Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org>]

On 05/09/2018 09:48 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I take some offense at the religious description.  Richard is not just
> the project leader, he's also a human being and dear friend of mine, and
> it hurts me to see him demeaned and attacked as he was.  Describing him
> as a (false) god, or me as placing blind faith on such a god, doesn't
> exactly help.

OK, I take back the religious description; I didn't occur to me that 
you're defending RMS as a friend and not just as an FSF advocate.

> The copyright custodian is the FSF, a separate organization.  You seem
> to repeatedly get the foundational (in the civil engineering sense, not
> FSF sense) structure wrong.  That's been a source of surprises and

I admit I wrote that wrong, I do know that the custodian is the FSF. 
That's not my point though...

> frustration for you and a number of other contributors.  Do you have any
> suggestions as to how to better inform GNU libc contributors about the
> power structures that govern the GNU project as a whole, and how that
> affects GNU libc as a subproject?

I understand the power structure of the GNU project.  My point is that I 
do not subscribe to the power structure beyond the extent that is 
necessary to get my job done.  I definitely object to the power being 
used to stifle a discussion.  I know we disagree on who is stifling whom 
and I don't think we're ever going to agree on that.

> Well, nearly everyone.  You and others have claimed a purely technical
> interest, or suggested a narrower set of concerns for GNU than it
> actually has.  That's what I'm getting at in my unquoted paragraph
> above.

On the contrary I claim that you're confusing the FSF agenda with the 
GNU core values, something RMS also conceded are distinct, just that he 
doesn't see the problem with the ambiguity.

> I do, but I did no such thing.  I only stated that unchecked power for a
> few leaders would enable them to do so.  You have to take into account
> the possibility of hostile capture, discussed elsewhere, to fully
> understand the risk involved.  It's not just a matter of who the leaders
> and maintainers are today, and how aligned they are today.  The
> structure is such that any one hostile organization could invest
> resources to ascend to a position of relevance and then strike to take
> over.  The GNU project would be irresponsible to make that so easy.

That hostile organization could be the FSF too.  What's the guarantee 
that RMS or whoever replaces him as the benevolent leader in future does 
not abuse their power to do exactly what you propose could happen? 
Given the threats of veto over a joke, this situation seems far more 
likely than the one you suggest given that it's harder to mobilize >1 
people than it is to mobilize 1.

> It looks like we're failing to communicate.  What I wrote was an
> analogous argument to yours, that, if accepted or acceptable, would
> enable anyone in a position of power to dismiss any objections
> whatsoever.  Your response, suggesting you took it as meaning I did
> things you didn't, makes it clear to me that this idea I wanted to
> convey didn't get through.  Please reconsider what I wrote under this
> light.

Again, this is exponentially easier with 1 leader as you propose than it 
is with 10 or so lead devs as is the case today.

> I understand that you've argued as if my attempt at defense might
> actually hurting him.  I'm afraid I don't find that convincing, it comes
> across as just strenghtening the attempt to silence the defense.
> 
> Like, "don't play any more: you're helping our team, not yours!"
> How often have you heard that?
> 
> How often have you heard e.g. politicians claim that actions taken by
> their opponents are actually hurting the opponents' own cause, in an
> attempt to get the opponent's supporters to demand the actually
> effective actions to stop?
> 
> It's been used over and over, so excuse if I take your advice with a ton
> of salt.  At least in this debate, we're really not on the same side.

Fair enough, that's your wish and in the light of your close friendship 
with RMS it really is none of my concern.

Siddhesh