1. 29
  1.  

  2. 20

    Am signatory, AMA.

    1. 5

      Were there any project leaders that refused to sign?

      1. 6

        Let’s provide some context here, shall we?

        There’s been 20 signatories, and one of them isn’t even a maintainer of any package (they’re a staff member).

        There’s close to 400 GNU packages, plus close to 100 additional discontinued GNU packages:

        E.g., about 5% of folks singed this. Many bigger packages like GCC would have more than one maintainer, too.

        Additionally, it’s been pointed out on another platform that this whole thing is a Guix’ response to disagreeing with Dr RMS on his GNU Kind Communications Guidelines some 11 months ago, because they weren’t punitive enough:

        I’d say the whole thing was brewing for quite a while. Would be surprised for the list of signatories to change in any significant manner. Just looking at these numbers and the dates, I’d be surprised if many more folks haven’t been afforded the opportunity to join the mob, but didn’t. The fact that they hide all these things reveals their methods of action.

        1. 4

          We are not hiding anything. Stallman is not a victim. We are not a mob. We are a collective of GNU maintainers who have had enough, and we’re hardly alone in the world with having had enough with RMS. He’s had good philosophies that persuaded all of us at one point, but his leadership and communication have been sorely lacking.

          I actually expect the number of signatories to increase a little. I know of at least a few who wanted to sign but just didn’t get around to it because they were busy. Of those 400 GNU maintainers, most are inactive. GNU is not as cohesive as you might think, which again I think shows lack of good leadership.

          Yes, there’s only 20 or so of us, but we represent some of the biggest GNU packages.

          1. 1

            We are not hiding anything. Stallman is not a victim. We are not a mob. We are a collective of GNU maintainers who have had enough, and we’re hardly alone in the world with having had enough with RMS. He’s had good philosophies that persuaded all of us at one point, but his leadership and communication have been sorely lacking.

            I actually expect the number of signatories to increase a little. I know of at least a few who wanted to sign but just didn’t get around to it because they were busy. Of those 400 GNU maintainers, most are inactive. GNU is not as cohesive as you might think, which again I think shows lack of good leadership.

            Yes, there’s only 20 or so of us, but we represent some of the biggest GNU packages.

            There’s so much misrepresentation here I don’t even know where to begin.

            There’s already at least a couple of people on the list that aren’t even developers.

            You refer to yourself and all other signatories as “GNU maintainers”, including the “GNU Octave maintainer” on your hat, but what does it mean exactly?

            Not familiar with GNU Octave, I originally got the impression that you were the sole person responsible for the project. In fact, that’s what the word “maintainer” means in most other projects. Which, per further examination, cannot be further from the truth — there’s a bunch of commits over at http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave, and none of them seem from you. When searching for your name, http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/log?rev=Jordi, we get a whole 10 results, spanning 2014 to 2017. Do you use some other ID within the project? Or is this pretty much representative of your involvement with the project you claim to be an official representative of? Wikipedia has a link to http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/file/tip/doc/interpreter/contributors.in, which reveals that there are a whole of 445 contributors to GNU Octave, and you’re the only one of these people who is a Guix signatory listing Octave.

            Sure, some of the folks on the list are actual maintainers and/or are responsible for significant work. But do you even fail to see how simply putting a random list of semi-active part-time and drive-by developers as signatories behind cancelling the founder and 80-hours-per-week full-time advocate of Free Software is not exactly representing things as they are? How’s that not a mob?

            Also, what is your exact intention when presenting yourself and everyone else as a “maintainer”, and with statements like “we represent some of the biggest GNU packages”? Were you officially designated to speak on behalf of any of these projects? Or is the whole intention to confuse others in a way similar to how you had me confused with your hat here on Lobste.rs? I don’t have time to check out every name (and some do checkout, some don’t), but it is beyond obvious that you don’t actually represent the views of GNU Octave as you imply, and presenting yourself as an active “maintainer” shows that you have no interest in spreading any truths anywhere, either.

            1. 5

              As much as I dislike the backstabbing of this “joint statement” by GNU developers, I have to say that you are grossly mis-representing JordiGH contribution to Octave. He’s easily the main scientific contributor to this project after Eaton himself (which makes me even sadder that he’s actually signed the backstabbing manifesto).

              1. 2

                He’s been busy, but jwe finally got around to signing it too. 24 signatories now.

                1. 3

                  I’m very sad to hear about that. From the outside it looks like you are part of the pithy smearing campaign against free software. I fail to understand how this “joint statement” at this moment helps anybody (besides mattl and the like).

                  I admire the work of most people who signed this statement, and jwe is one of my heros and sources of inspiration–as much as RMS. Even if I agree with the principle that the FSF/GNU leadership can change for the good, the second part of the statement that you signed reads as a callous backstabbing. I literally cried when I read the list of signatories. I cannot help but feel a bit guilty today when recommending octave to my students.

                  1. 1

                    GNU leadership and its structure needs to change. Hell, GNU needs a structure to begin with – we don’t have any sort of organisation yet and thus our ties and cohesion between GNU packages over the years have weakened.

                    Even if RMS were a perfect saint and the hero many of us made him out to be, nobody should be appointed leader for life. We rotate other leadership positions, and we should do the same with this one.

                    1. 4

                      I agree 100% with what you say here, but not with the public statement that you signed, which alienates me.

              2. 1

                He’s been busy, but jwe finally got around to signing it too. 24 signatories now.

          2. 3

            I don’t know. I wasn’t the one doing the outreaching.

          3. 4

            How was this coordinated?

            1. 8

              Private emails. We all were kind of aware of each other and Ludovic started an email thread where we discussed this.

            2. 4

              You all planning to replace RMS with a new “chief GNUsciance”, or planning to switch to a steering council like Python did?

              If there is no plan, then which one do you prefer?

              1. 9

                No plan yet, just a plan to discuss. I am personally in favour of a steering committee. It seems to have mostly worked for gcc. I got to see some gcc people a couple of weeks ago for GNU cauldron, and that was fun. I would like something more like that.

              2. 2

                I’m confused by this FSF statement: https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-and-gnu.

                It links using “GNU leadership has also published a statement”, which kinda implies with the surrounding text that GNU leadership is multiple people, but the link target is mail by Stallman saying that he will talk to FSF as a single person.

                https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-10/msg00004.html

                Is there anyone else or is this just a language oddity?

                1. 3

                  Just a language oddity. As of right now, nothing has changed and “GNU leadership” is synonymous with “RMS”.

                2. 2

                  So, if rms resigns from GNU and suffers any negative mental health outcomes, would you believe yourselves to be contributing factors or perhaps even responsible?

                  1. 27

                    Let’s not play into “if you leave me, I’ll hurt myself and it’ll be your fault” abuser playbook.

                    RMS should get help if he needs it, but not in the form of coddling him in a position of power he’s unfit for.

                    1. 9

                      I don’t know about abuser playbooks, I’m just thinking about it in terms of common decency for folks that have had internet mobs arrayed against them (correctly or incorrectly).

                      I certainly think it would be tacky if, say, a bunch of trolls got somebody ousted from their position in an open-source project and then refused to take responsibility if that person was harmed. The only salient difference to me here seems that you think (and correct me if I’m wrong!) of rms as an acceptable target.

                      1. 10

                        RMS getting fired over the Minsky remarks is utter bullshit, and it was a total violation of due process, journalistic integrity, and other niceties of civilization… but that doesn’t mean he should be in a leadership position. I think the the whole Epstein business was used as a pretext for people who already wanted him out (for good reasons) to kick him out (based on a bad reason).

                        Which is to say, it’s not entirely that simple.

                        1. 3

                          RMS getting fired over the Minsky remarks is utter bullshit,

                          He wasn’t fired. He voluntarily left of his own accord, because of comments that he made, while interjecting into a conversation that he was not originally part of. The comments are in line with culturally taboo statements he has made public on his website for over 20 years that people have willfully ignored for the sole reason of giving him the benefit of the doubt. This time, he crossed a line because a) the statements that he made are incredibly adjacent to, and almost identical to, arguments made by people who abuse young children (Regardless of his intent) and b) there were abuse survivors in the conversation that he interjected into, that were likely affected by those statements.

                          and it was a total violation of due process, journalistic integrity, and other niceties of civilization…

                          Well, no. Not only is his position as chairman not subject to those concerns, he himself violated said niceties of civilization.

                          but that doesn’t mean he should be in a leadership position. I think the the whole Epstein business was used as a pretext for people who already wanted him out (for good reasons) to kick him out (based on a bad reason).

                          Indeed. The word is that he has continually scuppered several projects (Including GNU’s version of DotNET which had a presence on the steering committee!!!) which caused non-GNU alternatives to have the upper hand, defeating GNU’s objectives of software freedom in the process.

                          1. 8

                            Pretending his exit was voluntary is disingenuous.

                            1. 4

                              he himself violated said niceties of civilization.

                              One of the niceties of civilization is the rule of law, in particular “just because you broke the rules doesn’t mean I get to”. So that’s irrelevant.

                            2. 0

                              They railroaded a guilty man, in other words?

                              1. 3

                                Not sure I follow the phrasing, but perhaps “a good thing done badly” might describe it, depending on whose stories you give credence to.

                            3. 7

                              Part of leadership is your subordinates not wanting to be lead by you anymore. This doesn’t make him a target.

                              Harm reduction may be a goal in these situations and, if you have a look at the statement, it gives appropriate credit to RMS, but also makes it clear that his time is over.

                          2. 17

                            He’s fine. We’re not responsible for his behaviour or his health. He is, and his own actions over the decades are.

                            But really, he’ll be fine. He’s not a martyr. We need a change in leadership and he needs time to reflect.

                          3. 2

                            What’s the big deal?

                            1. 8

                              I don’t understand the question. Big deal about what?

                            2. 1

                              Perhaps I’m out of the loop. I’m aware of Stallman’s anti-social behavior in the past, but is there some new reason this is happening now, rather than years ago?

                              Edit: Oh, I am definitely out of the loop. I just read about Stallman’s Epstein remarks. How vile.

                              1. 10

                                If you ask me (which I think you did), this should have happened years ago, but yes, the recent incidents were the final push we all needed.

                                1. 2

                                  I don’t think that the Epstein remarks, at least what I’ve heard of them, are anything new or surprising if you’ve followed Stallman for a while. It’s not out of character at all.

                                2. 1

                                  Well, it may be nice to have a different leadership for the GNU project. Why not discuss it with the man himself? Has anyone tried before going public?

                                  1. 1

                                    We’re trying to discuss different leadership. And they’re trying to not go public. I don’t think i can say much more without being unkind.

                                    1. 1

                                      So I guess, that’s a no. “Unkind” is too kind a word.

                                      Edit: to clarify this comment, this all reeks of “the ends justify the means”. While I agree with the ends, the means do not look good, and it changed how I perceive both RMS & the projects under the GNU umbrella.

                                      I hope I did not sound angry. I’m just annoyed at myself (mostly). I wish you luck in this endeavour and other future projects. :)

                                3. [Comment removed by author]

                                  1. 5

                                    RMS can’t keep separate things separate. Wearing a button that says “Impeach God” while giving a technical speech is going to bother religious people in the audience and perhaps make them wonder if they will feel welcome in the GNU Project

                                    I’ve only been to only 4 RMS speeches so I’m not an expert, does he really do that? I recall the speeches being exactly the same without extra political commentary, vocal or attire.

                                    Posting a message about how it’s stupid for parents to be proud of having children is going to make moms and dads wonder if their casual conversation is going to be mocked.

                                    Was that on a GNU mailing list? that’s really bad.

                                    He also can’t understand when and how to disagree. Threatening to disband the glibc steering group over an abortion joke in glibc’s documentation being removed as not useful. Condescendingly correcting “Linux” to “GNU/Linux” even in irrelevant contexts. Engaging in combative Socratic questioning when people are just trying to enjoy themselves.

                                    I think these seemingly hostile behaviors can somewhat be attributed to his mental illness. Of course that is not a justification, adults are adults and should learn how to be civil in communities.

                                    1. 13

                                      I think these seemingly hostile behaviors can somewhat be attributed to his mental illness.

                                      If you refer to the idea that RMS is autistic:

                                      1. There’s generally no confirmation for that and remote diagnosis is not even for experts
                                      2. Autism is not a mental illness (illness implies that something is wrong and can be cured)
                                      3. Autistic people can be very social people and invest time into those skills like anyone else. Giving him a pass is unfair towards autists that are interested and engage.
                                      1. 3

                                        I meant to say mental condition, hope I didn’t hurt anybody. And I was referring to his social behaviors not ‘autism’. Giving people a diagnosis like that especially over the internet is a no-no!

                                      2. [Comment removed by author]

                                        1. 5

                                          Absolutely, but if your mental condition prevents you from being a good spokesperson, then maybe being a spokesperson isn’t for you. I’m blind in one eye and have poor vision in the other and I’m therefore never going to fly a plane even though I would love to. It’s just not a good job fit for me.

                                          I concur completely.

                                          1. 2

                                            Absolutely, but if your mental condition prevents you from being a good spokesperson, then maybe being a spokesperson isn’t for you.

                                            While I’m sympathetic to this point of view, indiscriminately applied this would mean that I wouldn’t have gotten to enjoy Chelsea Manning’s speaking at Day for Night a while ago.

                                            1. 3

                                              Agreed. I’d argue that what makes a good spokesperson varies depending on what you’re speaking for.

                                        2. -2

                                          Way to violate Godwin’s law all on your own, buddy. Even so: Your analysis seems fairly sound, probably upvote-worthy. I just think the thing you’re talking around, and missing, is that techne is being subordinated to morality across the industry. This is symptomatic of that trend. I’ll abstain from judgement, although I worry that not picking sides is accepting the choice of the hoi polloi. It probably doesn’t matter – except, people are still talking about it.

                                          1. 1

                                            Way to violate Godwin’s law all on your own, buddy.

                                            Godwin’s law is:

                                            “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1”

                                            did you perhaps mean a different law? I cannot find a single reference to Nazis or Hitler on this page.

                                            the thing you’re talking around, and missing, is that techne is being subordinated to morality across the industry. This is symptomatic of that trend.

                                            Could you explain the usage of the word “techne” here? I can’t find a definition that is in line with what you appear to be saying?

                                            Thanks

                                            1. -2

                                              Your confusion is a result of the deletion of an up-tree comment, which contained a reference to the Holocaust, which I consider to be prey that – deservingly! – sprung the trap of the relevant Law.

                                              To belabor a point without necessity but just making sure – if you follow the line coming from my post-that-you-replied-to’s little arrow thing (where there are – pitifully – no upvotes) it goes up to a [Comment removed by author], and that very line indicates I replied to that very “[removed]” comment. Thusly mine reference hath obtained its context, and as lorddimwit commenteth, so doth he remove away, when he deems it goodly.

                                              Anyway techne is just what it sounds like, the thing before the -ology in this one weird industry, and I have a bit of beef with people on both sides of the CoC divide, if you will, and you really aren’t under any obligation to get that, “CoC divide” is just a convenient way of framing it – and anyway, I don’t really know how else to express it. I am really in no position to have opinions on these matters, being neither an expert nor an authority nor even somebody with “skin in the game” (an impressively useful concept produced by a depressingly arrogant man, and not his only one). Honestly, I just think it’s interesting to observe where the fault lines that divide communities lie, since they determine a great deal, although I can’t really tell you what about.

                                              You can find the general gist of what I’m getting at in this comment:

                                              https://lobste.rs/s/aoyzvo/list_suckless_patches#c_9fvdpc

                                              … where you’ll also find, be forewarned, unwelcome tedious sardonic flippancy – a quagmire into which only a fool would step. Here goes. Hopefully you’re coming along.

                                              Techne, besides being wonderfully expounded upon by a philosopher whose untimely-or-far-too-timely rehabilitation is an echo of more serious matters not obviously germane to a technology forum, namely, this forum, and the philosopher being Heidegger, and please pump ye olde liturgical brakes before you burn me at the stake, yes, he was literally an actual Nazi in reality, and the essay is called The Question Concerning Technology, and it is a little incomprehensible, unfortunately intentionally, but who cares, and so anyway techne just means “how you do it.” And how you do it is a very mundane question, except in that mundanity there is so much beauty. How do you think the kinds of ELisp addicts that eat crumbs off their feet in public in front of cameras got so obsessed with removing inefficiencies in their programming workflows?

                                              Anyway techne isn’t really deserving of all that much blah blah except for the one single tiny minor annoying detail that careers seem to keep being derailed in spite of it, such that the namesake of the substitute for the first three letters in “godbolt” compiler explorer – but the one for Emacs – went the way, I’m sorry to say, of Al Franken, and not Harvey Weinstein, which is to say, a litany of past achievements were overlooked in the name of really preposterous people screaming for JUSTICE NOW, and, lacking the desired heads, were content to watch roll the closest at hand. Whereas, carrying on the sentence I accidentally just ended, the Harvey Weinstein treatment, we can all agree, is Getting What You Deserve (TM), also known to the ancients as justice and proportion, in other words a stalwart nuclear bunker of interpersonal consideration and something that everybody can get behind.

                                              Be it noted that the above summary hardly serves to paint a full picture of the pathetic failings and miserable wrongdoings of the implied old white man whose wrongdoing is the sincere concern of the (seemingly, to me, based on my own personal lived experience of names and genders et cetera) entirely male and almost entirely white but not entirely so “collective of GNU maintainers” in their attempt to restore the organization into which they’re apparently pouring their lifeblood, or at least keyboard elastic, to the kind of representative glory towards which all 501(c)3’s should aspire. I myself applaud their efforts, and if that means clapping in an empty room, which if my ranting has anything to do with it it should soon be empty in here, then so be it.

                                              Said pathetic failings and miserable wrongdoings include, let it be further noted, indeed, it is so special and important it deserves a paragraph unto itself, apparently being a jerk to women, which is the more unseemly the more power is possessed by him who acteth as one doth when one is a jerk to women. Probably going to leave off the Biblical tone inasmuchas the testaments New and Old are not exactly pro-that-particular-51%-of-the-species, personally-political identitarians aside, with concomitant respect for choices of that nature (or nurture).

                                              So the papering over of so many achievements in the name of delivering no uncertain justice is in fact the overthrowing of an old crumb-from-foot-devouring ideology in favor of a new, clean, and by no means inferior liberatory and representative ideology. It is quite easy to bin these into a few little Hegelian boxes. It is so easy that it is in fact beneath me, and you’ll need to BYOEpithetsAndAcronyms, although I may helpfully suggest unscrambling the letters “W S J” (Hint: Not “Wall Street Journal!”) to determine what some people think about the new ideology. I don’t count myself among the epithet-slingers for reasons that would be tedious, unwelcome, and flippant to get into, and anyway the old ideology is well-understood – the sorts of people who brought us sendmail, gcc, and this one weird thing called Linux.

                                              Ahem. GNU/Linux.

                                              Now, you don’t need to name your MTA wolfsschanze to agree that sendmail, gcc, and “Gnu’s Not Unix / Linux” are unnecessarily complex. But you also don’t need StackExchange to figure out that they were a big deal in the past, and, like Obi-Wan said, that shit matters man. (Not a verbatim quote.) But Obi-Wan also said, “Strike me down and I will return more powerful than you can possibly imagine,” and the modern reader of Computer Lib / Dream Machines is struck by the fact that no, in fact, RMS is not coming back, and he will not return in any form, because he is either a sick sexist loser who has finally been written out of existence or he is an irreverent genius of whom the mice currently known as the “collective of GNU maintainers” can never hope to even eat the foot-crumbs, in his infinitely recursive glory indicting the wicked no matter whether the wicked were fat, evil AI researchers like his friend Marvin Minsky the apparent yet possibly unwitting pedophile, or slender, ostensibly good critics of apparent yet possibly unwitting pedophiles. No license was safe from that man. Except the sexual license of his friend, and while he has not literally paid the ultimate price, it is far from obvious that anything but the oppressive Government of the Total State saved him from the people exercising their natural right to capital punishment, as anybody who has ever come within a Kessel run of Vice or HuffPost can pretty much assert. I mean, really, some of those headlines were beyond the pale. That said, some of his actions were even paler!

                                              In summary, techne has been subordinated to morality, and if you don’t like it, sux for you, and if you don’t get it, maybe re-read or find something else to read, and if you don’t agree, I’m all ears. Literally. Head to toe, entirely composed of ears. Like a man-o’-war, where all the gonophores, vestigial and regular siphosomal nectophores, free gastrozooids, gastrozooids with tentacles, gonozooids, and gonopalpons are ears. Waiting. To listen. Because I’m curious.

                                              In further and self-defeating summary, it’s a terrible tragedy, and I’m sure the next terrible tragedy will be completely different because you’d really have to be a nut job to make this kind of mistake twice in the current political climate. (But I’m sure it’s a welcome opportunity for some fresh air at the GNU offices, if they even have offices, which it seems like they’re all remote or something – cf. question across-tree about “coordinating.”)

                                              Anyway, finally, to conclude, I might need to take some of this post out and write something in the actually proper place that is a bit more readable that actually goes into why things are this way, but I’m waiting on a couple interview responses from technologists of note on matters of culture such as this to actually do so.

                                              1. 2

                                                Slightly off topic, but have you considered becoming an author? NaNoWriMo is coming up and your style really reminds me of some of the older Neal Stephenson descriptions of setting and technology.

                                                1. 1

                                                  Haha thanks but I’m gainfully employed as a construction worker

                                        3. 6

                                          I was thinking about internet activism recently, and this article really shows how it’s all about coverage, association and public perception. What or who is really harmed, benefits or looses is really not important in the end. There’s no reason to believe that these people are malicious, as some might argue, but that the game of short-attention-span, permanent-update mass-media leads to this being in their only rational interest. If they don’t, someone have writing an article attacking GNU on not reacting in their rational interest. It really cannot be anything more than superficial, and honestly I don’t even think that it’s intended. Just like a CoC moderates appearances of a discussion (ultimately to appear corporate-friendly, avoid bad press, etc.), so the appearance of RMS isn’t fit for our modern games.

                                          Even if everything was wrong that RMS is being accused of, there’s still no way that he could be saved. He’s guilty, even if proven innocent. And I say that as someone who as always admired him.

                                          1. 11

                                            Hate to hit hard on the brakes here, but signed letters with requests and demands to leadership pre-date the internet, social media and I’m surprised this does happen so little in the software world.

                                            Like, my sports club has seen 3 of those in the last 4 years, after several mediocre actions of leadership.

                                            They are, in some form, a better way to expressing such concerns, as they need the group of people to a agree on text, publishing and timing, instead of just bursting it out on social media.

                                            1. 3

                                              Very funny, now I would kindly ask you to notice that I never implied that signed letters are new, but rather the circumstances and qualities of media have been intensified by the internet. Thank you.

                                          2. 3

                                            I particularly found the discussion on “selective attrition” insightful, giving a clear name to an effect that I’ve vaguely felt in a number of communities.

                                            1. 4

                                              Seems like a reasonable statement. I appreciate that it talks about his behavior over the years, rather than the Epstein thing, which was a travesty (if taken in isolation).

                                              1. 7

                                                Flagged off-topic, this is internal org politics/drama.

                                                • It technical? No. There is no code in this, there are no technical principles being conveyed. It’s a call to remove somebody.
                                                • Is it actionable for most users? No. Only one user I’m aware of here (@JordiGH) has a direct stake in this, and has already acted.
                                                • Is it covered elsehwere? Even in El Reg.

                                                If you value this site, let me suggest that you please help keep drama submissions like this off. Flag early, flag often.

                                                1. 6

                                                  It technical? No. There is no code in this, there are no technical principles being conveyed. It’s a call to remove somebody.

                                                  It is correctly tagged under ‘culture’, so this point is moot.

                                                  Is it actionable for most users? No. Only one user I’m aware of here (@JordiGH) has a direct stake in this, and has already acted.

                                                  Whether something is actionable or not does not belie whether it has interest for people.

                                                  1. 1

                                                    It is correctly tagged under ‘culture’, so this point is moot.

                                                    I don’t agree, obviously. Also, the culture tag is suspect.

                                                    Whether something is actionable or not does not belie whether it has interest for people.

                                                    All kinds of things are interesting but are off-topic for Lobsters. Mere interest is a painfully low bar–if that’s sufficient for you, the orange site might well enjoy your patronage.

                                                  2. 1

                                                    Flagged troll, this is waging your own personal culture war.

                                                    Just filter the ‘culture’ tag and be done with it, why don’t you?

                                                    1. 0

                                                      That isn’t what the troll flag is for, and you using it because you disagree lowers the utility of it for marking genuine bad-faith actors.

                                                    2. 0

                                                      Underrated post.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        There are a dozen people agreeing with you: ’ 38 comments | +38, -13 off-topic, -2 spam’ as of now. I did doubt to submit this, but I did so because the previous resignation also stirred up some discussion as I recall. I also only tagged it culture and nothing else.

                                                      2. 2

                                                        As the kids say, “this ain’t it, chief”

                                                        1. 2

                                                          I’m a bit unsurprised that the base post was so popular here but my post regarding action for people who are conventionally never a part of these conversations and actions for said people to take was downvoted into oblivion. What makes this place different from Hacker News?

                                                          The color of the logo. https://v2.jacky.wtf/post/intersection-poc-floss / https://lobste.rs/s/z4hwuw

                                                          1. 1

                                                            The good thing about the GNU project, that it is uses (exclusively? (L)GPL licenses), so it doesn’t really matter who is in charge.

                                                            1. 2

                                                              Projects like GCC assign copyright to the FSF, and a lot of projects are licensed “GPLvN or later”, which means the FSF come up with a new version and their license won’t be incompatible and can be distributed under those terms, as well.

                                                              1. 1

                                                                FSF come up with a new version and their license won’t be incompatible

                                                                At that point, it is possible to fork with the latest current version of the license.

                                                            2. -7

                                                              What a farce! Who’s ever heard of Guix, or any of these people who signed behind this statement? Even the most projects they claim to be a part of are something that’s either long fell out of fashion, or has never been in fashion in the first place.

                                                              They’re posting this from within a gnu.org domain to make it seem like it’s some sort of a major revolt within GNU. They’re dismissing RMS as an individual that he is. How many GNU maintainers feel this way, and how many feel the exact opposite? If they’d post the same statement from outside of gnu.org, noone would probably even pay any attention to any of them.

                                                              All these people are simply trying to cheaply cash in on the movement that Dr Richard M Stallman has singlehandedly created, and devoted his whole life to. Of course, the movement as a whole is bigger than RMS, but it’s still deeply centred on RMS for guidance and consistency, and to dismiss RMS as an individual for a few quirks and unconventional statements seems deeply unfair in my book, screams of abuse of people with high-functioning autism, and borders on elder abuse, too.

                                                              If majority of maintainers of GNU actually do agree? Fine, let’s find another Chief GNUisance. Else? Please just fork, and stop biting the hand that feeds you. If your ideas of RMS-less Free Software are so good, surely everyone will promptly abandon FSF and GNU like what happened with XFree86 and many other projects, right? Why not just fork? Where’s their fork?

                                                              Make no mistake, this is nothing more than a cheap powergrab and an attempt at rewriting history. They’ve already tried to dismiss Stallman from the title of FSF founder; and have at least twice vandalised stallman.org to falsely claim that he has resigned from GNU, too. (I now wonder whether his resignation from MIT and FSF was itself someone’s vandalism joke that was taken too far.) These projects and maintainers would be nothing without a GNU label on them.

                                                              1. 23

                                                                Who’s ever heard of Guix, or any of these people who signed behind this statement?

                                                                There’s several people on this list I deeply respect.

                                                                Jeff Law is responsible for 4% of GCC’s commits. He is the main person merging all the patches I send to GCC, and writing helpful code reviews and suggestions.

                                                                Ian Lance Taylor is responsible for 3% of Go’s commits and 6% of binutils’s commits. He is the main author of the gold linker.

                                                                You picked the wrong people to trash talk. They have done tremendous amount of work and everyone who spent even a little bit of time involved with these projects remembers their names, and in a positive way.

                                                                1. 9

                                                                  I have heard of Guix and most of the people signing this as well as the projects they are part of. Many of the projects are among the more useful pieces of software from GNU. These projects may have benefited from the GNU label but they are also the reason that GNU software is considered useful to the rest of the computing world. Libc? Binutils? Gettext? Emacs? Many of these are the entire reason that that GNU ever became a household word in our industry. These maintainers care enough about the mission and software of the GNU brand that they signed on to the statement. If you care about the principles of the GNU foundation then perhaps you should reconsider your tone and how it damages the public perception of the thing you love.

                                                                  1. 0

                                                                    How many developers and users does Guix have? Do they even have anyone else other than the two maintainers?

                                                                    Libc? Binutils? Gettext? Emacs?

                                                                    There’s like a single person from each one of these you mention. Clearly each one of these projects must be bigger than that.

                                                                    1. 11

                                                                      John Weigley is the leader of the Emacs project (one of the oldest and most active GNU projects in existence), and his position is supported by many contributors such as myself.

                                                                  2. 2

                                                                    I’m glad to see this entire debacle has finally united the FSF and BSD camps.