at  is managed by GNU maintainers
for use as a tool for all GNU maintainers (it has not yet been possible
to host it at gnu.org but that’s where it should be and we are working
on it).

Thanks for your feedback, Frederic!

Ludo’.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Jean Louis]

* Andrej Shadura  [2020-02-11 08:18]:
> On 01/02/2020 13:39, fredomatic wrote:
> > I, Frederic Y. Bois, maintainer of package GNU MCSim, endorse version
> > 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at
> > .
> Thanks!
> 
> As the maintainer of GNU indent, I also fully agree with and endorse the
> proposed GNU Social Contract. It’s time the GNU project followed the
> lead of other free software projects and adopted one.

Can you give particular, specific example you are thinking of?

Why should GNU project follow the leadof other free software projects?
It is not visible from your message.

Which are specific other free software projects?

And which specific software project do you think GNU should adopt?

Do you know that each software author is free to apply to GNU projects
for software to become part of the GNU?

-- 
Thanks,
Jean Louis

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Andrej Shadura]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 01/02/2020 13:39, fredomatic wrote:
> I, Frederic Y. Bois, maintainer of package GNU MCSim, endorse version
> 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at
> .
Thanks!

As the maintainer of GNU indent, I also fully agree with and endorse the
proposed GNU Social Contract. It’s time the GNU project followed the
lead of other free software projects and adopted one.

- -- 
Cheers,
  Andrej
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEeuS9ZL8A0js0NGiOXkCM2RzYOdIFAl48TXgACgkQXkCM2RzY
OdK8qgf9Ey2r5OikrbeSeIADuL59/I2nGAe4/GmrsIYNZXmkDtpbi6/XEK14ipHY
CW5QCQv5gGwymHk8H/oKODg46PTQ60Ddb8PORUn4a1z6Upaq4SwpTqajwDeeAWn5
Q/juGgGa8U2smtgNPftmRjaoYFyAYC9AZR1IBGgYJPl3zbiQfCADCADhrXRUuyiG
0NIYMH78SXomksmbsLCHLk94dz1Ve1J6NAzVpkGyerjDx+Zer8MY4aFGA23N9d0p
VHzk109psXFmZS5a6y5pdJxgE7n6nqbSe62xDqge3+m6hG9A0iynjsqU4S0XhCHF
umkCmAyyaEGvAgpN/3jOB2hQAqGC3g==
=pxtc
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Andrej Shadura]

On 06/02/2020 17:32, Andrej Shadura wrote:
Apparently the last time the signature broke, here’s the hopefully
correctly signed message:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 01/02/2020 13:39, fredomatic wrote:
> I, Frederic Y. Bois, maintainer of package GNU MCSim, endorse version
> 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at
> .
Thanks!

As the maintainer of GNU indent, I also fully agree with and endorse the
proposed GNU Social Contract. It’s time the GNU project followed the
lead of other free software projects and adopted one.

- -- 
Cheers,
  Andrej
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEeuS9ZL8A0js0NGiOXkCM2RzYOdIFAl48TfIACgkQXkCM2RzY
OdLPbwf/SOjTTOMS1r6ej3tWnkQPN7Yn7uQRRKursjEzUQdcvLshnepPw6eUGXe1
APJbCR+rB9L8LGaUzN3zpsIaktJ2ngojznDf5MGoM3pundAvhRocLorMC9ONNVLi
K3jsQtxa1s6MTneBvjWjkGxJw5+yPGveP+tXehkseJv51To6mv3kHbX31l9ptJ6J
Y3xpUUTaWrnW07+OxNjKFZYqqzT23aBNb7wmYYF8HFNUmY8Hw03UgeB7UBGSjYn6
BjTGU3qEqyrg5WdCr8wRgm8OQywpIrTuj+SShtahqgzqEK6WLy6DbQ0tK9vkjp9d
RzhEby0v2/FAqVihihAT0W90tBfHtA==
=Lhu0
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
Cheers,
  Andrej



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Ruben Safir]

On 2/6/20 12:41 PM, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> Everyone who works on GNU can and should represent the GNU project, so
> it’s in fact you who’s misleading other participants.


That is twisted and wrong.  Policy at GNU or any organization is not a
free for all and this is not the Paris Commune.

-- 
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: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Ruben Safir]

On 2/6/20 6:00 AM, fredoma...@free.fr wrote:
> Thanks for the precisions. I would like to take this opportunity to declare 
> my support to initiatives aiming at being more inclusive of women in GNU.


This has nothing to do with the radical feminism that you support,
although in of itself, that is repugnant.

Your doing a bait and switch to hope nobody notices that you're trying
to steal GNU from RMS, and have wrongful presented yourself as GNU
leadership, and you will NEVER be GNU leadership.  Those that are the
opposition in this case are small people with small ideas and big greed,
and will never stand tall enough to represent the principles of Free
Software.


DO NOT CC to social-contract@gnu.tools - it is disgraceful and not an
official channel of GNU


-- 
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: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Mark Wielaard]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:00:22PM +0100, fredoma...@free.fr wrote:
> Thanks for the precisions. I would like to take this opportunity to
> declare my support to initiatives aiming at being more inclusive of
> women in GNU. I am for example quite surprised that (as far as I
> saw) only one or two women contributed to this discussion threat,
> and that their comments were simply technical. Some form of
> affirmative action and active outreach in the direction of women
> seems urgently needed here.

The FSF and some GNU projects have been part of the Outreachy project
and taken on interns. https://www.outreachy.org/communities/cfp/ But
this does take raising enough funds and time to mentor.

Cheers,

Mark

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Carlo Wood]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:00:22 +0100 (CET)
fredoma...@free.fr wrote:

> Thanks for the precisions. I would like to take this opportunity to
> declare my support to initiatives aiming at being more inclusive of
> women in GNU. I am for example quite surprised that (as far as I saw)
> only one or two women contributed to this discussion threat, and that
> their comments were simply technical. Some form of affirmative action
> and active outreach in the direction of women seems urgently needed
> here. Frederic 

Why do you think women need special support? To me, it doesn't matter
what gender someone is, it is therefore not part of this or any other
discussion. People involved have a gender, sure, it just isn't relevant
what it is. I wonder why you are trying to make it an issue.

-- 
Carlo Wood 

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Jean Louis]

* fredoma...@free.fr  [2020-02-08 10:07]:
> Thanks for the precisions. I would like to take this opportunity to
> declare my support to initiatives aiming at being more inclusive of
> women in GNU. I am for example quite surprised that (as far as I
> saw) only one or two women contributed to this discussion threat,
> and that their comments were simply technical. Some form of
> affirmative action and active outreach in the direction of women
> seems urgently needed here.

Everybody is welcome to contribute.

How do you know that women did not participate, did you verify it
personally who has which sex?

People may use nicknames and names of female can be males, how do we
know they are not of other genders than you assume by the names?

You have no facts on your statements as you have not verified their
sex personally.

As everybody is welcome to contribute in GNU project, the policy alone
is enough to help people understand that everybody is welcome to
contribute to GNU project, that is regardless any sex, or other type
of discrimination, as there is no discrimination in the GNU project.

Please keep the political extreme feminism propaganda out of the GNU
project, as the only politics in the GNU project is the free software
politics.

Jean

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[fredomatic]

Thanks for the precisions. I would like to take this opportunity to declare my 
support to initiatives aiming at being more inclusive of women in GNU. I am for 
example quite surprised that (as far as I saw) only one or two women 
contributed to this discussion threat, and that their comments were simply 
technical. Some form of affirmative action and active outreach in the direction 
of women seems urgently needed here.
Frederic 

- Mail original -
De: "Ludovic Courtès" 
À: "fredomatic" 
Cc: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org, social-contract@gnu.tools
Envoyé: Jeudi 6 Février 2020 10:01:44
Objet: Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

Hello Frederic,

fredomatic  skribis:

> I, Frederic Y. Bois, maintainer of package GNU MCSim, endorse version
> 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at
> <https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract>.

Thank you for your message.

As stated in the email you received, we are still on a review period
until Feb. 9th, and the document may still change based on feedback.
The endorsement period for this initial version of the Social Contract
starts on Feb. 10th.  See the timeline at:

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

Please share suggestions by Feb. 9th, and let us know whether you
endorse the document on Feb. 10th!

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

> You have been mislead, the website you are refering to is unaffiliated
> with the GNU project, and does not represent the GNU project.

The web site at <https://wiki.gnu.tools> is managed by GNU maintainers
for use as a tool for all GNU maintainers (it has not yet been possible
to host it at gnu.org but that’s where it should be and we are working
on it).

Thanks for your feedback, Frederic!

Ludo’.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

You have been mislead, the website you are refering to is unaffiliated
with the GNU project, and does not represent the GNU project.

In other words, there is no such thing as a GNU social contract, and
the GNU project won't be taking any such steps to adopt this text.