Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
Hi Alfred, On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 02:42:06PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > One cannot assume good faith from those who are clearly hostile to the > GNU project. I am certainly not hostile to the GNU project. I love the GNU project and most people working on it. It is almost like a second family to me. I don't want to harm my family. I believe in the FSF mission for Free Software for everybody and try to do my best to get there through my work on GNU. > You've shown over and over again, even in your last > email claiming that the FSF somehow appointed Brandon as a co-chief of > the GNU project, that you have no intention to listen to those who are > part of the leadership structure (like Brandon) who know what they are > talking about. That is not exactly what I said. But maybe I explained things in a confusing way. I certainly listen to Brandon and find his experiences very helpful. > If you were interested, and in good faith, you would have raised the > topic on the internal lists, as was requested, but you have not. And > as far as I can see, there is still no reply to the question if > you/Ludo/... are willing to let the GNU project take the text that > you've drafted as some sort of starting point? I believe we did raise the issue a couple of times on the internal lists and said we felt it would be better to have the discussion in the open going forward. Which is what we are doing right now. >> Patently false, it is RMS who ratifies changes that are applicable to >> the GNU project and nobody else. Please stop spreading these made up >> notions of how the GNU project is governed. > >We are discussing how we want the GNU project to be governed. This is >simply my opinion how we can collectively come together describing >it. I do acknowledge that you feel differently about that. > > No, you are discussing how _you_ want the GNU project governed, this > we is fictional -- there is no we here. There is no collective > agreement, since there is no "we". We are not having a discussion? It seems we really are. I gave my opinion on how I see GNU governance going forward and what my experiences and impressions of it from the past were. And you are sharing your opinion. > The GNU project is maintained by RMS. I do wish you explained your opinions a bit more though. Cheers, Mark
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
> > maybe my wording caused misunderstandings, but I did not mean the Social > > Contract to be a comprehensive document that codifies our inner > > working; > > If not approved by RMS, you are speaking in vain. How about you make > your own free software project, and do it there? As much as I admire your passion for the discussion, suggesting that the worst possible outcome for the project is desirable (Existing GNU maintainers leaving the project) will likely prove detrimental to the discussion. Irrespective of how one might feel about disrespecting rms, respecting him as a person is not a requirement. In fact, one of the points of those who are critical of the social contract document could, I think, be loosely summarised as not having any such extra requirements. As I see it, the GNU project is in no real danger of being "taken over". It could, however, be in danger of disenfranchised maintainers taking their leave for a variety of reasons. Every maintainer that takes their leave is a loss and should be considered extremely regrettable, even if one personally disagrees with them, but their departure is not something the discussion should actively steer towards regardless. Maybe some causes for dissattisfaction can be addressed to everyone's satisfaction in the course of GNU project's governance discussion, and if, in the end, even a single maintainer who would have otherwise resigned decides to stay because their objections have been addressed, the elaborate and sometimes difficult discussion will have been worth it. Sorry I replied to one of your posts specifically to reply to address this matter. It's nothing personal, but I've seen the sentiment expressed a few times by various participants on the list and with increasing frequency, and I believe any maintainers needleswsly leaving the GNU project can never be considered a constructive outcome to the whole situation, no matter how much one might disagree with them. regards, Andreas R.
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
* Andreas Enge [2020-01-06 22:36]: > Hello, > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 04:05:51PM +0100, Andreas R. wrote: > > Andreas Enge, in response to the difference between a "Social contract" and > > a > > "Code of Conduct" writes on the 6th of November[1]: > > "a social contract, which is a "mission statement" and statement of the > > general principles > > of an organisation, as well with respect to the inner workings as well as > > an engagement > > to the outer world" > > which could be summed up as: > > - a statement of the general principles of an organisation, > > - a statement with respect to the inner workings > > - a statement regarding an engagement to the outer world > > maybe my wording caused misunderstandings, but I did not mean the Social > Contract to be a comprehensive document that codifies our inner > working; If not approved by RMS, you are speaking in vain. How about you make your own free software project, and do it there? > just as a document that outlines our mission, which then of course would > have implications on our internals (for example, internally we could have > documents stating the licenses under which GNU packages may be published, > but according to the Social Contract, only free licenses would be > acceptable). There are enough documents written since decades by RMS that outlines mission statements. GNU project was always based on individualism, whereby people contributed by its individual decisions, regardless of their political opinions. "Social Contract" implies collectivism approach where small group of people who are making the social contract would like to coerce larger group of people into certain frames or rules, which is contrary to long term individualism approach. Would you have guns and liberty to use guns, you would now by lynching RMS and taking it over. That is what it is about, you are using force, not consent, you wish to coerce majority into some kind of "contracts", yet that is not how GNU project works and never did so. > As it stands, the Social Contract is compatible with different organisational > structures of the GNU project (having a benevolent dictator for life, a > committee making decisions, a Debian style bottom-up organisation). See above question about individualism and collectivism, it is not compatible. First, "social contract" has negative connotation from Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It is bad in its title. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract and start thinking. GNU project was not coercive, ever. It is based on individual decisions to contribute. > Well, I am not quite sure; as stated above, the Social Contract is > essentially a summary of the goals of the GNU project, and I think more > or less everyone working in the project will agree with its content. I do not agree. It is short, it does not say anything new. It is badly worded, badly titled. It implies "contract" onto people who maybe did not agree to it. It brings boundaries, not freedom. GNU project accepts contributions from everybody, you need not coerce people to contribute. It is based on individual decisions, not on coercion. > It has been attacked, as I understand it, essentially by people who fear > change in the governance structure of the GNU project, on the basis > that There is no change in the governance. Nobody invited anybody to even talk about the GNU governance, you few people imagined it, it is fantasy. You can speak, and write, but it is in vain. FSF did not invite you to talk or propose any governance, and FSF does not govern GNU project. FSF invited people to comment about relation between FSF and GNU, that is all. Word "governance" was not a question, and is not question now. You are mistaken. You are off-topic. > Notice that this is not stated *in* the Social Contract itself, but in a next > logical step would be required, in a document describing the governance > structure of the GNU project, from the people making decisions for the > project. In theory, it would make sense to require this even from a bene- > volent dictator for life (it sounds strange to require something from a > dictator, but maybe a benevolent one can be expected to follow the basic > guidelines of their project, even though it would by definition be > impossible to hold them to account). Please don't use word like "dictator" when RMS is not a dictator. He is founder of a GNU project and has final say, just as millions of other software projects. Please don't be disrespectful, can you find some better words? > It is no secret that I am in favour of a bottom-up organisation, in > which all members of a, say, "GNU Assembly" would be required to > pledge allegiance to the Social Contract. Initially, I thought of > the GNU maintainers, but it has been pointed out that more people > are stakeholders and do volunteer work for GNU, so the exact peri- > metre of the GNU Assembly would have to be discussed. Conversely, it > would also be possible to
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
One cannot assume good faith from those who are clearly hostile to the GNU project. You've shown over and over again, even in your last email claiming that the FSF somehow appointed Brandon as a co-chief of the GNU project, that you have no intention to listen to those who are part of the leadership structure (like Brandon) who know what they are talking about. If you were interested, and in good faith, you would have raised the topic on the internal lists, as was requested, but you have not. And as far as I can see, there is still no reply to the question if you/Ludo/... are willing to let the GNU project take the text that you've drafted as some sort of starting point? > Patently false, it is RMS who ratifies changes that are applicable to > the GNU project and nobody else. Please stop spreading these made up > notions of how the GNU project is governed. We are discussing how we want the GNU project to be governed. This is simply my opinion how we can collectively come together describing it. I do acknowledge that you feel differently about that. No, you are discussing how _you_ want the GNU project governed, this we is fictional -- there is no we here. There is no collective agreement, since there is no "we". The GNU project is maintained by RMS.
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
Hi Alfred, On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 12:26:59PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > You are clearly > uninterested in having a discussion, and this contiued spreading of > FUD and lies is out of control on your side. I am interested in discussing these issues since I believe they are important for our community. But it is hard to have a discussion when you don't assume good faith and call statements or opinions you don't like FUD and lies. >The FSF holds the resources for the GNU project and has oversight >responsibility over how those resources are used, which should be in >accordance with the FSF mission as a charitable organization. > > There are plenty of GNU resources that are not managed by the FSF, the > FSF does not dictate how GNU project resources are used. So this is > patently false. There are some GNU projects which use other foundations to hold their assets and some GNU maintainers are compensated through other organizations for their contributions. But the FSF does hold lots of important resource for us, like funds, copyrights, the trademark, dns, various development machines, etc. As a US 501(c)(3) public charity they need to make sure those are used according to their mission for the public good. So when we make policies around who can use which resources we do have to work together with the FSF to make sure that is the case. >A Social Contract or Mission Statement for GNU is necessary as a >first step for new governance for GNU. It has obviously been >discussed with Richard, who has said it might be a good idea. But >he has also been told that discussions about GNU governance should >be done openly and publicly. His input is certainly welcome. But in >the end it is the GNU maintainers who ratify it by adopting it for >their packages. > > His input is the only input that matters in the end, since he is the > head of the GNU project. That you dismiss this is beyond any > reasonable discussion. I am interested in his opinion, but I simply don't agree that his input is the only one that matters. >But in the end it is the GNU maintainers who ratify it by adopting >it for their packages. > > Patently false, it is RMS who ratifies changes that are applicable to > the GNU project and nobody else. Please stop spreading these made up > notions of how the GNU project is governed. We are discussing how we want the GNU project to be governed. This is simply my opinion how we can collectively come together describing it. I do acknowledge that you feel differently about that. Cheers, Mark
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
Hello, On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 04:05:51PM +0100, Andreas R. wrote: > Andreas Enge, in response to the difference between a "Social contract" and a > "Code of Conduct" writes on the 6th of November[1]: > "a social contract, which is a "mission statement" and statement of the > general principles > of an organisation, as well with respect to the inner workings as well as an > engagement > to the outer world" > which could be summed up as: > - a statement of the general principles of an organisation, > - a statement with respect to the inner workings > - a statement regarding an engagement to the outer world maybe my wording caused misunderstandings, but I did not mean the Social Contract to be a comprehensive document that codifies our inner working; just as a document that outlines our mission, which then of course would have implications on our internals (for example, internally we could have documents stating the licenses under which GNU packages may be published, but according to the Social Contract, only free licenses would be acceptable). As it stands, the Social Contract is compatible with different organisational structures of the GNU project (having a benevolent dictator for life, a committee making decisions, a Debian style bottom-up organisation). > The "GNU social contract" as it is, is not agreed on by everyone. Well, I am not quite sure; as stated above, the Social Contract is essentially a summary of the goals of the GNU project, and I think more or less everyone working in the project will agree with its content. It has been attacked, as I understand it, essentially by people who fear change in the governance structure of the GNU project, on the basis that codification is a prerequisite for change. It is less the *content* of the social contract that a few people complained about, but rather its mere *existence*. > A fairly significant change would be that maintainers would be required to > sign > an extra document. > This has been mentioned repeatedly [3] by the writer of the first version of > the > social contract, Ludovic Courtès. > Has this idea been dropped? Notice that this is not stated *in* the Social Contract itself, but in a next logical step would be required, in a document describing the governance structure of the GNU project, from the people making decisions for the project. In theory, it would make sense to require this even from a bene- volent dictator for life (it sounds strange to require something from a dictator, but maybe a benevolent one can be expected to follow the basic guidelines of their project, even though it would by definition be impossible to hold them to account). It is no secret that I am in favour of a bottom-up organisation, in which all members of a, say, "GNU Assembly" would be required to pledge allegiance to the Social Contract. Initially, I thought of the GNU maintainers, but it has been pointed out that more people are stakeholders and do volunteer work for GNU, so the exact peri- metre of the GNU Assembly would have to be discussed. Conversely, it would also be possible to decide that GNU maintainers need not agree to uphold the GNU Social Contract (which, in my opinion, makes little sense, since it really is very broad and general, but the argument has been made during the discussion), but that then they would not be part of the GNU Assembly and not have voting rights. Andreas
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 12:49:03PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > The latest version of the GNU Social Contract can be found here: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-11/msg00358.html > There were some minor wording suggestions since on the list. Thanks. I think that was the version I used, but I got the date wrong. > > In response to that request, earlier on-list feedback, and expressed > > support for having a couple of > > succinct documents that describe the structure and mission of the GNU > > project, I composed a version > > based on Andreas Elke's draft that attempts to address some of the > > problems that were raised. > > Thanks. But I think your version mixes why, what and how a little. Can you elaborate on that? I have an inkling about what you could mean by the "why", "what", and "how", but I wouldn't want to spend time answering the wrong questions. > The social contract says what users and the free software community can > expect from the GNU project, but doesn't prescribe how GNU volunteers > working on it do it, or how the project is structured precisely. That could be considered a shortcoming. Andreas Enge, in response to the difference between a "Social contract" and a "Code of Conduct" writes on the 6th of November[1]: "a social contract, which is a "mission statement" and statement of the general principles of an organisation, as well with respect to the inner workings as well as an engagement to the outer world" which could be summed up as: - a statement of the general principles of an organisation, - a statement with respect to the inner workings - a statement regarding an engagement to the outer world Has this layout changed? > It > looks like your document and the social contract could be separate > documents because they don't really conflict. That might make it more > clear what you are precisely proposing. There have been various statements in support of a general document that would "describe the structure and mission of the GNU project", even allegedly by rms himself[2] Since no such document exists, it would need to be agreed on by everyone who could be loosely defined as "part of the GNU project" to serve as any sort of guideline. The "GNU social contract" as it is, is not agreed on by everyone. The "GNU - Principles and Guidelines" attempts to address that. It's an adjusted version of the social contract that hopefully at some point can be agreed on by everyone, and serve as a first solid step towards finding a new governance model for the GNU project. > > This amended version: > > > > - is closer to the situation as it currently exists and as such > > should need no additional agreement > > or undersigning of existing maintainers since it should describe the > > status quo. > > Maybe you could state what in the GNU Social Contract doesn't describe > the status quo? A fairly significant change would be that maintainers would be required to sign an extra document. This has been mentioned repeatedly [3] by the writer of the first version of the social contract, Ludovic Courtès. Has this idea been dropped? If it has not been dropped, questions about enforcement have been fielded by Federico Leva [4] but not been readily addressed. Another point where the social contract deviates from the status quo is the complete absence of the FSF or existing governance. The social contract, as it is, simply gives "the GNU project" project-wide governance without precisely defining "the GNU project". Before entities are bestowed with formal agency, their makeup should to be precisely defined, otherwise you might end up with a cabal, alleged or otherwise. > I don't see it as a problem that GNU > maintainers outside their GNU work might not fully adhere to the social > contract as long as we can trust each other to do when we are working > together on the GNU project itself. My apologies. I meant GNU maintainers adherence to software freedom in the course of their GNU work. As things are, GNU maintaners can use non-free operating systems, even in publicly giving presentations about their GNU work. They can also, for example, be drawn to GNU maintenance for the technical challenge it provides instead of promoting the wider ideas that are usually associated with the GNU project. Given that they abide by the license of their GNU software, there is no conflict here, but the fact remains that being a GNU maintainer doesn't automatically gives one the right perspective to safeguard software freedoms. Of course, maintainers could be asked to sign a document that promises they will live up to the GNU project's standards, but what is to be done with existing GNU maintainers who are working on GNU for reasons other than software freedom? Will they be excluded from GNU project decision making? And maybe more importantly: will the GNU project reject aspiring maintainers who will not sign a document that puts the
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
You are wrong. No, it is you Mark who is in the wrong here. You are clearly uninterested in having a discussion, and this contiued spreading of FUD and lies is out of control on your side. The FSF holds the resources for the GNU project and has oversight responsibility over how those resources are used, which should be in accordance with the FSF mission as a charitable organization. There are plenty of GNU resources that are not managed by the FSF, the FSF does not dictate how GNU project resources are used. So this is patently false. A Social Contract or Mission Statement for GNU is necessary as a first step for new governance for GNU. It has obviously been discussed with Richard, who has said it might be a good idea. But he has also been told that discussions about GNU governance should be done openly and publicly. His input is certainly welcome. But in the end it is the GNU maintainers who ratify it by adopting it for their packages. His input is the only input that matters in the end, since he is the head of the GNU project. That you dismiss this is beyond any reasonable discussion. But in the end it is the GNU maintainers who ratify it by adopting it for their packages. Patently false, it is RMS who ratifies changes that are applicable to the GNU project and nobody else. Please stop spreading these made up notions of how the GNU project is governed.
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
On Wed, Jan 01, 2020 at 06:16:17AM +0100, Jean Louis wrote: > * Mark Wielaard [2019-12-31 12:49]: > > It would indeed be good if we worked with the FSF to ratify the GNU > > Social Contract and make sure it doesn't clash with their mission. But > > given the FSF has several other programs it runs, I think it is better > > if it is self contained. I don't see it as a problem that GNU > > maintainers outside their GNU work might not fully adhere to the social > > contract as long as we can trust each other to do when we are working > > together on the GNU project itself. > > FSF is not overseeing GNU project, it is supporting it. > > Richard Stallman is person who could "ratify" it, and social contract > is not necessary for GNU, that was already discussed and resolved so > far I know, multiple times on this list. > > Tell me if I am wrong. > > I am surprised that you and few other people forcefully wish to impose > something that is not necessary and that was said not to be necessary, > and behind the back of Richard Stallman, head of the GNU project. You are wrong. The FSF holds the resources for the GNU project and has oversight responsibility over how those resources are used, which should be in accordance with the FSF mission as a charitable organization. A Social Contract or Mission Statement for GNU is necessary as a first step for new governance for GNU. It has obviously been discussed with Richard, who has said it might be a good idea. But he has also been told that discussions about GNU governance should be done openly and publicly. His input is certainly welcome. But in the end it is the GNU maintainers who ratify it by adopting it for their packages. Cheers, Mark
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
It would indeed be good if we worked with the FSF to ratify the GNU Social Contract and make sure it doesn't clash with their mission. The FSF is not in a position to ratify anything for the GNU project.
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
* Mark Wielaard [2019-12-31 12:49]: > It would indeed be good if we worked with the FSF to ratify the GNU > Social Contract and make sure it doesn't clash with their mission. But > given the FSF has several other programs it runs, I think it is better > if it is self contained. I don't see it as a problem that GNU > maintainers outside their GNU work might not fully adhere to the social > contract as long as we can trust each other to do when we are working > together on the GNU project itself. FSF is not overseeing GNU project, it is supporting it. Richard Stallman is person who could "ratify" it, and social contract is not necessary for GNU, that was already discussed and resolved so far I know, multiple times on this list. Tell me if I am wrong. I am surprised that you and few other people forcefully wish to impose something that is not necessary and that was said not to be necessary, and behind the back of Richard Stallman, head of the GNU project. Finally, your writings pretend to speak as officially authorized by GNU project, which it is not, and then again, tell me if I am wrong. In any company business, one would have to have legal authorization to speak on behalf any entity or group or person. Did you get any authorization by RMS for those writings of you? Jean
Re: GNU - Principles and Guidelines (was: Re: A GNU “social contract”?)
Hi Andreas,
On Mon, 2019-12-30 at 22:25 +0100, Andreas R. wrote:
> This writing, "GNU - Principles and Guidelines", is based on Andreas
> Elke's preliminary version
> (draft posted on 1 Nov 2019) of a general and concise document that
> states some guidelines ("GNU Social Contract")
> which came with a request for feedback.
The latest version of the GNU Social Contract can be found here:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-11/msg00358.html
There were some minor wording suggestions since on the list.
> In response to that request, earlier on-list feedback, and expressed
> support for having a couple of
> succinct documents that describe the structure and mission of the GNU
> project, I composed a version
> based on Andreas Elke's draft that attempts to address some of the
> problems that were raised.
Thanks. But I think your version mixes why, what and how a little.
The social contract says what users and the free software community can
expect from the GNU project, but doesn't prescribe how GNU volunteers
working on it do it, or how the project is structured precisely. It
looks like your document and the social contract could be separate
documents because they don't really conflict. That might make it more
clear what you are precisely proposing.
> This amended version:
>
> - is closer to the situation as it currently exists and as such
> should need no additional agreement
> or undersigning of existing maintainers since it should describe the
> status quo.
Maybe you could state what in the GNU Social Contract doesn't describe
the status quo?
> - retains the position of trust and authority of the FSF instead of
> placing it with the GNU
> maintainers (thereby working around the hitherto unaddressed problem
> that GNU maintainers--outside of
> adhering the the licensing of their package--need to have no affinity
> or even an interest in Free Software).
It would indeed be good if we worked with the FSF to ratify the GNU
Social Contract and make sure it doesn't clash with their mission. But
given the FSF has several other programs it runs, I think it is better
if it is self contained. I don't see it as a problem that GNU
maintainers outside their GNU work might not fully adhere to the social
contract as long as we can trust each other to do when we are working
together on the GNU project itself.
> - guarantees GNU maintainers can continue to work on the project as a
> loosely associated group of hackers
> if they so desire even though a more regimented approach can be
> implemented within each seperate component
> or package.
The GNU Social Contract doesn't mention Maintainers, or any other
volunteer role. Could you say which parts of the GNU Social Contract
would block hackers working together on the GNU project in a loose or
rigid fashion?
> Comments and questions are, of course, more than welcome.
Thanks,
Mark
