Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 08:58:18 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> The PsyOps techniques that large free software communities are now using
> against volunteers, minimising people's views, misquoting/gaslighting,
> scapegoating, shaming and emotional blackmail do as much harm or more
> than physical violence.

I responded in private with some of my thoughts on your position.

My recommendation is to use less extreme and hyperbolic comparisons when
conveying strong disagreements.  If you consider these topics to
represent instruments of suppression, you can say so in very different
terms that can be discussed in kind and constructive ways.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer
GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B  2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Daniel Pocock]

On 28/02/2020 05:37, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 22:26:27 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> It took me a few days, but I finally came up with a concise summary of
>> the situation:
>>
>> https://fsfellowship.eu/what-is-a-safe-space/
> 
> I am ashamed to have "free software" appear on this page and for anyone
> to believe I or anyone else here may be affiliated with such an
> extremist and horrific perspective.  How dare you equate the ongoing
> discussion with the slaughter of people.
> 
> This is not welcome on this list.
> 

The UN’s special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhumane or
degrading treatment or punishment has said[1] exactly the same thing as me.

The PsyOps techniques that large free software communities are now using
against volunteers, minimising people's views, misquoting/gaslighting,
scapegoating, shaming and emotional blackmail do as much harm or more
than physical violence.

These have become tools-of-the-trade for the people who sought to
displace RMS

Regards,

Daniel


1.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/feb/21/un-rapporteur-warns-of-rise-of-cybertorture-to-bypass-physical-ban

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 22:26:27 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> It took me a few days, but I finally came up with a concise summary of
> the situation:
>
> https://fsfellowship.eu/what-is-a-safe-space/

I am ashamed to have "free software" appear on this page and for anyone
to believe I or anyone else here may be affiliated with such an
extremist and horrific perspective.  How dare you equate the ongoing
discussion with the slaughter of people.

This is not welcome on this list.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer
GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B  2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Daniel Pocock]

On 22/02/2020 08:29, Alex Taylor wrote:
> Finally "endorsing" the text would give the rebel group a legitimacy
> which they neither have, nor deserve.  It's instructive to look at the
> track record of these renegades.   The Guile and Guix projects have both
> excluded and/or vilified people who disagree with the people in power
> (the same people who push the "social contract").    If you choose to
> endorse this text, bear in mind that the words are imprecise so don't be
> surprised if, sometime down the road, your endorsement is used as a
> weapon against you when you fall out of favor with the powermongers.

It took me a few days, but I finally came up with a concise summary of
the situation:

https://fsfellowship.eu/what-is-a-safe-space/

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[siddhesh]

On Feb 27, 2020 20:07, Siddhesh Poyarekar  wrote:On 27/02/20 19:23, Mark Wielaard wrote:

> Of course your opinion matters a lot! As release master and uploader

> for GNU glibc your opinion is very valuable. I am sorry that through a

> technicality you weren't listed in the maintainers file and so were

> excluded from our direct call for discussion and endorsement. But we

> had to start somewhere. And I hope you did have a chance to discuss

> this with the glibc stewards and other maintainers. We will expand the

> discussions to all GNU volunteers over time. But as you might have

> noticed this list might not be the perfect discussion forum. So we are

> working on something better.



Ah, I do not mind at all that I wasn't contacted about this directly; I

didn't even expect it TBH given that I'm not involved in GNU governance.
To be clear, I remain supportive of the idea behind the social contract and a less centralized gnu governance structure and I appreciate that y'all are doing the thankless task of shaping this.Siddhesh

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 27/02/20 19:23, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Of course your opinion matters a lot! As release master and uploader
> for GNU glibc your opinion is very valuable. I am sorry that through a
> technicality you weren't listed in the maintainers file and so were
> excluded from our direct call for discussion and endorsement. But we
> had to start somewhere. And I hope you did have a chance to discuss
> this with the glibc stewards and other maintainers. We will expand the
> discussions to all GNU volunteers over time. But as you might have
> noticed this list might not be the perfect discussion forum. So we are
> working on something better.

Ah, I do not mind at all that I wasn't contacted about this directly; I
didn't even expect it TBH given that I'm not involved in GNU governance.

Siddhesh

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Siddhesh,

On Tue, 2020-02-25 at 10:42 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 23/02/20 23:34, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > Contrary to the members of Manor farm, we welcome anyone and will not
> > dismiss your opinion just because you are not a GNU maintainer.  This
> 
> Wait, I was told that my opinion on matters of GNU governance does not
> matter because I am not a GNU maintainer

Of course your opinion matters a lot! As release master and uploader
for GNU glibc your opinion is very valuable. I am sorry that through a
technicality you weren't listed in the maintainers file and so were
excluded from our direct call for discussion and endorsement. But we
had to start somewhere. And I hope you did have a chance to discuss
this with the glibc stewards and other maintainers. We will expand the
discussions to all GNU volunteers over time. But as you might have
noticed this list might not be the perfect discussion forum. So we are
working on something better.

> and that was not by the "members of the Manor farm".

I know you didn't start the "childish/clever" insults, but please don't
just repeat it back. If you don't like the way someone expresses their
opinion please just say so directly and explain why, so they know how
to better express their viewpoint. Tit-for-tat in insults is a downward
spiral we don't want to get trapped in.

Thanks,

Mark

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Taylan Kammer, 25/02/20 21:30:

At face value I 99% agree with the proposed "GNU Social Contract" and
even the CoC you're talking about here, yet I find myself agreeing with
what you're saying.


I've yet to see a CoC which isn't a tool for centralisation of power. 
They tend to create some autocratic body with ultimate and 
non-appealable decision-making powers over all aspects of a project. 
(Software projects are made by people, so if you can decide who's in and 
who's out, or what can be said and what can't, you potentially get to 
decide everything.)


If your project is completely hierarchical (e.g. fully controlled by a 
listed for-profit corporation), this may not be a problem. If it is 
fully democratic and structured (e.g. fully controlled by an association 
with very clear bylaws, within a jurisdiction which makes the legal 
limits clear), it might also work, but then you cannot override the 
ultimate decision maker (usually the assembly of members). The number of 
successful projects falling in either category is close to nil though.


Federico

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Taylan Kammer]

On 25.02.2020 19:45, Alexandre François Garreau wrote:

> Also I was commenting on the fact supporters of CoC don’t even abide by 
> them.  So it is likely they’re subjective enough not to realize they just 
> want to impose more burden to people they disagree with, without added 
> burden on them (in other words: they just want more enforcement power, CoC 
> serving as a justification for it).

At face value I 99% agree with the proposed "GNU Social Contract" and
even the CoC you're talking about here, yet I find myself agreeing with
what you're saying.

I've seen too many smart people turn to witch hunting or at least
shunning other people based on them being deemed "heretics" of some sort
according to dominant narratives on this or that social justice topic.

It's not just people who are edging on right-wing/conservative ideals
who get targeted with this.

It's not just moderate/centrist people either.

There's currently a really big mass of life-long feminists, lesbian and
gay rights activists, Jewish activists, Black activists etc., who are
deemed heretics by white, middle class, male liberal ideologues.

(If anyone wants details, I can provide them.)

I've seen this behavior from the maintainers of two very high-importance
GNU projects.  Two guys who I otherwise really like, and trust on their
kindness and desire to improve humanity.  Obviously, they're strong
endorsers of things like this Social Contract or the CoC, but I'm
worried about how they'll ultimately apply it.

I fear that with the direction these guys want to take GNU, it will
become a project aimed primarily at white middle class mostly-male
liberals who fear and shun members of minority groups when they don't
conform to their idea of what those minority groups should believe.

(This isn't really a new thing judging by what e.g. Malcolm X wrote
about white liberals or what Andrea Dworkin wrote about liberal men.)

It's supremely ironic, and several years ago in my naivety I wouldn't
ever have believed that such an absurd state of liberal politics could
be reached.

Personally, I admittedly wouldn't have a problem with it if the GNU
project and/or the FSF took a more "officially" left-wing and/or liberal
stance on politics, but if they're going to do that I don't want it to
become this super-narrow cult-like group of relatively privileged people
who are completely convinced that their stance on how to improve society
is unquestionably the most enlightened one, while they silence not just
people with more moderate politics but even many who are essentially on
the same side or at least have the same core values.


I hope this mail reaches the right people.  I was preparing a more
in-depth one but pulled back when I saw that the discussion is on fire
so my input may not be heard.  Then I read your mail and it just made me
want to pour it out there.  Maybe I'll finish up the other email too
after the discussion has chilled out a bit.

In any case I believe this is a really serious issue that needs to be
talked about.


- Taylan

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Leo Famulari]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 07:46:59AM -0500, Ruben Safir wrote:
> You mean aside from the fact that they posted in on their website?

I asked Alex if they had any more details about how the Guile and Guix
projects "have both excluded and/or vilified people who disagree with
people in power".

So far Alex has not replied. Your reply is not very informative but I
assume you are referring to the joint statement. That is not an example
of what Alex mentioned as far as I can tell, given that the signers of
the joint statement are by definition subordinate to RMS within GNU.

I asked Alex to back up their claim because, as someone who has worked
within Guix for years, I view the Guix project as notably friendly and
collegial — this behavior is modeled by Ludovic and is a primary factor
in Guix's growth and success.

I think Alex's claim is incorrect.

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-24 19:36, Alexandre François Garreau wrote:

Le samedi 22 février 2020, 20:48:43 CET Andreas Enge a écrit :

If anything, this message shows how much a code of conduct is needed.


I’ve just read https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct


Note that there has been no initiative to promote that code of conduct
for the GNU project. All the noise has been about the social
contract.

There is no "GNU" on it, and it states that it pertains only to that
site.

Members of that site are deliberately not drawing attention to it.

If they have their way, they will try to sneak that into the 
organization

"under the radar" somehow.

It's like a magic trick. You're supposed to keep your eyes on the hand
which is waving the (relatively harmless) social contract, while
the other hand is doing something sinister (being the left hand).

PS: there’s the added issue that while this CoC talks about 
“community”,
it also does about “professional settings” (which to me is antagonist 
to

“community”, and the very reason why the “community” word is so used
nowadays (to include unpaid/unemployed people)), while this wiki is not
professional, and GNU is not a professional organization, nor even
withstand “professionalism” (I recall that being stated along with
recalling GNU’s name itself is a joke anyway).


You have to read between the lines.

The world of global business has come to rely on an infrastructure made 
of

free software for business-critical roles.

This is particularly so of large, multi-national tech giants.

What these corporations want is nothing more than for projects
like GNU to just be servants, doing their bidding. Whatever you
depend on, you want to *control*, and that is particularly true
in business.

To do that they have to dismantle the projects from within.

With everyone's hands and souls tied up in social contracts and
codes of conduct, there will be no room left to reject bad software
changes from the Googles, Amazons and Microsofts of this world.

Make no mistake, this is a corporate dismantling and take down:
an attack on free software.

Some of the language in these documents is straight out of the HR
manual of a Fortune 500 firm. That's what those organizations use
use to keep employees and contractors in line.

The part about projects having to welcome low-experience participants
also plays into this. Corporations will use that to promote
people into free software projects who will then unwittingly
do their bidding. They will not only be too afraid of being rude
(due to all the codes of conduct) to reject bad changes, but also
lack the technical confidence for taking a stand: a double whammy,
one-two knockout.

These days, some people who work on free software are doing so
as part of their jobs. They were hired to do that and end up
producing some work that their employer then wants upstreamed.
Problem is, the work is shoddy because those people didn't quite
have the experience to do it right. Or, worse, it outright contains
objectionable changes that cannot be accepted no matter what.

Thus, the curmudgeons who control the upstream project want
want nothing to do with the changes.

Solution? Infiltrate those projects; get your people into
decision-making positions to displace the curmudgeons.

But first, you have to disarm those projects with codes of
conduct and social contracts which are worded such that your
people have to be "welcome".

Why, the free project can be regarded as just another department
in your company. Copy and paste something out of the HR manual
and make them follow that, and it's pretty much like you're their
boss! And they work for free, to boot.

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le mardi 25 février 2020, 22:23:19 CET Alexandre François Garreau a écrit 
:
> Le mardi 25 février 2020, 20:30:35 CET Taylan Kammer a écrit :
> > I fear that with the direction these guys want to take GNU, it will
> > become a project aimed primarily at white middle class mostly-male
> > liberals who fear and shun members of minority groups when they don't
> > conform to their idea of what those minority groups should believe.
> 
> https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-nov-feb.html#16_December_2019_(We
> aponized_definitions)
> 
> basically https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/
> antisemitism-executive-order-trump-chilling-effect

Wrong links, these are the one I wanted to post:

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le mardi 25 février 2020, 20:30:35 CET Taylan Kammer a écrit :
> On 25.02.2020 19:45, Alexandre François Garreau wrote:
> > Also I was commenting on the fact supporters of CoC don’t even abide
> > by
> > them.  So it is likely they’re subjective enough not to realize they
> > just want to impose more burden to people they disagree with, without
> > added burden on them (in other words: they just want more enforcement
> > power, CoC serving as a justification for it).
> 
> At face value I 99% agree with the proposed "GNU Social Contract"

Actually, as it is formulated, it is pretty minimal and it is hard to find 
inside of it something to disagree with.  The issue is more with what’s 
not in it, or rather with what’s outside of it, with the context… and even 
with its role/alleged necessity… and I think that’s why it got opposition 
at all.

> and
> even the CoC you're talking about here, yet I find myself agreeing with
> what you're saying.

It is quite standard and by the past I found myself pretty okay about it… 
but now with experience and having seen how bad faith can develop I fear 
somewhat its possible interpretations… so nah…

> It's not just people who are edging on right-wing/conservative ideals
> who get targeted with this.
> 
> It's not just moderate/centrist people either.

Actually it may seem pretty paradoxal, but the political left is much more 
to be affected by divisiveness and flamewars.  The right is to be 
conservative, or even reactionary, to “agree” with the current or previous 
system, so it can be pretty uniform as people fundamentally are there by 
agreeing with something, all too often by considering and valuing 
authority and obedience…

While political left, traditionally (funnily oxymoric… let’s say “by 
definition”, then) is about opposing the current system, about disagreeing 
with it, or even continually criticizing it, rationalizing, etc. no wonder 
there are way more different way to disagree than to agree.

The problem is then many different people unite when it’s about being 
against something in common, but once it’s about what to take to replace 
it, people begin to disagree again… this is especially true about extremes 
and minorities in general (as extremes are just opinions minorities) were 
you can be more used to be with people agreeing *exactly* with a wide 
array of ideas with you, or at least being very similar to you (until you 
forget how are others), and be used not to think like the majority, and 
all too often not to give a shit about what do think others provided you 
believe to be right…

That, plus polarizations, internet bubbles, etc. ends up in, sadly, an 
increase of a certain nefarious research of “purity” within politics… but 
this is so wrong (and paradoxal) as normally it is the right which is 
meant to be “pure”, and the left is an attempt to make it “impur” by 
renewing stuff and bringing reason, freedom and diversity!

(let’s recall the abstract definitions of “pure” and “impure” is that when 
both things mix up, “pure” is what gets to become “impure” and “impure” is 
what is to “infect”/“propagate” to the rest)

GNU is often something considered pretty “purist”… yet actually it is not 
so much so: ports to non-free operating systems are tolerated, as well as 
the possibility of non-free software, as, when following more from 
initiative and will from user than incitation from community, being a 
chance to at least bringing more people to free-software than would have 
come otherwise… with the caution of it possibly happening in the other 
direction: but as we stay a minority, we have more to win than to loose… 
rather, GNU is more a “radical” or “extremist” thing than a “purist” one, 
because we’re to “infect”/“propagate” to chains until they’re gone… the 
goal is still “purist” though (eliminating proprietary software), but the 
means not (at least of the movement, not of GNU).

> There's currently a really big mass of life-long feminists, lesbian and
> gay rights activists, Jewish activists, Black activists etc., who are
> deemed heretics by white, middle class, male liberal ideologues.

I saw all too so much of that…

> (If anyone wants details, I can provide them.)

Please yes :) at least if there’s not only me.  Examples, especially in 
diversity, always are good to explain stuff ;)

> I fear that with the direction these guys want to take GNU, it will
> become a project aimed primarily at white middle class mostly-male
> liberals who fear and shun members of minority groups when they don't
> conform to their idea of what those minority groups should believe.

https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-nov-feb.html#16_December_2019_(Weaponized_definitions)

basically https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/
antisemitism-executive-order-trump-chilling-effect

> Personally, I admittedly wouldn't have a problem with it if the GNU
> project and/or the FSF took a more "officially" left-wing and/or liberal
> stance on politics, but 

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le mardi 25 février 2020, 19:25:13 CET Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) a 
écrit :
> On 2020-02-24 19:36, Alexandre François Garreau wrote:
> > Le samedi 22 février 2020, 20:48:43 CET Andreas Enge a écrit :
> >> If anything, this message shows how much a code of conduct is needed.
> > 
> > I’ve just read https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct
> 
> Note that there has been no initiative to promote that code of conduct
> for the GNU project. All the noise has been about the social
> contract.

I know, but recently (some days ago as you can see) it was stated that a 
CoC would be desirable, and afaik the covenant CoC is a pretty standard 
and widespread one, so it is interesting to criticize it before it is 
considered more widely (especially as this very CoC’s faq ask not to 
criticize it, when you’re victim of it, so you have to do it at other 
moments).

Also I was commenting on the fact supporters of CoC don’t even abide by 
them.  So it is likely they’re subjective enough not to realize they just 
want to impose more burden to people they disagree with, without added 
burden on them (in other words: they just want more enforcement power, CoC 
serving as a justification for it).

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 25/02/20 13:56, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> You know well what I wrote, and I'm quite disapointed that you are
> trying to purport it as something quite different.  There is a stark
> difference from having an opinion, and being a deciding factor just
> because of having a title or lacking a title.

No, my point is that you and I see value for opinion quite differently
because of the side of the argument we're on.  The idea of one side
valuing peoples' opinion more than another is subjective and is not
something you can blindly claim as a fact as you did.

Siddhesh

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

You claimed that your opinion doesn't matter, and that is quite
untrue.  It is not something I nor anyone else claimed.

And that is what I was addressing, not if you and I might value things
differently, since that will obviously be the case.  Specially in a
project where we do wish anyone to participate.

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > Contrary to the members of Manor farm, we welcome anyone and will not
   > dismiss your opinion just because you are not a GNU maintainer.  This

   Wait, I was told that my opinion on matters of GNU governance does not
   matter because I am not a GNU maintainer and that was not by the
   "members of the Manor farm".

You know well what I wrote, and I'm quite disapointed that you are
trying to purport it as something quite different.  There is a stark
difference from having an opinion, and being a deciding factor just
because of having a title or lacking a title.

If you feel something is unclear, I suggest you read the the Structure
and Administration of the GNU Project
(https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.html).

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 23/02/20 23:34, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Contrary to the members of Manor farm, we welcome anyone and will not
> dismiss your opinion just because you are not a GNU maintainer.  This

Wait, I was told that my opinion on matters of GNU governance does not
matter because I am not a GNU maintainer and that was not by the
"members of the Manor farm".

Siddhesh

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Leo Famulari]

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 07:29:45AM +, Alex Taylor wrote:
> Finally "endorsing" the text would give the rebel group a legitimacy which
> they neither have, nor deserve.  It's instructive to look at the track
> record of these renegades.   The Guile and Guix projects have both excluded
> and/or vilified people who disagree with the people in power (the same
> people who push the "social contract").

What details can you provide about how the Guile and Guix projects "have
both excluded and/or vilified people"?

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le samedi 22 février 2020, 20:48:43 CET Andreas Enge a écrit :
> If anything, this message shows how much a code of conduct is needed.

I’ve just read https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct

Beside the usage of the binary *-free english phrasing which is 
unfortunate when applied to human behavior, I noted that people who are 
part of “this community” (gnu.tools community, I guess), and sometimes 
pushing for a CoC within GNU, yet never abided by points 0 (“Demonstrating 
empathy and kindness toward other people”) and 1 (“Being respectful of 
differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences”) of section 1, while I 
think it could be of great help to deescalate the tensions and disputes on 
this list.

Yet, to refrain myself from any unappropriated accusation, I understand 
point 0 requires skills which are unequally distributed according 
populations (and sometimes pretty low in ours, so this is not a point I 
particularely like being considered as obvious), and point 1 is something 
that requires experience, at first, to be dealt with easily.

Anyway this is pretty much unfortunate as if you are the ones defending 
such rules, you are socially smart enough to be more likely and able to do 
this than your opponents… unfortunately, as I guess you may consider that 
unlegitimate.

Also the recent attacks rms received recently, including by members of GNU 
and FSF, doesn’t abide by points 1 and 2 of section 2.

PS: there’s the added issue that while this CoC talks about “community”, 
it also does about “professional settings” (which to me is antagonist to 
“community”, and the very reason why the “community” word is so used 
nowadays (to include unpaid/unemployed people)), while this wiki is not 
professional, and GNU is not a professional organization, nor even 
withstand “professionalism” (I recall that being stated along with 
recalling GNU’s name itself is a joke anyway).  Also the wording of the 
“community impact” of “permanent ban” section is unclear, in regards to 
whether “inappropriate” and/or “sustained” also qualify “disparagement of 
classes of individuals” (which btw might include any left-wing discourse 
such as talking about “plutocrats”… something I can hardly see unwelcome 
(yet I’ve seen a GHM talk being almost retired for something similar ><)).

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 08:50:44 -0800, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
> On 2020-02-22 19:38, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 20:48:43 +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 10:26:22AM -0800, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)
>>> wrote:
 On 2020-02-22 01:22, Andreas Enge wrote:
 > And another ad-hominem attack. Can you substantiate the claim of us
 > being
 > powermongers?

 https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct
 "Enforcement", "Ban", "Correction", "Warning" 
 You are sick.
>>>
>>> Could I kindly ask for this person to be put on moderation? I find it
>>> difficult to interpret the last statement as anything but a gratuitous
>>> insult
>>> (following a message that was not even directed at them). Notice that
>>> there
>>> is a pattern of overly aggressive messages by Kaz Kylheku.
>>
>> I think we can handle this without having to resort to blocking a
>> person's messages.
>>
>> Kaz, please avoid use of subjective terms like "powermonger" and focus
>
> Everything you see here has passed moderation.
>
> If you don't think I should be able to include quotes of someone
> else's text that contains "powermonger", take it up with the moderator.

I'm very sorry---I meant to reply to the "you are sick".  I was
considering multiple moderation messages at once and they somehow got
mixed.

I am one of the moderators on this list.

>>   https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html
>
> I think that is useful for communication within projects themselves.
> I don't think that should be blindly followed in a self-defeating way
> by remaining meek when the project is under attack.

The guidelines do not say "be kind unless ...".

-- 
Mike Gerwitz


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 14:35:56 -0800, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
> On 2020-02-22 18:58, Amin Bandali wrote:
>> "Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> You are sick.
>>
>> I urge you to consider the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines [0] when
>> posting to GNU lists, as well as keeping this list's guidelines [1] in
>> mind when posting here.
>
> I sincerely believe that the code of conduct document published
> on the gnu.tools is the product of a sick mind.
>
> Make no mistake: this is not name-calling; I stand by it.

To approach this from a constructive perspective: rather than claiming
someone to be "sick", state your opinion of the symptoms, and debate
those.

But more importantly, and taking precedence: it's irrelevant to the
discussion.  Whether or not you believe someone to be "sick" because
they hold a particular viewpoint---which I find to be a terrible
mistake---doesn't matter to the topic at hand.  Consequently, raising it
could only be interpreted as an insult, since it can do nothing to
further a constructive debate.

So as a moderator, I'm asking that you please stop.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le dimanche 23 février 2020, 23:35:56 CET Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) a 
écrit :
> On 2020-02-22 18:58, Amin Bandali wrote:
> > "Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> writes:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> >> You are sick.
> > 
> > I urge you to consider the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines [0] when
> > posting to GNU lists, as well as keeping this list's guidelines [1] in
> > mind when posting here.
> 
> I sincerely believe that the code of conduct document published
> on the gnu.tools is the product of a sick mind.
> 
> Make no mistake: this is not name-calling; I stand by it.

Jean-Louis made a really good answer to you I believe.  A hinter of 
social-minded anti-psychiatry couldn’t be more appropriate here.

“sick” looks like an objective statement, while it is the product of a 
subjective judgement.  You should make you more explicit rather than to 
resort to simplistic metaphors, comparisons or links (to sickness) that 
could be badly taken, or simply wrong.

Plus you know what? I think we’re all somewhat sick, to keep researching 
freedom, in a inprisonned world ;)

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-22 18:58, Amin Bandali wrote:

"Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> writes:

[...]


You are sick.


I urge you to consider the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines [0] when
posting to GNU lists, as well as keeping this list's guidelines [1] in
mind when posting here.


I sincerely believe that the code of conduct document published
on the gnu.tools is the product of a sick mind.

Make no mistake: this is not name-calling; I stand by it.

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Manor farm is the poorly run farm by the evil Mr. Jones in Animal Farm
by George Orwell.

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Jean Louis]

* Alfred M. Szmidt  [2020-02-23 21:05]:
> Hi Alex!
> 
> If you have time and interest, the GNU project is looking for new
> maintainers for several projects.  See our take action page:
> https://www.gnu.org/server/takeaction.en.html
> 
> Contrary to the members of Manor farm, we welcome anyone and will not
> dismiss your opinion just because you are not a GNU maintainer.  This
> list is for anyone interested in discussing anything related to the
> GNU project, even disagreements with the GNU project.

Do you mean with the Manor Farm, like "In addition to having both
lower and upper halls, many French manor houses also had partly
fortified gateways, watchtowers, and enclosing walls that were fitted
with arrow or gun loops for added protection. Some larger 16th-century
manors, such as the Château de Kerjean in Finistère, Brittany, were
even outfitted with ditches and fore-works that included gun platforms
for cannons. These defensive arrangements allowed maisons-fortes, and
rural manors to be safe from a coup de main perpetrated by an armed
band as there was so many during the troubled times of the Hundred
Years War and the wars of the Holy League; but it was difficult for
them to resist a siege undertaken by a regular army equipped with
(siege) engines.[6" ?

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manor_house#France

I am trying to understand the term and it is entertaining, yet I may
be mistaken.

Jean

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Jean Louis, 22/02/20 23:52:

Now imagine the freedom for North Korean leaders to run the GNU
software to launch nuclear rockets towards Boston, USA. Would you be
in agreement on it?


Let's use a more concrete example (because it's actionable, unlike 
fictional lawsuits in North Korea): are General Atomics or Lockheed 
Martin free to use GNU software within their weapons? Are we in 
agreement with it, even if they're used to conduct extrajudicial 
killings abroad or to kill civilians?


And the answer is: yes of course I agree they can use GNU software, 
especially if they publish all the software used on their drones and war 
planes under GPL. Is this an embarrassing ethical conclusion? Not at 
all: if the software were under GPL, it would be more transparent about 
what kind of ethical decisions it makes. That would empower democratic 
processes to decide whether such weapons should be used or not. (It's 
not democratic for the GNU hackers to decide whether a state should wage 
war on another, even if it's tempting.)


Federico

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Hi Alex!

If you have time and interest, the GNU project is looking for new
maintainers for several projects.  See our take action page:
https://www.gnu.org/server/takeaction.en.html

Contrary to the members of Manor farm, we welcome anyone and will not
dismiss your opinion just because you are not a GNU maintainer.  This
list is for anyone interested in discussing anything related to the
GNU project, even disagreements with the GNU project.

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

A code of conduct will not sovle the issue.  Kind communication will,
your message like the previous poster are both unkind.  

I suggest that you in the future send moderation requests to the
administrators of the list, and not here.  That reduces any kind of
friction on this list.

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-22 19:38, Mike Gerwitz wrote:

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 20:48:43 +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 10:26:22AM -0800, Kaz Kylheku 
(gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:

On 2020-02-22 01:22, Andreas Enge wrote:
> And another ad-hominem attack. Can you substantiate the claim of us
> being
> powermongers?

https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct
"Enforcement", "Ban", "Correction", "Warning" 
You are sick.


Could I kindly ask for this person to be put on moderation? I find it
difficult to interpret the last statement as anything but a gratuitous 
insult
(following a message that was not even directed at them). Notice that 
there

is a pattern of overly aggressive messages by Kaz Kylheku.


I think we can handle this without having to resort to blocking a
person's messages.

Kaz, please avoid use of subjective terms like "powermonger" and focus


Everything you see here has passed moderation.

If you don't think I should be able to include quotes of someone
else's text that contains "powermonger", take it up with the moderator.


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


I think that is useful for communication within projects themselves.
I don't think that should be blindly followed in a self-defeating way
by remaining meek when the project is under attack.

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Amin Bandali]

"Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)" <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> writes:

[...]
>
> You are sick.

I urge you to consider the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines [0] when
posting to GNU lists, as well as keeping this list's guidelines [1] in
mind when posting here.  Further, I ask that you seriously reconsider
the tone and approach you have taken participating in discussions on
this list, and how it affects fellow participants/readers of the list.

[0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html
[1]: https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

This is not directed solely at you, but at anyone else also using harsh
tone and/or insulting and treating others unkindly on this list.  Please
*stop*, and rethink your approach to discussing matters, at least as far
as GNU and its community are concerned.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Andreas Enge, 22/02/20 21:48:

If anything, this message shows how much a code of conduct is needed.


Or maybe it shows there's a language barrier. Let's not rush to judge 
non-native English speakers, especially after having admitted that the 
meaning of their message is unclear.


I think their contribution can be rephrased as: what kind of message do 
you think a document focused on matters like "Enforcement", "Ban", 
"Correction", "Warning" gives? Is it the intended message? If not, what 
could be done?


Federico

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

Alex,

Alex Taylor 写道：
The Guile and Guix projects have both excluded and/or vilified 
people

who disagree with the people in power


This would trouble me deeply.  To whom did this happen, and why?

Kind regards,

T G-R


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 20:48:43 +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 10:26:22AM -0800, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) 
> wrote:
>> On 2020-02-22 01:22, Andreas Enge wrote:
>> > And another ad-hominem attack. Can you substantiate the claim of us
>> > being
>> > powermongers?
>> 
>> https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct
>> "Enforcement", "Ban", "Correction", "Warning" 
>> You are sick.
>
> Could I kindly ask for this person to be put on moderation? I find it
> difficult to interpret the last statement as anything but a gratuitous insult
> (following a message that was not even directed at them). Notice that there
> is a pattern of overly aggressive messages by Kaz Kylheku.

I think we can handle this without having to resort to blocking a
person's messages.

Kaz, please avoid use of subjective terms like "powermonger" and focus
on facts that can be debated effectively.  We ask that you also refer to
the kind communication guidelines and avoid insults---they do not add to
constructive discussion and only serve to further inflame existing
tensions.

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

> If anything, this message shows how much a code of conduct is needed.

The very nature of this list, and the topics that have been presented on
it, invite strong emotions and criticisms.  We're not moderating patch
discussions where it's much easier to draw the lines.  While people do
not always choose language that is kind, we should try our best to
handle it through constructive discussion before resorting to harsh
actions.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 07:29:45 +, Alex Taylor wrote:
> Finally "endorsing" the text would give the rebel group a legitimacy which
> they neither have, nor deserve.  It's instructive to look at the track
> record of these renegades.   The Guile and Guix projects have both excluded
> and/or vilified people who disagree with the people in power (the same
> people who push the "social contract").If you choose to endorse this
> text, bear in mind that the words are imprecise so don't be surprised if,
> sometime down the road, your endorsement is used as a weapon against you
> when you fall out of favor with the powermongers.

While it's fine to disagree with a particular strategy for a group of
people, please avoid overly subjective and hyperbolic terms like
"powermonger"---it does not add anything constructive to already
inflamed discussion.  Let's try to stick with stating facts, which can
be concretely debated effectively.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 18:41:48 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> PS: It’s telling that yet another insulting message passed moderation!

Insults deserve condemnation, not censorship.

"Insulting" is highly subjective, and a slippery slope for blocking
messages.

I've personally prevented many dozens of messages from reaching this
list, and I seldom moderate myself.  But not before having made an
attempt to (publicly) stop the behavior.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le samedi 22 février 2020, 22:52:11 CET Jean Louis a écrit :
> * Alex Taylor  [2020-02-22 10:31]:
> > Recently we have been "invited" to approve a thing which is being
> > called the "social contract".   If the text is read, it will be seen
> > that it has three parts.
> > 
> > The first part is the four freedoms established by Stallman many years
> > ago.  No problem there, we all agree with those.  Or do we?  Well I
> > personally do.  But GNU has for many years received contributions from
> > people who do not agree with its philosophy.  Many such contributors
> > are even employed by proprietary software companies.   So if
> > contributors are pressured into "endorsing" these it is likely to
> > discourage some of the very people who have helped us.
> 
> Yet, free software freedoms are not analysed and presented well
> enough, so I think, majority of people would like to police it, if
> they would be aware of it.
> 
> Let me give you example on The freedom to run the program as you wish,
> for any purpose (freedom 0).
> 
> Now imagine the freedom for North Korean leaders to run the GNU
> software to launch nuclear rockets towards Boston, USA. Would you be
> in agreement on it?

Freedom 0 doesn’t apply to States.  The four freedoms, which are about 
licences, are juridical one.  A State decide the law, so a state can do 
anything, be it allowed or not.  So a State doesn’t need it, it doesn’t 
care.  You misinterpret freedom 0 the same way as Samuel used to do.  As a 
generally-social/individual, all-encompassing, one.  While it’s only about 
law and what’s you’re legally allowed to do.

> If you really stand for freedom 0, then you should be in agreement for
> it, it is about integrity.
> 
> Even if rockets would be directed to your own city, one should be in
> agreement with it, that is the value one should stand for.
> 
> I don't think that majority of free software users is really aware
> what that freedom means.

That is the tiring problem of “ethical” licences ><

And they can actually get as legally wrong as to ask stuff to legislators 
or states, as if it changed anything (beside distroying copyleft).

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Jean Louis]

* Alex Taylor  [2020-02-22 10:31]:
> Recently we have been "invited" to approve a thing which is being called
> the "social contract".   If the text is read, it will be seen that it has
> three parts.
> 
> The first part is the four freedoms established by Stallman many years
> ago.  No problem there, we all agree with those.  Or do we?  Well I
> personally do.  But GNU has for many years received contributions from
> people who do not agree with its philosophy.  Many such contributors are
> even employed by proprietary software companies.   So if contributors are
> pressured into "endorsing" these it is likely to discourage some of the
> very people who have helped us.

Yet, free software freedoms are not analysed and presented well
enough, so I think, majority of people would like to police it, if
they would be aware of it.

Let me give you example on The freedom to run the program as you wish,
for any purpose (freedom 0).

Now imagine the freedom for North Korean leaders to run the GNU
software to launch nuclear rockets towards Boston, USA. Would you be
in agreement on it?

If you really stand for freedom 0, then you should be in agreement for
it, it is about integrity.

Even if rockets would be directed to your own city, one should be in
agreement with it, that is the value one should stand for.

I don't think that majority of free software users is really aware
what that freedom means.

Jean

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Andreas Enge]

Hello,

may I also kindly ask for Jean Louis to be put on moderation?

Actually, maybe Kaz Kylheku is right: I am sick... Sick of being gratuitously
insulted on this mailing list by people who happen to not share my opinion,
and sick of having to read follow-ups that basically imply that I deserve it
and should improve myself (supposedly, changing my opinions?) to avoid
further insults:

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:36:36PM +0300, Jean Louis wrote:
> You have published the Code of Conduct and non-authorized edict, and
> public shamings, etc. -- and then somebody is reacting and giving you
> the comment. The comment may not be kind as "you are sick" is not kind
> -- but if I would be in your shoes, I would look what am I really
> doing here -- I would ask myself, if that person is commenting, is
> there anything I should improve myself.
> 
> Analyse who you are and what you are, people will not be calling you
> this way.

Andreas

PS: Whatever moderation decides, from here on I will not reply to messages
by Kaz Kylheku and Jean Louis, which I am likely to filter out. This
should not be interpreted as consent with their behaviour.

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Jean Louis]

* Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> [2020-02-22 23:46]:
> On 2020-02-22 12:31, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> > Andreas Enge, 22/02/20 21:48:
> > > If anything, this message shows how much a code of conduct is needed.
> > 
> > Or maybe it shows there's a language barrier. Let's not rush to judge
> > non-native English speakers, especially after having admitted that the
> > meaning of their message is unclear.
> 
> I'm a native-level English speaker.
> 
> > I think their contribution can be rephrased as: what kind of message
> > do you think a document focused on matters like "Enforcement", "Ban",
> > "Correction", "Warning" gives? Is it the intended message? If not,
> > what could be done?
> 
> No, my contribution cannot be rephrased like that. A better
> approximation of the semantics of my message that the document
> is the product of a mental sickness that underlies authoritarian
> personalities.
> 
> What could be done? Printing it out and burning it, by my estimation.

Human mind is a perfect computer (reference to Dianetics
https://www.dianetics.org/?video=dn_intro), so it makes conclusions
based on the data it has. Example is a poor guy who is found in a
situation without food, and only data that person has is that food can
be stolen, so person steals it from the supermarket or the garden. The
mind depends on the data. It is a computer.

If one puts a lot of social policing data into the mind, like code of
conducts, banning, governing people, coercion of people into what
small group of people wants, various environments and contexts -- that
makes the person do or behave in different manner, but mind is
probably functioning perfectly.

Programmer's mind is functioning probably way better than average
people's mind.

Further, mental sickness does not exist. Reference to Szasz:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz#%22Myth_of_mental_illness%22

"Mental illness" is an expression, a metaphor that describes an
offending, disturbing, shocking, or vexing conduct, action, or pattern
of behavior, such as packaged under the wide-ranging term,
schizophrenia, as an "illness" or "disease". Szasz wrote: "If you talk
to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have
schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you
talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic."[13]:85 He maintained that,
while people behave and think in disturbing ways, and those ways may
resemble a disease process (pain, deterioration, response to various
interventions), this does not mean they actually have a disease. To
Szasz, disease can only mean something people "have", while behavior
is what people "do". Diseases are "malfunctions of the human body, of
the heart, the liver, the kidney, the brain" while "no behavior or
misbehavior is a disease or can be a disease. That's not what diseases
are."

So all I can think of it is that it is not nice to say "you are sick"
-- but I understand that there is something disturbing, shocking,
offending, and that is why one could classify somebody as "sick" in
the meaning of "mentally disturbed." -- yet I don't find it right to
classify people any how.

What we have to do here at hand, is to recognize the true intention of
the group of 5, like is their true intention maybe just to get rid of
the RMS for the sake of dividing the GNU project -- or they really
have the intention to do what they are claiming they want to do.

Myself, I am judging by their promotion of free software philosophy,
which is very poor and by their own upholding of the principles they
want to set for others.

Jean

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-22 12:31, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

Andreas Enge, 22/02/20 21:48:

If anything, this message shows how much a code of conduct is needed.


Or maybe it shows there's a language barrier. Let's not rush to judge
non-native English speakers, especially after having admitted that the
meaning of their message is unclear.


I'm a native-level English speaker.


I think their contribution can be rephrased as: what kind of message
do you think a document focused on matters like "Enforcement", "Ban",
"Correction", "Warning" gives? Is it the intended message? If not,
what could be done?


No, my contribution cannot be rephrased like that. A better
approximation of the semantics of my message that the document
is the product of a mental sickness that underlies authoritarian
personalities.

What could be done? Printing it out and burning it, by my estimation.

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Jean Louis]

* Andreas Enge  [2020-02-22 22:49]:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 10:26:22AM -0800, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) 
> wrote:
> > On 2020-02-22 01:22, Andreas Enge wrote:
> > > And another ad-hominem attack. Can you substantiate the claim of us
> > > being
> > > powermongers?
> > 
> > https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct
> > "Enforcement", "Ban", "Correction", "Warning" 
> > You are sick.
> 
> Could I kindly ask for this person to be put on moderation? I find it
> difficult to interpret the last statement as anything but a gratuitous insult
> (following a message that was not even directed at them). Notice that there
> is a pattern of overly aggressive messages by Kaz Kylheku.

> If anything, this message shows how much a code of conduct is
> needed.

GNU project was and is liberal in the sense that it favored and favors
any contribution to free software and promotion of free software
philosophy, regardless of anything.

You are promoting the idea that GNU project shall adopt a political
theory of advocating an authoritarian hierarchical governance, with
rules and regulations of behavior over people which is very much
opposed to liberal approach.

You have published the Code of Conduct and non-authorized edict, and
public shamings, etc. -- and then somebody is reacting and giving you
the comment. The comment may not be kind as "you are sick" is not kind
-- but if I would be in your shoes, I would look what am I really
doing here -- I would ask myself, if that person is commenting, is
there anything I should improve myself.

Rejecting people, or forgetting people, hiding them, ignoring people
for their comments is lack of communication skills and lack of
understanding.

How about trying to understand what is liberal approach, welcoming
contributions from anybody, as compared to the approach that you 5
people have and trying to impose it on other people?

People do have something to say, and all what you get on the mailing
list is that you yourself endorsed your social edict, and that you are
trying to implement some idea, but your results are poor. You should
consider negative comments, and not just positive comments. You are
not tackling the subject properly, and you do have the not-so-hidden
agenda, and due to your lack of communication, people respond that
way. I wish it could be better, but you are the one to make it right,
as your group is the one who started it in the first place.

Imagine Boy Scouts. Now I was scout, and I was boy, and I still am a
boy in my ages, and I am still scout, only this time sleeping in
bushes with elephants. And imagine Boy Scouts are there, and I come
along, and wish to ask their leaders to join me, and to listen to my
own set of rules, and to change their uniforms to pink or uniforms, as
I think that Boy Scouts are not welcoming enough, I should be picking
of them, mocking them, publishing incorrect statements about them,
publicly shaming them and so on. For heaven's sake, those are children
that learn orientation, camping, skills -- I would be mad, as my
behavior would not be rational.

It would be quite alright for a parent of some of those Boy Scouts to
say "I am sick" -- as that behavior of mine would not fit into already
established group's attitude.

That is exactly what you are trying to do, you are imposing some new
rules and regulations, which were clearly rejected, and then you are
wondering why is somebody calling you sick.

Analyse who you are and what you are, people will not be calling you
this way.

Finally -- why not be friends? You can always create your own
communities, but why are you picking exactly on GNU maintainers, where
it is already obvious that all that you are creating is waste of time
and damages.

Jean

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-22 11:48, Andreas Enge wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 10:26:22AM -0800, Kaz Kylheku 
(gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:

On 2020-02-22 01:22, Andreas Enge wrote:
> And another ad-hominem attack. Can you substantiate the claim of us
> being
> powermongers?

https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct
"Enforcement", "Ban", "Correction", "Warning" 
You are sick.


Could I kindly ask for this person to be put on moderation?


Actually, no you can't; however, you do have the option of asking for
this person to be put on moderation.


I find it
difficult to interpret the last statement as anything but a gratuitous 
insult

(following a message that was not even directed at them).


People should mind their business and not fret about what is not
directed at them.


If anything, this message shows how much a code of conduct is needed.


Why, nothing better shows that a code of conduct is needed than
opposition to the code of conduct!

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Jean Louis]

* Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> [2020-02-22 21:27]:
> On 2020-02-22 01:22, Andreas Enge wrote:
> > And another ad-hominem attack. Can you substantiate the claim of us
> > being
> > powermongers?
> 
> You have a Code of Conduct, the bulk of which is about how people will be
> kicked
> out.
> 
> https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct
> 
> "Enforcement", "Ban", "Correction", "Warning" 
> 
> You are sick.

I would not say so. People learn in life what they learn. They have
copied the code of conduct, without profound analysis of it, they have
copied the "social contract" term without profound analysis, they have
wrote it in such manner to be in future amended as they wish, as now
the "Social Contract" has the version number 1.0 -- it is so obvious
that they will be introducing other postulates into it.

That is not sick, that is intentional division among the number of
people who are contributors to GNU. That is intentional damage to the
image of the GNU and intentional misrepresentation. If GNU loses
donation, they can sue them, but RMS would never do it. I am just
saying hypotheticaly, would they do the same to proprietary software
company, they would be already in deep financial trouble.

But instead of writing so much about other things on their website, I
would like to see writings and philosophical approach from that small
group of people behind the non-GNU website gnu.tools -- there is
nothing much.

There is not even one seminar that I could find by Ludovic Courtès
about free software philosophy, including Andy Wingo or other
contributors.

I have done two seminars on GNU free software system back in time in
Mediothek of Stuttgart, Germany. I was the one who was introducing the
GNU operating system in former Yugoslavian area, back in time around
2002 and promoting it, including that I have made and prepared my own
special GNU/Linux distribution which was first in that area, and
specially prepared for mobile and encrypted communication.

Yet I am not contributor to GNU, and for that reason, people like me
are not welcome in any discussion with them, as Ludovic Courtès is
discriminating people who are contributing to discussion.

They value only the list of GNU maintainers.

The list of bug reports is quite surely not important for them. There
are so many people who are contributing with code to GNU, but they are
the lower cast, which they do not wish to look upon.

They are, like Ludo recently said to Alex "not invited to anything"
because they are not "GNU people". "GNU people" are only GNU
maintainers, provided their names are in their file of "GNU
maintainers".

The file is a collection of information of people for which they did
not get permission to collect it under the EU regulation. They do not
respect the EU charter of fundamental rights, even though they are
located in EU. They do not uphold legal values of their own area, but
wish that other people upkeep with them, to uphold their own values.

Reference:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT

"Article 7

Respect for private and family life

Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family
life, home and communications."

Thus collection of GNU maintainers from GNU mailing lists represents
violation of private life and communications.

They are not up to it. It does not matter.

Reference to GDPR:
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-5-gdpr/

Personal data shall be: collected for specified, explicit and
legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is
incompatible with those purposes; further processing for archiving
purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research
purposes or statistical purposes shall, in accordance with Article
89(1), not be considered to be incompatible with the initial purposes
(‘purpose limitation’);

Collecting GNU maintainers' personal information, first name, last
name, email address, for the purpose to divide them, for the purpose
to tell them how GNU project is bad (reference:
https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ or
"Joint Statement on GNU project") -- is violation of the GDPR and
privacy. It is incompatible with those purposes.

Who is controller of the personal data collected? Can gnu.tools,
Ludovic Courtès, Andy Wingo, Carlos O'Donell, Mark Wielaard and Andy
Enge tell us more and give transparency about controlling personal
data of GNU maintainers? There is no GDPR notice on the website,
neither privacy policy that I could find it.

The "Code of Conduct" on their website:
https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct says: that "Examples of
unacceptable behavior include: Publishing others' private information,
such as a physical or email address, without their explicit
permission" -- but their own illegal collection of personal
information of GNU maintainers is alright for them. I see there a lot
of hypocrisy. Who is to trust them?

They do not have legitimate interest to 

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Jean Louis]

* Ludovic Courtès  [2020-02-22 20:42]:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> Alex Taylor  skribis:
> 
> > Recently we have been "invited" to approve a thing which is being called
> > the "social contract".
> 
> I don’t think you have been invited to anything since you’re not in the
> ‘maintainers’ file.
> 
> I’m fine with you expressing your opinion, but please keep in mind that
> it’s a discussion to be had first and foremost among GNU stakeholders.
> 
> It’s unfortunate that we’ve seen people not involved in GNU be much more
> vocal than GNU hackers on this list.  It’s not been helping.

This below is just hypothetical writing, don't mind to me, I am just
writing to point out to some facts or directions.

There it comes the exclusion and unwelcoming, discrimination among
people participating in discussion based on their status.

You have been proposing and proposing the "GNU" Social Contract,
despite it was rejected by GNU, you are still using the word "GNU",
and despite many people objected, you have not published objections on
your site, yet, by the way, you have been proposing following:

"The GNU Project collaborates with the broader free software
community" -- now in the spirit of collaboration with the "broader
free software community" you are telling Alex, that you don't think
"he has been invited to anything".

Then in the spirit of your proposal as written on the non-GNU and
non-GNU authorized and rejected website:
https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract

"The GNU Project welcomes contributions from all and everyone

The GNU Project commits to providing a harassment-free experience for
all contributors. It wants to give everyone the opportunity of
contributing to its efforts on any of the many tasks that require
work. It welcomes all contributors, regardless of their gender,
ethnicity, sexual orientation, level of experience, or any other
personal characteristics. "

That is so much contradictory to your own rejections and unwelcoming
statements here below:

> I don’t think you have been invited to anything since you’re not in the
> ‘maintainers’ file.
> 
> I’m fine with you expressing your opinion, but please keep in mind that
> it’s a discussion to be had first and foremost among GNU stakeholders.
> 
> It’s unfortunate that we’ve seen people not involved in GNU be much more
> vocal than GNU hackers on this list.  It’s not been helping.

And in general, it is you who is, by GNU project, very welcome, and
good technical contributor, and who despite all the public shamings
and misrepresentation of the GNU project have not been rejected as
contributor to GNU, and I think there was not even one bad word by RMS
against you.

I am sure that RMS would never say "you are not invited to anything",
in fact he respects you and likes your project, and that is what RMS
wrote me recently, and appreciates all your efforts. The official RMS
stance on Social Contract is well known, that it is rejected, that
remains. Yet your Guix and all your efforts are appreciated as
contributor to GNU project, and myself I am also loving Guix, and Lisp
and Scheme. But keep in mind, RMS is kind person and takes care not to
raise tensions or emotions which are not necessary. I would have a lot
to learn from RMS about that.

But RMS did not say you should not discuss here, obviously GNU project
is ignoring your efforts to split "GNU", as you cannot split it
technically without permission, but you can open up your own free
operating system, which you already have -- so I do not see any
technical problem for you to create your own community and get people
to join your own efforts, ideas, goals and purposes.

One thing that I do not endorse is that you are explicitly targeting
the GNU project to gain some kind of "endorsement" and you are trying
to change "governance" but all you created is division, damage to
public image of the GNU, and damage of public image to GNU Guix, and
you personally as engineer.

> I’m fine with you expressing your opinion, but please keep in mind that
> it’s a discussion to be had first and foremost among GNU stakeholders.
> 
> It’s unfortunate that we’ve seen people not involved in GNU be much more
> vocal than GNU hackers on this list.  It’s not been helping.

That is high attitude, this type of pretentious statements I have seen
back in time from people who were not hackers, rather crackers, from
the time period of cracking those games, who could crack it, was a
hacker, even if they only use peek and poke in the memory by random,
without knowing anything, or script kiddies, who were regarded as
"hackers".

If you really wish to draw people to any kind of your own purpose, you
should first and foremost try to demonstrate it yourself. Thus you
should first have to stick to welcome everybody, if you say so.

"People not involved in GNU" -- is really to discriminate this way. Is
that welcoming attitude as written in the non-GNU Social Edict so
called Social Contract that it welcomes all contributors, regardless
of their 

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Andreas Enge]

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 10:26:22AM -0800, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
> On 2020-02-22 01:22, Andreas Enge wrote:
> > And another ad-hominem attack. Can you substantiate the claim of us
> > being
> > powermongers?
> 
> https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct
> "Enforcement", "Ban", "Correction", "Warning" 
> You are sick.

Could I kindly ask for this person to be put on moderation? I find it
difficult to interpret the last statement as anything but a gratuitous insult
(following a message that was not even directed at them). Notice that there
is a pattern of overly aggressive messages by Kaz Kylheku.

If anything, this message shows how much a code of conduct is needed.

Thanks a lot,

Andreas

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Andreas R.]

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 06:41:48PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

> I’m fine with you expressing your opinion, but please keep in mind that
> it’s a discussion to be had first and foremost among GNU stakeholders.

Surely, "first and foremost" it should be a discussion to be had by the
existing leadership?

It would also be nice if you could use "GNU maintainers" when you mean
"GNU maintainers", since it is not possible for you to know who has and
who hasn't got a "stake" in GNU before you confine "GNU stakeholders" to
any particular group in the context of a statement.

> It’s unfortunate that we’ve seen people not involved in GNU be much more
> vocal than GNU hackers on this list.  

Whereas most GNU maintainers are probably GNU hackers, not all GNU hackers
are GNU maintainers.

> It’s not been helping.

Helping with what? Like your earlier "enough is enough", imprecise statements
and slogans get in the way of clarity and understanding.

> PS: It’s telling that yet another insulting message passed moderation!

Passive-agressive is also agressive, and not helpful in problem solving. 
If you have a problem with a particular person or group, please be calm
and clear.

thanks,
Andreas R.

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-22 01:22, Andreas Enge wrote:
And another ad-hominem attack. Can you substantiate the claim of us 
being

powermongers?


You have a Code of Conduct, the bulk of which is about how people will 
be kicked

out.

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

"Enforcement", "Ban", "Correction", "Warning" 

You are sick.

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le samedi 22 février 2020, 18:41:48 CET Ludovic Courtès a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
> 
> Alex Taylor  skribis:
> > Recently we have been "invited" to approve a thing which is being
> > called the "social contract".
> 
> I don’t think you have been invited to anything since you’re not in the
> ‘maintainers’ file.
> 
> I’m fine with you expressing your opinion, but please keep in mind that
> it’s a discussion to be had first and foremost among GNU stakeholders.
> 
> It’s unfortunate that we’ve seen people not involved in GNU be much more
> vocal than GNU hackers on this list.  It’s not been helping.

As far as I heard from the beginning, you all were invited to have these 
discussions on private GNU lists, but refused and it’s you who wanted to 
do that on a public mailing-list…

> PS: It’s telling that yet another insulting message passed moderation!

Wait it was criticizing but where were the insults?

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Alex,

Alex Taylor  skribis:

> Recently we have been "invited" to approve a thing which is being called
> the "social contract".

I don’t think you have been invited to anything since you’re not in the
‘maintainers’ file.

I’m fine with you expressing your opinion, but please keep in mind that
it’s a discussion to be had first and foremost among GNU stakeholders.

It’s unfortunate that we’ve seen people not involved in GNU be much more
vocal than GNU hackers on this list.  It’s not been helping.

> Finally "endorsing" the text would give the rebel group a legitimacy which
> they neither have, nor deserve.  It's instructive to look at the track
> record of these renegades.   The Guile and Guix projects have both excluded
> and/or vilified people who disagree with the people in power (the same
> people who push the "social contract").

Interesting; I’ve been a co-maintainer of Guile and Guix for some years
and I haven’t seen you there.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

PS: It’s telling that yet another insulting message passed moderation!

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Andreas Enge]

Hello,

I usually refrain from answering to messages on this mailing list that
in my eyes disqualify themselves as nonsense; but maybe sometimes one needs
to do so, as I wonder if they do not end up influencing people.

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 07:29:45AM +, Alex Taylor wrote:
> The first part is the four freedoms established by Stallman many years ago.  
> No
> problem there, we all agree with those.
> The second part talks about basic cooperation on technical and practical
> matters within GNU.  That seems sensible too.
> Finally the text has a non-discrimination clause.  Surely nobody could be
> against that either?   Well personally I'm not.
> (...) I also think if they want to support anti-apartheid,  the suffragette
> movement, pro-choice movement, animal rights, plant breeders' rights, nuclear
> disarmament, pro life movement or whatever other movement ...   then that's
> great too.   But  I will not insist upon it nor imply that non-support is
> somehow morally deficient.

Okay, so you seem to be more or less in agreement with the content of the
Social Contract, with a few reservations on the non-discrimination clause.
Fine. So in case you are a GNU maintainer, I would say you should endorse
the document!
 
> Finally "endorsing" the text would give the rebel group a legitimacy which 
> they
> neither have, nor deserve.

But then your only argument for not endorsing it, and inciting others to not
endorse it are ad-hominem attacks towards the authors, by gratuitously
qualifying them as "rebels"? (Hm, is that an insult or a compliment? That
generally depends on your position towards the topic at hand...)

> It's instructive to look at the track record of
> these renegades.   The Guile and Guix projects have both excluded and/or
> vilified people who disagree with the people in power (the same people who 
> push
> the "social contract").

Can you substantiate these claims? I have been part of the Guix community
since almost its beginnings, and do not think there has been any such
incidence.

> If you choose to endorse this text, bear in mind
> that the words are imprecise so don't be surprised if, sometime down the road,
> your endorsement is used as a weapon against you when you fall out of favor
> with the powermongers.

And another ad-hominem attack. Can you substantiate the claim of us being
powermongers?

Andreas