Re: Joint statement on the GNU Project

[Ruben Safir]

On 10/11/19 2:41 PM, Taylan Kammer wrote:
> On 07.10.2019 16:32, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Hello Guix!
>>
>> We, a group of GNU maintainers sharing a vision for a stronger GNU
>> Project, are publishing this statement today:
>>
>>    https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/
>>
>> We are somewhat abusing the Guix blog here, for lack of a better
>> place, but OTOH the future of GNU is obviously relevant to Guix.
>> (Ricardo and I started this initiative before Tobias, Maxim, and
>> Marius were on-board.)
>>
>> This mailing list is maybe not the best place to discuss this in
>> detail but your local GNU maintainers will surely be happy to answer
>> any questions you may have.  :-)
>>
>> Ludo’.
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Some drama about this leaked out of my mailing list-specific sub-folders
> (which I only skim occasionally) into my main INBOX, so of course I had
> to jump straight into it even though I'm barely around these days. ;-)
> 
> 
> Jokes aside, I wanted to ask:
> 
> Hasn't RMS already officially stepped down?  What position does he hold
> within today's GNU project other than being a wise old person (wise with
> respect to his topics of expertise) who is respected a lot?
> 
> From what I can tell, the GNU project is a collection of very loosely
> coupled sub-projects and the maintainers and contributors collectively
> hold a lot more power than any single person.  So in a way I guess I
> don't really see what the statement is trying to accomplish, although I
> agree with the sentiment of it.  What is the desired effect and end
> result of publishing the statement?
> 
> I'm not asking rhetorically, I think it would help the discussion a lot
> to clarify concrete goals instead of just signaling a sentiment.
> 
> 
> A second question:
> 
> Assuming the talk about RMS's behavior includes his voicing of certain
> unpopular opinions, rather than just behavior that directly targets a
> person (like undesired advances), are we going to have a discussion
> about which opinions are considered "taboo" within the GNU project?
> 
> That is, opinions which shall not be expressed while working with other
> GNU contributors, or not expressed publicly at all by high ranking
> representatives such as maintainers of important (or any) packages?
> 
> (I'm not referring to any particular opinions voiced by RMS.  I'm asking
> generally.)
> 
> I wouldn't be *categorically* opposed to such limitations.  For instance
> I would welcome a rule that officially bans sympathizing with neo-Nazis.
>  However, I frequently see people go overboard with what they consider
> to be "hateful" ideas that ought to be taboo and banned from communities.
> 
> I've been banned from some places myself, and decided to quit some other
> places after receiving hostility.  I've seen some of the very people who
> support the banning others for being "hateful" against minorities defend
> or even openly celebrate threats or real acts of physical harm and
> vandalism against other political minorities.
> 
> (My hiatus from contributing to free software has, I would say, about
> 10% to do with sensing such vibes from some community members who see
> themselves as socially progressive, though it's 90% about things related
> to me and not the community.  Still, if I find time to come back, I'd
> like to know how much self-censorship I have to apply and how much I
> have to tolerate opinions which I in turn find offensive.)
> 
> 
> Personal suggestions re. second question follow; feel free to stop
> reading here if you don't want to get into more and more off-topic
> territory.
> 
> 
> My personal suggestion would be to keep a very small list of explicit
> limitations, probably just the support or apologia of neo-Nazism and
> child sexual exploitation.  Voicing such opinions on any channel of the
> GNU project would be a reason to terminate someone's access to the
> channel.  Voicing them on any public channel would disqualify someone
> from maintainer and similar positions, and perhaps allow other members
> to raise a complaint against their involvement as a contributor too.
> 
> I think it's important to have such an explicitly and clearly laid out
> set of rules on what world-views get to be silenced, as otherwise you
> get repeated arguments about free speech.
> 
> All other political conflicts should IMO be decided on a case by case
> basis with the goal of reaching mutual compromise within the confines of
> the communication channels of the GNU project.  That is, 1. no favorites
> on who gets to silence who and 2. the silencing shall be limited to the
> project's communication channels.  For example let's take homosexuality
> and religion.  A gay community member could request another member to
> refrain from expressing religious views critical of homosexuality within
> the project's communication channels, as it offends her or him.  On the
> flip side, a religious person could request another member to refrain
> from expressing political views in support of normalizing homosexuality
> within society, because that in turn offends them.  Outside channels of
> communication of the project, both could express their opinions.  This
> freedom would apply even to maintainers.  This means that one might have
> to put up with the fact that the maintainer of a project privately holds
> opinions which one finds offensive.  The maintainer could voice those
> opinions on other public platforms, but not the communication channels
> of the GNU project where another member might object.  (Basically same
> rules for maintainers and contributors.)
> 
> I think it's important to keep the rules rather slim and neutral like
> this, as otherwise people get too censorship-happy and you fall into the
> problem of "who gets to decide what's offensive."
> 
> 
> Remarks to clarify my general thoughts on these issues and where I'm
> coming from:
> 
> When "getting offended" becomes a socially accepted reason to silence
> others, it's a no-brainer that those who hold unjust social power and
> want to keep it would also start using the "getting offended" card to
> silence their opposition.  As such, "political correctness" cannot help
> political minorities in the long run; it will inevitably lead to more
> and more political opinions of minorities being labeled "politically
> incorrect," as those in positions of unjust power learn to use the
> language of the oppressed.  (I personally believe that this is already
> happening on a large scale.)
> 

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.