GNU libc and GCC are separate projects
bringing back a discussion that proved to be very destructive, about a patch to remove a joke against censorship, doesn't seem very constructive or desirable, or even kind to me

@lxoliva regarding constructive/desirable/kind, I know you and I disagree here, and it's a painful topic to you and rms, but while I think the original message in the documentation seemed more confusing than anything else (unless you're very familiar with a particular piece of legal history), I think once members of the affected group (in this case, people who have a uterus) weighed in, overriding the maintainers' decision to remove it isn't kind to that group, so an unkindness has remained

@lxoliva at any rate, that was the purpose of the moratorium on comment, right? Since that period has passed, I think it's fair to reopen it

the purpose of the moratorium was to reduce toxicity of the environment so as to get the release out. I don't think that makes it fair or reasonable to bump toxicity back up afterwards, but maybe that's just me
the number of people who have a uterus and weighted in was almost negligible; as I wrote there, we need scientific data, not anecdata.
plus, I see no reason to limit the issue to those who have a uterus. I went through a number of "natural abortions" with my wife, as we say in Portuguese, and if you claim they weren't extremely painful to me after knowing they were one of the factors that drove me into years of depression, let's not pretend I'm the insensitive one

@lxoliva I didn't say you were insensitive; the way I framed it was that we needed to consider the sensitivities of those affected. Does that distinction make sense? I am not trying to make accusations as much as making considerations.

The amount of people weighing in on that list was not the amount weighing in the broader sphere also; I know many uterus-having individuals who were upset.

@lxoliva The particular joke is not really the point, and I think on its own, nobody would really care. The real sensitive spot that is being hit is that many women and minorities have felt their voices have not been considered in these spaces for years. The way it was handled did nothing to help those feelings, and rather inflamed them.

Does that make sense?

the let's leave the joke alone and move on, shall we? the whole exercise sounds like a bunch of men ganging up on rms and myself trying to make an example of us, pretending to be an issue of defending women and minorities, while being exactly the opposite: it's attacking minorities and ultimately harming the women by siding with the censorship law

@lxoliva But it wasn't just about the joke. It was also about the maintainers being overridden unilaterally.

I'll admit this gave me serious pause. If MediaGoblin decided to take steps to be more welcoming to be more welcoming to people from other groups, would we be unilaterally overruled? Even now I am unsure, especially with the recent post, what might happen, eg what if we ask that everyone respect someone's use of they/them as pronouns... might that be overridden unilaterally?

@lxoliva Which is to say: there is a meta-conversation about governance happening here.

it's also about the *maintainer* being overridden unilaterally, because the other assigned (sub)maintainers didn't think of abiding by his request, or of consulting him, or of reversing their mistake once they realized it. I can't answer your questions about other projects, maybe it should be discussed with the project manager instead of lengthening a toxic discussion in another project just to probe that point?

@lxoliva it seems like both sides are digging in their heels a bit? I may agree that there may be a disproportionate push on this issue because it has become symbolic. But it also appears to have been on this other end.

*Why* is it so critical to protect this barely-understood joke? What is at stake where it must not be removed?

@cwebber @lxoliva because RMS wrote it, and he's God to some FSF people. it's one of the reasons I bailed on GNU and started doing free software on my own terms. it's truly disturbing at times.

@kaniini @cwebber @lxoliva I worry about people who ironically create religions almost more than those who do it in all sincerity.

@kaniini yeah, it's difficult at times.. I agree with some goals within individual GNU projects but the ones I pick to contribute to or even develop as part of got - so far - 0 interventions by rms.

I prefer to work on different terms which I can arrange with people I work with...

btw: GNU Guix as one (of the few?) projects with a CoC already got an public request/discussion (from within the guix community) to remove the CoC. That was fast ;)
@ng0 an intervention by RMS is quite possibly a death sentence. see also: DotGNU.
@kaniini what is DotGNU?

as far as "death" goes, while rms has done some good, some bad, I'm curious what'll happen with the ~50/~50 split of "no governance" / "more community decisions / direct democracy style" fractions in gnu.
@kaniini ah this! I thought there was some public misunderstanding why our gnunet ".gnu" disappeared :) really, never heard of dotGNU until a couple of moments ago.
@kaniini he announcement email was bad (I really just fade out most of the internet discussing CoCs and rms right now), but this is a really good part, and it is terrible that we have to spell things like these out.

> 2. I disagree with making "diversity" a goal. If the developers in a specific free software project do not include demographic D, I don't think that the lack of them as a problem that requires action; there is no need to scramble desperately to recruit some Ds. Rather, the problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in demographic D.

funny that, I disagree with point 2 in his email. as free software developers and thusly, defacto community organizers, we are responsible for the makeup of our communities. if there is an unusual disparity, it is because we have failed to reach people, and that is our own failure.
@kaniini maybe this is a point I see as implicit. Being open for change and views and experiences different from my own.
As I grew older I was quiet shocked learning that not everyone has certain understandings I see as only logical in how to treat/interact/talk/live with people.
@kaniini to be clear, I have read the point 2 as that we should naturally strive to have a welcoming atmospehere and dynamics; if people people can not solve conflicts, reflect and/or draw conclusions and decisions from for example intentional bad behavior of community members over a long time, then we have failed as a group.
Show more

@lxoliva If the issue is "we must have jokes which oppose *censorship laws*", I am sure we could come up with equivalent, and perhaps better understood, censorship jokes and insert them in the manual. Is it worth the strife to keep this? There seems to be a "it's a matter of principle" to keep it at this point, but what is the principle?

if a bunch of people come up with a change that they justify on grounds that end up being unjustified, based on false assumptions and overall wrong, should we take the patch just to avoid pointing out the error?

@lxoliva While I agree with what you're getting at in a sense (and that the joke was misunderstood, but let's be honest, that's partly because *it was hard to understand*, which is maybe good grounds for removal) as I've said, it wasn't just the joke but the surrounding context in which the removal was handled.

I feel like we're looping around though, so I'm not sure if I can convey what I'm saying better than I have :\

@lxoliva Let me put it this way:

- The joke was misunderstood, but that's part of the problem; it's too easy to misunderstand. Thus, is it really of value in the manual?
- The way rms stepped in and declared unilateral authority was troubling to many, including me. If it had happened as a conversation, it may have been different.
- The lack of conversation then hit a sore spot for people who have felt long ignored.
- There are many hills one can die on. Is this the right one?

I appreciate the break. this is the last week we have to avoid electing a nazi in Brazil. I could use a little less stressful situations. thanks for your understanding.

@lxoliva +1 and good luck surviving that political nightmare. Best of luck and health to you, your family, and neighbors.

as for myself, I know my share of those who just found the joke tasteless but acknowledged it was about censorship. part of the problem of the unscientific approach is that the answers appears to be highly correlated with who/how the question is presented to begin with. once it's polluted with "it's about abortion", emotion overload seems to take over and you get distorted answers.
anyway, I realize my earlier responses in this discussion weren't very kind. I apologize for that. I shall no longer discuss this here if I remain too emotional to make it kind

@lxoliva I know you well enough to know you're a kind person, and I do not think you are unkind.

But I think GNU and the FSF have an opportunity to step in with an olive branch and ask people who have long been underrepresented and ask them to steer the direction of this conversation, and we're not doing it. It's not only a missed opportunity, but a risk to GNU's future.

I tried hard to warn about this on g-p-d but I felt unheard, and we're getting exactly the response I warned about. :\

I still think the whole issue is barking up the wrong tree. it's censorship against opposition to censorship. making it an issue about women is making it up. the censorship law affects all of us. the pain affects all of us.
say you're one of the people affected by the criticized legislation, as in, *you* (a man) do have information that would be useful to share with pregnant women and are forbidden from doing so. would you not suffer out of that [, or are you a monster :-) ]?
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Octodon is a nice general purpose instance. more