A kind patch for GCC by Matthew Garrett https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-10/msg00399.html
@cwebber Exactly what I've been waiting for.
@lxoliva sorry, I meant glibc
@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
@lxoliva I think Carlos is really guiding the conversation nicely though https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-10/msg00449.html
@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?
@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.
@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?
@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?
@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?
@lxoliva +1 and good luck surviving that political nightmare. Best of luck and health to you, your family, and neighbors.
@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. :\