From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-40136.protonmail.ch (mail-40136.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.136]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D56553858002 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:24:56 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org D56553858002 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:24:50 +0000 To: Nathan Sidwell , gcc@gcc.gnu.org From: Maksim Fomin Reply-To: Maksim Fomin Subject: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, BODY_8BITS, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-Spam-Level: * X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:25:00 -0000 =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me= ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 On Friday, 26 March 2021 =D0=B3., 23:02, Nathan Sidwell wr= ote: > I would rather not have to write this email. Like many developers, I just= want > to write code. Right now we=E2=80=99re working towards the GCC 11 release= . I thought > about deferring this email. But there=E2=80=99s never a good time, and ba= d behaviour > needs to be addressed in the moment. I have left this for too long alread= y. > > I used to think of GCC development as egalitarian, and therefore fair, an= d, by > assumption, welcoming. That is not true. I=E2=80=99m a white dude with a = British accent. > /Of course/ I have white male privilege. I used to joke that I fell into = every > job I=E2=80=99ve had (including my doctorate) =E2=80=93 that, right there= , is white male > privilege. > > Perhaps you discount the benefits of white male privilege. You=E2=80= =99re wrong. > > You cannot have missed the sparsity of women and people of color in compi= ler > engineering (kaporcenter black tech workforce). Maybe you fallaciously pu= t that > down to imbalances in education (leakytechpipeline) How can we, the GCC > community, be expected to address that? Representation matters, we= =E2=80=99re the problem. [Left most relevant parts of the letter] The logic of this letter (and sjw in general) is obviously false. 1. There are no examples where Stallman (or people with similar views) cens= ored project contribution from non-white non-male people. In recent decades there is inflow of people from different counties and 202= 0 is definitely more diverse in programming than 2000 or 1980. This observation (absense of discrimiation) is the first important note whi= ch blows the login behind the letter. 2. Because the p1 is hard to refute, the discussion moves from objective th= ings (for example, rejecting some pull request from people of color) toward= subjective things like 'remove Stallman because I am not comfortable with his views/cl= aims'. However, once this arguement is naked from the rest of discussion it= becomes obviously weak. Why the project should remove Stallman because 'some' people are not comfor= table? Why sjw consider themselves in the position to judge? What to do wit= h the group of people who supports him? Finally, 'white priviledge' is only one (although big) subject of dedates.= What happens if other areas of social, political or economical debates are= brought to the project? There are plenty of issues which divide people and= there is no way to make the project to move of on if for each issue one gr= oup of people will demand removing members of comittee because of their vie= ws. 3. Most of claims about Stallman are not true (to be more precise - they ar= e deliberately misrepresent what Stallman said to make his views to look im= moral). 4. Regarding morality. This letter (like many other sjw creatures) says man= y words about morality, diversity, but at the end of the day it boils down = to removing Stallman from position. As a citizen of post-soviet country I c= an vividly see that this letter is enterely about politics and looks very s= imilar to communist agenda which likes to hide authoritarian policies behin= d morality. It is very surprising for people from former Soviet block count= ries to see western world falling into 'very familiar' but notorious propag= anda. Best regards, Maxim Fomin