From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id sOl/ExhIi2AhZAEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 01:58:16 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id KK73DhhIi2DZeQAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 23:58:16 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE7F91628F for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 01:58:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:33374 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcGXv-0005Ne-4k for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 19:58:15 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50240) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcGJs-0007O0-TB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 19:43:44 -0400 Received: from mail.zaclys.net ([178.33.93.72]:55017) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcGJp-00053R-5Q for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 19:43:44 -0400 Received: from webmail.zaclys.net (webmail.zaclys.net [5.196.58.138]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.zaclys.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 13TNhbQV015160 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 01:43:37 +0200 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.zaclys.net 13TNhbQV015160 Authentication-Results: mail.zaclys.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lle-bout@zaclys.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zaclys.net; s=default; t=1619739817; bh=zU7kAl6K2iKX/Og67cXngWKmeRlS90Djfnua+tPSuEM=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=WZbLKv7eejF2sqiu+MiWJesX7jgA7PxoWlAMx0/7+ig1aI1FbOGEdimsA8pYoHC8U Cw2/UlO/2mz/B36a53J6WiIE70KUPywoA+goXKaTsKTCpIdnYR3Sw30lV5um519XeY SQi19XoTAXcPaTBRMSuWoionUCNgt2pBw73WI0ko= MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 01:43:37 +0200 From: Leo Le Bouter To: guix-devel@gnu.org Subject: Leaving the GNU Guix community User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.2 Message-ID: <888c71d21bbbc8dc7e8b4d5396694c83@zaclys.net> X-Sender: lle-bout@zaclys.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_25a3c09c43b7f69eba5c8109855b0d17" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=178.33.93.72; envelope-from=lle-bout@zaclys.net; helo=mail.zaclys.net X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1619740696; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=zU7kAl6K2iKX/Og67cXngWKmeRlS90Djfnua+tPSuEM=; b=lHqyyWj58nVkGFEmlD1XRISjmOdpTLYrk8DG/y3nb+teP+xAh7nPAkV9dXQK3CvdOdXOf9 6YJH5Sk8PxV4Q/uXofYGBTQvBknG6Ol1moUXZVZkMBbzpgYRqQRO/Xtj6/znT1NWwhYde9 J9aaZ7JI9ZWsgY94+b0JqKCB0tElxf7tdZBPZWpfQVQ4VebracLtfAG1PmCXabSpGahHQ7 NCWo1CqUC/BqFt9OIq7emvdy27MDMBPpCo7vOn4c3gPMRpfOfhfxe9e6JIO/Zc0A6sUb6T cIbqpglNx2azLFtohXrSG4wqbAWcmFS7HX013QBOAnJkRZHC0LQsodtA9DoJwQ== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1619740696; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=In+MMpjfVF7FFrDsFw7+uBdLAkNY7rmBTHW97xC/TUfK7ANJHpHyvX2R7DpN/ZligBlOHY 45yRvOIwzH1iSNBNPblX8o+i5swSrVjphPkzDVsu14OgxUbAuVX2c520Oqid7E6JQMlLCN ja5Gg9t45gJcjDhLWQX4/whCe9yyO54hXpJbcMnMYAHH6ChZ4Pp//OLY6OvOBf0QPhpHr2 vLv3Fam1erCtXBS7tOrsmr4YlVdi3p7e7qfdzs68o6WUcGPxOifUHCk+Hkm6hHfAA8dWI4 Nsq6bEIt5OwSwsfbHy6TZm8WgM0G8EXVPO4Rdh0C2/BVlx1UgIlG32I0+GJnIg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=zaclys.net header.s=default header.b=WZbLKv7e; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=zaclys.net; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -3.16 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=zaclys.net header.s=default header.b=WZbLKv7e; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=zaclys.net; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: EE7F91628F X-Spam-Score: -3.16 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: jHj+7GcfsE4E --=_25a3c09c43b7f69eba5c8109855b0d17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Hello! I feel like what has happened is really a disaster, I don't feel like contributing to GNU Guix anymore in the future. I think that the GNU Guix maintainers justify unacceptable behavior and have acted upon things without understanding them, not understanding why incidents have happened, and at the same time that I don't feel that I can explain, and that many people have spread misinformation that other believed also. I don't feel like there's any way forward to this, we really do not understand each other, I don't know how to communicate the culture in some feminist/queer squats in France around Paris where I live, where we really feel together on the same page when it comes to these questions and where also we exclude people who don't understand these goals, in which I feel so good and where really every confrontation is avoided and has many values that building an inclusive community like GNU Guix wants to be. I think that the technicality of software development must be redefined so that the hierarchy between the experienced and the beginner disappears, I think that to cast as a beginner or an experienced is an attitude, many people who are experienced cast themselves as beginners for various reasons and that some other people cast themselves as experienced for various other reasons. I think the difference between the beginner and the experienced is a construction, I think that such must be worked on so that every individual contributor can feel independent and empowered and also not have to define themselves towards the experienced. I think that the technicality of software development implies a special kind of relationship with knowledge and experience, I think that also must be re-invented, and in other social environments like the feminist/queer squats I live in knowledge and experience is a really sensitive topic and people who have knowledge and experience are not always welcome to say what they know or what they think unsolicited and if they are solicited, there's also a way to say that to never imply a domination of student-professor, that to accept that someone does not want to hear about supposed knowledge and experience, and also needs and wants to feel proud and independent about what they are doing without the help of people with said knowledge or experience. I think that in a sense, everyone must become a beginner. I think it approaches a very fundemental topic of software development especially in Free Software communities that is to among others end meritocracy. I think that the world of Free Software and Open Source is tainted by that meritocratic spirit and that if we want to bootstrap inclusive communities we must embrace that underrepresented people also are of very varrying skill levels and that we must empower and include everyone no matter their skill level, and that this notion even of skill level disappears and that all people of varrying skill levels are also not interested in feeling submitted to a pre-existing group of people with knowledge or experience. That we must find other ways, tools, to organize tolerance for mistakes, collectively, that errors become not problematic at all, or that the possibility for error is removed, to create systems that detect errors and only accept non-errorneous input, so that as long as the contribution is a valid input from anyone, it is a valid contribution, that there's no room for doubting, for having failed to, for being responsible, for being accountable, for being blamed, if the tool fails to detect errors then we are collectively responsible for improving the tool, not individually responsible for triggering a validation bug. The tool also must be friendly with the way it rejects input, it must be helpful, it must provide guidance, it must not leave anyone no matter who they are, no matter what they know, in a situation where they have no idea what to do to create a valid contribution. I think that inclusive tools remove the possibility for error. I think that good UI/UX is when you can't go wrong, and that if you do, it's easy to undo what you just done, always. I think that GNU Guix is many situations many things can go wrong and I think that's not inclusive, it pushes off many people because it induces important amounts of stress to realize things can be wrong and especially when you can't undo them. I think that somehow the tolerance for mistakes or errors from anyone must be absolute, so that it is never an issue they happen. I think that for example with the design of the web where HTML parsers are tolerant to errors, that with JavaScript there's nothing that can possibly go wrong with code you write, ideally nothing can possibly be a security issue (not the case with JavaScript on the web but I think that if we were given a chance to give another go we could fix it), I think that such error-tolerant design is one of the reasons that there's also so many JavaScript developers of very diverse skill levels, that to me it feels very inclusive. I think that there's ideas to take from there. I think also when we talk about practical software freedom, that we still have systems that can only be controlled by programmers, that the majority of people on earth are still bound to use tools they cannot control themselves. I think that to reach true practical software freedom everyone must be a "programmer", that controlling your system fully becomes so intuitive, so accessible, so inclusive also, because I think those topics are inevitably linked, that the need for "expert programmers" disappears. I think that software design is strongly entangled with the need for expertise and I think that for computing in general to become ethical as a whole the difference between a user and a developer, the words even, must disappear, become out of use, stop making sense. Léo --=_25a3c09c43b7f69eba5c8109855b0d17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

Hello!

I feel like what has happened is really a disaster, I don't feel like co= ntributing to GNU Guix anymore in the future. I think that the GNU Guix mai= ntainers justify unacceptable behavior and have acted upon things without u= nderstanding them, not understanding why incidents have happened, and at th= e same time that I don't feel that I can explain, and that many people have= spread misinformation that other believed also.

I don't feel like there's any way forward to this, we really do not unde= rstand each other, I don't know how to communicate the culture in some femi= nist/queer squats in France around Paris where I live, where we really feel= together on the same page when it comes to these questions and where also = we exclude people who don't understand these goals, in which I feel so good= and where really every confrontation is avoided and has many values that b= uilding an inclusive community like GNU Guix wants to be.

I think that the technicality of software development must be redefined = so that the hierarchy between the experienced and the beginner disappears, = I think that to cast as a beginner or an experienced is an attitude, many p= eople who are experienced cast themselves as beginners for various reasons = and that some other people cast themselves as experienced for various other= reasons. I think the difference between the beginner and the experienced i= s a construction, I think that such must be worked on so that every individ= ual contributor can feel independent and empowered and also not have to def= ine themselves towards the experienced. I think that the technicality of so= ftware development implies a special kind of relationship with knowledge an= d experience, I think that also must be re-invented, and in other social en= vironments like the feminist/queer squats I live in knowledge and experienc= e is a really sensitive topic and people who have knowledge and experience = are not always welcome to say what they know or what they think unsolicited= and if they are solicited, there's also a way to say that to never imply a= domination of student-professor, that to accept that someone does not want= to hear about supposed knowledge and experience, and also needs and wants = to feel proud and independent about what they are doing without the help of= people with said knowledge or experience. I think that in a sense, everyon= e must become a beginner. I think it approaches a very fundemental topic of= software development especially in Free Software communities that is to am= ong others end meritocracy. I think that the world of Free Software and Ope= n Source is tainted by that meritocratic spirit and that if we want to boot= strap inclusive communities we must embrace that underrepresented people al= so are of very varrying skill levels and that we must empower and include e= veryone no matter their skill level, and that this notion even of skill lev= el disappears and that all people of varrying skill levels are also not int= erested in feeling submitted to a pre-existing group of people with knowled= ge or experience. That we must find other ways, tools, to organize toleranc= e for mistakes, collectively, that errors become not problematic at all, or= that the possibility for error is removed, to create systems that detect e= rrors and only accept non-errorneous input, so that as long as the contribu= tion is a valid input from anyone, it is a valid contribution, that there's= no room for doubting, for having failed to, for being responsible, for bei= ng accountable, for being blamed, if the tool fails to detect errors then w= e are collectively responsible for improving the tool, not individually res= ponsible for triggering a validation bug. The tool also must be friendly wi= th the way it rejects input, it must be helpful, it must provide guidance, = it must not leave anyone no matter who they are, no matter what they know, = in a situation where they have no idea what to do to create a valid contrib= ution. I think that inclusive tools remove the possibility for error. I thi= nk that good UI/UX is when you can't go wrong, and that if you do, it's eas= y to undo what you just done, always. I think that GNU Guix is many situati= ons many things can go wrong and I think that's not inclusive, it pushes of= f many people because it induces important amounts of stress to realize thi= ngs can be wrong and especially when you can't undo them. I think that some= how the tolerance for mistakes or errors from anyone must be absolute, so t= hat it is never an issue they happen. I think that for example with the des= ign of the web where HTML parsers are tolerant to errors, that with JavaScr= ipt there's nothing that can possibly go wrong with code you write, ideally= nothing can possibly be a security issue (not the case with JavaScript on = the web but I think that if we were given a chance to give another go we co= uld fix it), I think that such error-tolerant design is one of the reasons = that there's also so many JavaScript developers of very diverse skill level= s, that to me it feels very inclusive. I think that there's ideas to take f= rom there. I think also when we talk about practical software freedom, that= we still have systems that can only be controlled by programmers, that the= majority of people on earth are still bound to use tools they cannot contr= ol themselves. I think that to reach true practical software freedom everyo= ne must be a "programmer", that controlling your system fully becomes so in= tuitive, so accessible, so inclusive also, because I think those topics are= inevitably linked, that the need for "expert programmers" disappears. I th= ink that software design is strongly entangled with the need for expertise = and I think that for computing in general to become ethical as a whole the = difference between a user and a developer, the words even, must disappear, = become out of use, stop making sense.

Léo

--=_25a3c09c43b7f69eba5c8109855b0d17--