From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tirifto Subject: Thoughts on the Joint statement on the GNU Project Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 21:40:59 +0200 Message-ID: <20191013214059.47500d2b@posteo.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35535) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iJjio-0008Cs-Vg for help-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 15:40:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iJjim-0008RK-Dr for help-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 15:40:06 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:43194) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iJjim-0008LO-2C for help-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 15:40:04 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9416160060 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 21:39:59 +0200 (CEST) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Help-Guix" To: help-guix@gnu.org, gnu-system-discuss@gnu.org Hello all! A week ago, =E2=80=98Joint statement on the GNU Project=E2=80=99 [0] was pu= blished and raised some controversy within the GNU community. I'd like to share some thoughts on that, because I think the presentation of the statement could be improved to forego many bad impressions. Myself, I've been a GNU user for a few years, and have only had a few minor contributions or involvement in general, but I try to follow the development around GNU and Guix, and hope my comments below will be of some use. (I spend several paragraphs establishing context you may already have; please bear with me!) Initial reaction ---------------- When I first read the joint statement, I felt great disappointment towards all the undersigned GNU maintainers, and towards Guix, for proudly presenting it on its blog. That hurt, because GNU and Guix had been my favourite projects that I strongly agreed with on a philosophi- cal level, and felt very excited about. This concord diminished when I read the statement I strongly disagreed with, and I suddenly felt like maybe I couldn't feel comfortable in this project after all. By chance, I had been subscribed to the blog of Andy Wingo, who posted [1] about his reasons for signing the statement one day later. While my personal views on the matter still differ, the post made me consider that the statement may have reasonable motives behind it; it gave me new context to look at the statement in; it patched the abhorrent image the statement had made for itself. And here's the problem I see with the original context=E2=80=A6 The role of Richard Stallman ---------------------------- Richard Stallman is a prominent figure when it comes to libre software. He founded the FSF & the GNU project; he wrote the GPL, and he wrote some important code. At some point, he was undeniably a central figure and a vital part of the movement. Some say he no longer is, pointing out the lack of recent contributions and participations. But there is one thing Richard Stallman does actively tend to: the spirit. Richard Stallman talks about the principles and the importance of libre software. Not only that; he lives by those principles. I see other people organise and write software, but I see Stallman constantly repeating the same fundamental idea of libre software, reminding us why it's important, and submitting his whole lifestyle to it. One could say that Richard Stallman placed the foundation, and then stayed behind as people built on and around it. But he stayed behind to watch over the foundation he had placed. In my eyes (and I guess in eyes of many others), that keeps him as a prominent central figure, because the spiritual foundation still forms the vital core of the movement, and he has stayed by it as its faithful guardian. I'm not saying this is what should ultimately make a GNU leader=E2=80=94tha= t's up to GNU to decide, as Andy Wingo states. But I wanted to explain why the public sees him as a central figure and why that's a valid point of view. The outrage against Richard Stallman ------------------------------------ Over the years, many remarks and expressed opinions of Richard Stallman have been met with controversy. Some of his behaviour has been criticised as well. Some critics have ripped his words out of context or exaggerated his opinion to fit their narrative; others took a problem with his actual statements, while yet others have defended them. Well, when one is regarded as the leader of a movement, it's appropriate for the movement to place their statements under scrutiny. A month back or so, Selam Gano wrote a post [2] heavily criticising Richard Stallman's e-mail from a mailing list at MIT, where he in turn criticised the term =E2=80=98sexual assault=E2=80=99. The post has seen cov= erage from various media outlets, some of which have joined the original post on the heavy criticism. Unfortunately, both Selam Gano and the media outlets have twisted Richard Stallman's words into statements he did not actually make. Those malformed reports have sparked an outrage against Richard Stallman, with calls on him to resign [3], which he eventually did [4]. Whether or not this outcome was good or bad, the process leading to it was extremely destructive. For this same outcome, an ideal process would have been a civil complaint about Richard Stallman's behaviour, with him coming to agree and resign. Perhaps that wasn't a viable option. But what happened instead was people rallying under a banner of slander to bring Richard Stallman down, disregarding the unrest this would inevitably bring to the libre software movement. There were better points brought forth in the rally; criticisms of Richard Stallman which are provably based in truth, and those which are not provably fabricated. But they were not placed at the forefront and carefully elaborated; instead, the rally was spearheaded by malformed accusations, which cast a bad shadow on everyone who followed behind. Those to stand against the impact of smear-faced avalanche would easily clash with the more decent ideas that followed in the same trajectory. I'm trying to say that the way this went set the stage for internal conflict; those who had reasonable demands for Richard Stallman to step down were not given the spotlight to leave a decent impression, and those who tried to counteract may have felt betrayed by the former. I know the whole thing did not sit well with me, at least. To make things worse, Richard Stallman announced that he was still the head of the GNU project; shortly on that, someone vandalised his website to announce his resignation from the GNU project, too. When that got fixed and he reaffirmed his position, I felt relieved, and I reckon others did, too. I did not ponder the meaning and justification of his position at the time; I was initially shocked to what extent the smear campaign would reach when I read about his fake resignation, and I was relieved to see that it didn't actually manage to oust him from GNU, too. After all, that had been his position for decades, and this would have been a terrible way to lose it. And then, I read the Guix blog=E2=80=A6 Finally, the message of the statement ------------------------------------- The blog post says what some GNU maintainers think, namely that Richard Stallman is alienating a large part of computer users and that he cannot represent all of GNU. That's all. There's no context given. It doesn't say why they think so or what they want to happen. So what should we make of it? Having just witnessed an outrage against Richard Stallman for the past two weeks, with SFC denouncing him, him stepping down as the president of the FSF and someone apparently wanting him to step down from GNU as well, all based on the premise of his bad behaviour; what was my first thought when I read a joint statement that Richard Stallman's behaviour is problematic and that he cannot represent all of GNU? The answer is a continuation of the campaign against Richard Stallman. I don't think that's necessarily the case now; the statement doesn't endorse that campaign. It doesn't distance itself, either; the whole problem with the statement is that it raises question and provides no answers, instead letting us to make our own with whatever clues we've got. It just so happens that the biggest clue is the rally that's been going on just prior to the statement being posted. Anyone keeping track can easily draw a connection between the two, because the statement makes no effort to prevent this. The statement claims that Stallman has been alienating a large part of the target audience. It doesn't say how; it leaves us to go on whatever we can find. And with the most recent incident in fresh memory and all over the interent, should we figure that all the undersigned support the slander against Richard Stallman? Or is it his alleged inappropri- ate behaviour? Or actual things we can verify he's said and done? All of those exist and the distinction is important; how should I feel about your statement when I can't possibly tell what it supports? There's a link to The GNU Manifesto on the basis that GNU should empower all computer users, but the vision presented in the document is already fulfilled with the four freedoms. Everyone feeling welcome in the project is laudable, but the linked section doesn't talk about that, and what it talks about isn't something Richard Stallman has violated. (And if it actually is, the statement doesn't tell us how.) Why even have the link if its relevance is vague at best? Finally it says that Richard Stallman can't speak for all of GNU and that it's time to make decisions collectively. Again, why not? It could mean that Stallman specially is problematic and someone else would be acceptable. Or it could mean that any one individual wouldn't do. (And I would agree that one single person will never please everyone.) Collective decision-making sounds pretty nice, but I don't know how to interpret it and if it's an important motive behind the statement at all, since it's only ever mentioned in one vague line. In summary, it's unclear why the statement is being made, why it's being made now, and what it hopes to achieve. These questions feel very important to me and the lack of answers makes me feel very uncertain about the community (at least the part which makes the statement). I should also add that the Guix blog may not have been a good place to post the statement. It puts Guix into a rather special position in regard to the statement, and I have seen people in the community feel uncomfortable about the project they like and try to participate in hosting a message they feel strongly opposed to. It also hinders discussion, with Guix being kind of a one-way channel; one one hand it relays the statement, but on another the statement isn't really Guix-related, so Guix isn't the best place to discuss it. Suggestions for improvement --------------------------- Dear signers, I think it would help tremendously if you clarified your statement. One way you can do this is find more common ideas you agree on and incorporating them into the statement. For instance, you could detail the behaviour of Richard Stallman you all agree to be alienating. Or expand on what changes you hope to see and how they can positively impact the GNU project. Another way, which can work better if your views on something differ, is to describe your motivations in a personal post and link to it in the statement. There's a numbered list of names, so each name could be followed with a link, or at least names of those who authored such a post. This would leave us, who hope to learn what exactly is going on here, with an easy way to do so, rather than hanging. Next, the maintainers of Guix could designate a place of discussion. People currently seem to default to the Guix mailing lists, which is the price that comes with publishing the statement on the Guix blog. (While I don't think you're obliged to provide the public with a place of discussion, I do think it's something the public would appreciate.) Finally, more clarity always helps. Implications don't make you guilty, but they do make you suspect, which does not help GNU, and should be prevented, if preventable. If the statement has no inherent relation to Guix, preferably make that clear with a note. If it doesn't stem from recent desinformation, preferably word the statement to remove doubt. I don't like the prefixing of texts with preemptive excuses and disclaimers, but sometimes caution helps, and now it would, I think. These are just my personal thoughts and comments; I can't speak for other people or demand changes in your speech, nor do I want to do either. However, I have seen conflict arise in the GNU community, and sincerely hope it can be resolved. To that end, I present to you the above suggestions, in hope that they also cover the concerns of other people and that you will find them useful in making GNU flourish. Best of wishes // Tirifto P.S.: I'm posting this to both help-guix and gnu-system-discuss. Sorry if either place is inappropriate, but they're the best I came up with. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0. http://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ 1. https://wingolog.org/archives/2019/10/08/thoughts-on-rms-and-gnu 2. https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794 3. https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-speak-for-us/ 4. https://www.fsf.org/news/richard-m-stallman-resigns