Hi Frederico, On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 01:48:28AM +0200, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > I'd like to stress a passage which made me think quite a bit: > > > 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, > > What holds the project together is indeed something else. One can debate > what qualifies as "views" and whether radical changes are necessary, but > personally I appreciate being reminded to be careful about this point. > > I've tried to think of analogues outside the usual communities we usually > have in mind. In my home town there is a refectory run by Franciscans: I may > be mistaken, but if you volunteer there you're not even asked whether you're > a Catholic, let alone asked to join functions if you don't want. I > understand one may consider that a more menial task, less likely to be > influenced by philosophical thoughts than what one might code in their > software, but it's just a comparison, not a model. It is a nice comparison. This is what the GNU Social Contract tries to capture with "The GNU Project welcomes contributions from all and everyone". Even from people not endorsing all views of the GNU project. As long as they respect our policies of course. It would be good to have that added in a more explicit way. Others have also suggested to add an explanation like that. Thanks, Mark
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 17:24, Carlo Wood said: > So, I think all of this can be summarized as a small group of > two maybe three people who started a new website and are trying There are more than three people who disagree with the way the GNU project is currently managed. Except for signing the initial article I have not chimed in because the way how we are discussing non-technical issues here is the very reason that things need a change. I have never been a fan of written down rules because I hoped that we are all sensible adults who behave in a friendly way. Discussions in the last weeks, and also a couple of years ago, showed that I am too naive with this believe and so a Social Contract is in severe need to allow that the GNU project won't disappear from the technical and human right sphere. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
* Mark Wielaard [2020-02-08 10:24]: > A GNU wiki to support this process was requested by several GNU > maintainers. So we did ask the FSF to setup a public space for this. > To have a neutral place for the GNU community as a whole to have a > public discussion. But they told us that they don't have the resources > for that. So in good GNU tradition we got together and just setup > something ourselves. The gnu.tools domain is tools by GNU maintainers > for GNU maintainers. It is as officially affiliated with the GNU > project as any other GNU site where GNU volunteers work together. Any > GNU maintainer can use https://wiki.gnu.tools/ for working documents > they want to have publicly discussed. When you say "it is officially affiliated with the GNU project" that you are misrepresenting GNU project, and making claims that you are not authorized to make. Making those misrepresentation is damaging the intentions of the GNU project. It is tort of deceit. And indeed you are deceiving people with your fraudulent misrepresentations. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_of_deceit True facts: - your website is NOT officially affiliated to GNU - your website is not unofficially affiliated to GNU - owners of the website are conducting fraudulent misrepresentations of GNU project -- Thanks, Jean Louis P.S. I am also maintaining domain with "GNU" inside, and we are publishing on each page that "We are not endorsed by GNU or Free Software Foundation" -- we just promote GNU operating system and bring people to it. Website is NOT affiliated to GNU.
- Ludovic Court??s - Andreas Enge - Carlos O???Donell - Mark Wielaard - Andy Wingo <> This is inapropriate use of GNU resources and it is intended to create an air of authority that they do not have. BAN THEM On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 04:08:36PM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Mark Wielaard isn't a moderator for the gnu-misc-discuss list.
> You make the assumption that the views of the maintainers are the > views of the GNU project -- this has never been the case. GNU > maintainers do not define what the GNU project is. Because we are all code monkeys, aka programming slaves. As long as we do what we're told we can be as mean and horrible as we want, because GNU only cares about results, not whether people like us or not. Partially true, but also an completely unfair characterization to call volunteers for slaves when everyone works on what they want.. Every GNU maintainer has a different reason to work on their project. We aren't told what to do, possibly what _not_ to do (e.g., not promote non-free software, maybe take a different solution that doesn't allow non-free software to benefit from our work too easily, etc). The GNU project also doesn't really care about results, rather about up holding the rights of computer users, and safe guarding those rights. Something that is being undermined by those prmoting this non-GNU anti-social contract.
Mark Wielaard isn't a moderator for the gnu-misc-discuss list.
On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 11:57:45AM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes: > > You make the assumption that the views of the maintainers are the > > views of the GNU project -- this has never been the case. GNU > > maintainers do not define what the GNU project is. > > Because we are all code monkeys, aka programming slaves. As long as we > do what we're told we can be as mean and horrible as we want, because > GNU only cares about results, not whether people like us or not. That's a somewhat negative way of putting it, but I think it is more-or-less accurate. The GNU system exists primarily for the benefit of its users and not its authors. What people think of us is not of the highest importance. Having said that, I hope that all GNU contributors do get a sense of purpose, recognition and self-worth. For that reason I do not subscribe to the opinions of some, who wish to dictate that contributors must concur with their populist ideas. There are a number of technical and organisational decisions within GNU, which I personally disagree with. But an environment where every decision was what I wanted would be despotic. We must all learn to be tolerant of others - even those who are intolerable.Note that tolerating others does not mean we have to agree with them. Those are two different things. J'
a...@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes: > You make the assumption that the views of the maintainers are the > views of the GNU project -- this has never been the case. GNU > maintainers do not define what the GNU project is. Because we are all code monkeys, aka programming slaves. As long as we do what we're told we can be as mean and horrible as we want, because GNU only cares about results, not whether people like us or not.
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 20:51:49 +0100 Mark Wielaard wrote: > Many people already gave feedback on it and we do hope that it does > match as closely as possible. If you still believe it doesn't entirely > accord with the GNU Project's views then please do suggest wording > changes. We hope to combine all the feedback by February 10th for an > updated version. I've only seen three people giving feedback so far, of which only one was "positive" and that wasn't backed up by the content of the gnu.tools but as a reaction to the rather rude / impolite wording of Jean Louis mails (I believe it was). Also, you keep saying "we" - but have not reacted to my email asking for names. So, I think all of this can be summarized as a small group of two maybe three people who started a new website and are trying to create momentum under the maintainers of GNU project for it, with as goal to undermine the position of RMS as Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project. You seem very well aware that staying polite and keeping a smile at all times is very important for this goal. At the same time you make use of the emotions that this hostile takeover causes among a few people to make THEM look like fools (since they are NOT keeping their emotions in check). This is, obviously, because they have a lot to lose if you win this battle, while you are not running any risk since you have nothing to lose, only to gain. The fact that bring all of this under the pretense of improving the GNU organization - instead of talking about what your real goals are - proves to me that you manipulative. I've seen this type of thing before; lots of "political" babble and arguments like "how can it be bad when more people get to have a say in the matter?" after which those people nod and "vote" yeah. Then suddenly you are the sole active members of a committee that will take things a step further. If I see how you are abusing the word "we" already WITHOUT EVER saying WHO exactly you mean, by name; then I know exactly what will happen when whatever it is that you are proposing now is even a LITTLE BIT accepted as more or less a little bit more "official" as it is now -- for example by having a hand full of ignorant maintainers post a GPG signed mail saying they agree with your document. It does not matter even what is IN the document. The very fact that you wrote it (you as in: the one person that wrote it) and then got SOME people to take it seriously enough to react with a signed mail will make you suddenly someone MORE "official". Exactly the kind of official that I meant above. More mails with "we" will follow. All of this effort must be fueled by something; probably hatred against RMS. And your hidden agenda is to shift the power balance away from him. Well -- I do not agree with that. The BEST thing for any organization is when ONE man can take all the important decisions. And we know that RMS is more than capable to look out for whatever the GNU project really stands for: he is the founder and has led it from the start. There is no risk at all here, we know what we get. If you create a committee to take decisions that that will destroy the project: a committee, especially a new one, will mainly be concerned with staying in power. Most of their decisions will have to do with removing people from the project that has opposing ideas, RMS only being one of them. Nothing will be left in the end of this project then endless discussions and bickering. No really important decisions will be made at all anymore. I've seen it before. I say no to movement, because whatever the result, it will be devastatingly bad for the GNU project. So yes, people take down your "gnu.tools" domain. Having the word 'gnu' in it is misleading and hostile. -- Carlo Wood
On 2/7/20 2:51 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > As you know since the FSF asked for feedback on the relationship > between the FSF and GNU As you know is the biggest indicator of lies and deceit to follow than any other phrase in English or any other language. It is followed by, "As we can all agree", and "From this it is obvious" and other such prepositions to lies. This is not the location for the GNU/FSF review and comments. Those addresses and the individuals that review such comments are listed elsewhere, most recently : << The Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project leadership are defining how these two separate groups cooperate. Our mutual aim is to work together as peers, while minimizing change in the practical aspects of this cooperation, so we can advance in our common free software mission. Alex Oliva, Henry Poole and John Sullivan ([board members or officers of the FSF]), and Richard Stallman (head of the GNU Project), have been meeting to develop a general framework which will serve as the foundation for further discussion about specific areas of cooperation. Together we have been considering the input received from the public on [fsf-and-...@fsf.org] and [gnu-and-...@gnu.org]. We urge people to send any further input by February 13, because we expect to finish this framework soon. This joint announcement can also be read on http://www.fsf.org/news/gnu-fsf-cooperation-update. >> This wiki was an overt attempt to remove Stallman from GNU. The creators of the wiki said so when they petitioned to remove RMS from GNU on the GUIX website. I've argued with Richard that there needs to be a banning of those that challenge to governance of GNU... OUTRIGHT. He, in is infinite patience, has opted to allow this to continue to simmer and give the appearance of negations. In truth though, while RMS is extremely tolerant of discourse and political maneuvering, and even lies and libel, I can't see how he is going to be able to settle this one. The individuals who are attacking him here are attacking the very core of GNU. GNU is a militant organization designed to create the tools for free communication and digital culture through software sharing through guarantees of code resources. Without the militant center, it has no chance to survive as a means of cultural change. He is going to have to ban you guys. As for the talk nice, I view that as I view this along with the sign that was greeted by my ancestors "Arbeit macht frei". The Nazi's talked nice to my relatives in Prague that they brought their own train tickets to the cematoria. I don't give a shit if you talk nice, when you perpetrate a fundamental injustice. Go fuck yourself. You are not stealing GNU. 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
You make the assumption that the views of the maintainers are the views of the GNU project -- this has never been the case. GNU maintainers do not define what the GNU project is. Seeing that you are not representative of the GNU project, you are not in a position to say what is or is not affiliated with the GNU project. So please stop spreading around such falsehoods. It seems that you are also misrepresenting the relationship of who can setup things for the GNU project, the FSF doesn't decide what we run or host. The head of the GNU project rejected the idea of a project wide wiki, and the FSF is not in a position to override that -- since they are a different organisation and do not decide on how the GNU project runs. But as was already, clearly stated, the GNU project has no intention of addopting a social contract of any sort.
Hi Richard, On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 01:36:07AM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > 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. I hadn't seen this earlier, but Alfred was nice enough to forward it to the public discussion list. > 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. I assume you are referring to the email we sent recently calling for discussion of the DRAFT GNU Social Contract: https://wiki.gnu.tools/git/gnu-tools-wiki/plain/code/sc-email.txt > It does not entirely accord with the GNU Project's views. Many people already gave feedback on it and we do hope that it does match as closely as possible. If you still believe it doesn't entirely accord with the GNU Project's views then please do suggest wording changes. We hope to combine all the feedback by February 10th for an updated version. > 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. As you know since the FSF asked for feedback on the relationship between the FSF and GNU we have wanted to have some public discussion with all GNU volunteers precisely on What's GNU -- and what's not. Some of those discussions have been used as input to that process: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-12/msg00011.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-12/msg00026.html One of the outputs of our process is the proposed GNU Social Contract DRAFT: https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract We hope that when we concentrate on what binds us, focus on the core values of the GNU project volunteers, then we will create a stronger community. And it will be easier to discuss things when we might not agree because then we have a shared common base to fall back on. A GNU wiki to support this process was requested by several GNU maintainers. So we did ask the FSF to setup a public space for this. To have a neutral place for the GNU community as a whole to have a public discussion. But they told us that they don't have the resources for that. So in good GNU tradition we got together and just setup something ourselves. The gnu.tools domain is tools by GNU maintainers for GNU maintainers. It is as officially affiliated with the GNU project as any other GNU site where GNU volunteers work together. Any GNU maintainer can use https://wiki.gnu.tools/ for working documents they want to have publicly discussed. We would like to extend this to any GNU volunteer to make sure those who work to make GNU a reality feel like they are really part of the community. Which is why we proposed to extend the discussion to what it means to be a GNU member. But that is something we can discuss in the future. Lets first see if we can come up with a GNU Social Contract that people feel comfortable to endorse if they like it and that describes the core values of the GNU project. Thanks, Mark