From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Taylan Kammer Subject: Re: Joint statement on the GNU Project Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 20:41:10 +0200 Message-ID: <8eaaa9a2-a5ff-b64a-48bf-954150fecc63@gmail.com> References: <87ftk4hbhu.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87ftk4hbhu.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gnu-system-discuss-bounces+gcgs-gnu-system-discuss=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "gnu-system-discuss" To: guix-devel@gnu.org, gnu-system-discuss@gnu.org, ludo@gnu.org List-Id: guix-devel.gnu.org 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.) Further, the situation is never black and white. Someone who belongs to one oppressed group may in turn be a member of a group oppressing yet another. (Typical examples in US politics: misogynist black men and racist white women.) When all groups expect total political purity from all their members, you inevitably get a splintering into a thousand tiny communities fighting each other. “The left is very cannibalistic. It eats its own.” “In the quest for inclusiveness, the left is willing to discard a certain kind of complex truth. I think there’s a quickness to assign ill intent.” -- Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie I think principles of respectful open dialogue on an even playing field, with a few exceptions for extreme exceptions like I've mentioned, offer a better basis for social improvement than communities with dozens of rules attempting to make every single member feel validated in their personal world-view. A community focused on a certain political topic can of course create its own rules, like for instance a women's rights group setting much more stringent rules on accepted speech in the group's channels, to prevent the wasting of time with anti-feminist trolls. The GNU project's goal is to further software freedom, by developing free software. As such, any limitations regarding accepted speech in its channels should IMO be limited to that topic. I.e. ban propaganda for proprietary software, and keep it at that. Any other limitations should only have the goal of ensuring a non-hostile working environment for all members, regardless of political opinions in *any* direction, otherwise you eventually end up in a "some are more equal than others" situation. End wall of text. Hope I'm making sense to you all. I had to think a lot about political correctness and freedom of speech recently, hence this lengthy reply to this topic. - Taylan