Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

The point of this joke is even more important now than it was when I
first wrote it.  Please do not remove it.

GNU is not a purely technical project, so the fact that this is
not strictly and grimly technical is not a reason to remove this.

Please ack.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 04/30/2018 11:03 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
> The point of this joke is even more important now than it was when I
> first wrote it.  Please do not remove it.

The problem with the joke is that it touches a difficult and complex
topic, namely abortion, and this could be a trigger for certain
individuals causing them to relive a traumatic memory. I cannot condone
that we add triggers like these to a technical manual, particularly
when individuals would not expect such jokes in the manual. It can do
harm to these individuals when they expect to find themselves in a safe
space.

> GNU is not a purely technical project, so the fact that this is
> not strictly and grimly technical is not a reason to remove this.

I agree, but that's not the only reason I supported the consensus
for removal (see above).

I suggest two courses of action.

* We avoid jokes. They can be misinterpreted by individuals
  without the cultural background to understand the joke. Instead of
  the joke we should just state clearly exactly what we are worried
  about in as direct a language as we possibly can, and include a
  trigger warning (as is good practice). I would accept such a patch.
  I encourage Alex Oliva to draft such a patch and propose it for
  inclusion with appropriate references.

* We use another venue to discuss such issues. This is my recommended
  course of action. It places this discussion in a venue that has the
  appropriate context and support for such discussions. For example
  these issues could be brought up with NARAL [1] and we could support
  them with more than just jokes.

We should show our support clearly instead of using a joke.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

[1] https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  1, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> The problem with the joke is that it touches a difficult and complex
> topic, namely abortion, and this could be a trigger for certain
> individuals causing them to relive a traumatic memory.

I happen to have traumatic memories about this topic, but it's not the
joke that brings them to mind.  The name of the function is enough to do
so.  Perhaps it has to do with my native language background and the
almost exclusive use of the term to mean termination of human pregnancy,
just like abolition, unqualified, refers to putting an end to slavery.

The disputed snippet, to me, does not in any more of this topic to mind.
When reading the manual, by the time I reach the snippet, the topic of
human pregnancy abortion is already fully in mind, with all the painful
memories related with it.

What the snippet does, however, is to denounce an attempt of government
censorship *about* the topic.  I hope none of us favors censorship, or
find it too sensitive topic a that we'd better avoid in a manual or
anywhere else.

That the message denounces censorship related with an uncomfortable,
sensitive and often traumatic topic doesn't make it any more legitimate
or desirable to censor the message IMHO.

> I suggest two courses of action.

> * We avoid jokes.

I find the gnus manual an excellent example of how technical information
can be conveyed interspersed with funny stuff, and how that makes for
lighter reading and easier conveyance of the technical information.  I
recall being very pleased at reading it some 25 years ago, and it's
still a reference for me on how to make a manual a lot more pleasant to
read, without compromising the technical information in any way.  I
wouldn't mind if we had more, not less humor in our manuals.

>   about in as direct a language as we possibly can, and include a
>   trigger warning (as is good practice). I would accept such a patch.
>   I encourage Alex Oliva to draft such a patch and propose it for
>   inclusion with appropriate references.

FTR, I have not been able to be convinced by either side of the debate
on arbitrary interruption of viable human pregnancies in general, but I
do have a well-defined position against censorship, which is what the
removed (censored?) snippet was about.

That said, if I had to come up with a message to replace what was
removed without consulting the leader of the project that had explicitly
asked for it not to be removed, I'd propose something along these lines:

  To the best of our knowledge, terminating a program by calling this
  function is not against the law in any jurisdiction, but there are
  some jurisdictions considering laws to censor information about such
  procedures.  Regardless of your opinion on the procedures, we hope you
  will support our opposition to censorship.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/01/2018 08:30 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>   To the best of our knowledge, terminating a program by calling this
>   function is not against the law in any jurisdiction, but there are
>   some jurisdictions considering laws to censor information about such
>   procedures.  Regardless of your opinion on the procedures, we hope you
>   will support our opposition to censorship.

This is now satire, an even more difficult culturally relative form of
literature. I would not recommend this either.

Why don't we find a solid common ground in wording that relates to
censorship and abortion.

Note that the cartouche only affects PDF and print manuals.

diff --git a/manual/startup.texi b/manual/startup.texi
index 21c48cd037..589ee631c8 100644
--- a/manual/startup.texi
+++ b/manual/startup.texi
@@ -787,6 +787,8 @@ if (rc == -1)
 @cindex program termination
 @cindex process termination
 
+@strong{Trigger warning: Talk of abortion.}
+
 @cindex exit status value
 The usual way for a program to terminate is simply for its @code{main}
 function to return.  The @dfn{exit status value} returned from the
@@ -1005,6 +1007,14 @@ This function actually terminates the process by raising a
 intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}.
 @end deftypefun
 
+@cartouche
+The authors of this manual would like to take the opportunity to
+ask you to oppose @strong{censorship} of human abortion related
+information. Regardless of your opinion on the topic of human
+abortion, we hope you will support our opposition to censorship
+in all forms.
+@end cartouche
+
 @node Termination Internals
 @subsection Termination Internals
 
---

There is a trigger warning.

The text is unequivocal and clear about our position on censorship.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Florian Weimer]

* Carlos O'Donell:

> The text is unequivocal and clear about our position on censorship.

It should say “government censorship”, not “censorship”, to be
absolutely clear.  The GNU project has rules to restrict certain
speech, after all:

| A GNU program should not recommend, promote, or grant legitimacy to
| the use of any non-free program. Proprietary software is a social
| and ethical problem, and our aim is to put an end to that
| problem. We can’t stop some people from writing proprietary
| programs, or stop other people from using them, but we can and
| should refuse to advertise them to new potential customers, or to
| give the public the idea that their existence is ethical.

<https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/References.html>

(Our promotion of ISO standards seems to violate the rules about
non-free documentation, FWIW.)

I also expect that we would ban people from using project resources if
their actions prove toxic to the community.  This could be considered
another form of (non-government) censorship, but I really do not see a
way around it once the need arises.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

The word "censorship" refers to suppressing what others publish.  It
can be done by a government, or by a general-purpose publisher.  When
a project, activity or organization decides what to say, and what not
to say, that is not censorship.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

ISO standards

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > (Our promotion of ISO standards seems to violate the rules about
  > non-free documentation, FWIW.)

Our rules says we should not refer to ISO standards for the purpose of
documentation.  Our substitute is to write our own manuals for the
interfaces in question.  One of the purposes of the GNU C Library
Manual is to do that job.

However, it is ok to refer to non-free standards documents for other
purposes, such as for explaining why a certain feature is implemented
a certain way.  That's not "documentation" because it's outside the
function of a tutorial or a reference manual.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Zack Weinberg]

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/01/2018 08:30 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>   To the best of our knowledge, terminating a program by calling this
>>   function is not against the law in any jurisdiction, but there are
>>   some jurisdictions considering laws to censor information about such
>>   procedures.  Regardless of your opinion on the procedures, we hope you
>>   will support our opposition to censorship.
>
> This is now satire, an even more difficult culturally relative form of
> literature. I would not recommend this either.
>
> Why don't we find a solid common ground in wording that relates to
> censorship and abortion.

As I just said to RMS, I formally object to the inclusion of ANY
replacement for the joke.  I do not think that this subject should be
discussed at all within the GNU C Library Manual, because I think that
no matter how it is worded it winds up sounding like we're mocking the
reader's actual beliefs about abortion - whatever they happen to be -
by drawing a comparison to the termination of computer processes.

Perhaps those that feel strongly that the FSF should be taking a
position on this -- which I can sympathize with -- should write up an
editorial to be published on fsf.org or gnu.org, instead.

zw

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  2, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:

> I do not think that this subject should be
> discussed at all within the GNU C Library Manual,

Please stop pretending the subject of the snippet is abortion.  The
topic is censorship, and the irony of a group censoring a denouncement
of censorship would be delicious if it weren't so tragic.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/02/2018 08:27 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  2, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
> 
>> I do not think that this subject should be
>> discussed at all within the GNU C Library Manual,
> 
> Please stop pretending the subject of the snippet is abortion.  The
> topic is censorship, and the irony of a group censoring a denouncement
> of censorship would be delicious if it weren't so tragic.
 
If the topic is not about abortion, then please move the censorship
discussion to the introduction of the manual and discuss censorship.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  2, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 05/02/2018 08:27 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On May  2, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I do not think that this subject should be
>>> discussed at all within the GNU C Library Manual,
>> 
>> Please stop pretending the subject of the snippet is abortion.  The
>> topic is censorship, and the irony of a group censoring a denouncement
>> of censorship would be delicious if it weren't so tragic.
 
> If the topic is not about abortion

The topic of the censorship bill is abortion.  That's what makes the
place suitable to criticize it.

> then please move the censorship discussion to the introduction of the
> manual and discuss censorship.

Moving it elsewhere, where it's less effective, and removing the humor,
that's one of the most effective ways to convey criticism and bypass
learned rejections to such criticism, is just a softer form of
censorship.  To me it comes across as "ok, you want to speak, go ahead
and do so, but speak from this corner where pretty much nobody can see
you, without a microphone, and don't make any effective criticism."

RMS might still be able to come up with a clever way to jump through all
these hoops, but that doesn't make the proposed constraints cease to be
disguised attempts to hide or weaken the intended criticism.


If the censorship law was about methods of terminating insects, 
terminate() in a C++ manual would be the best place to denounce it.

If it censored information about emergency exits, _exit() would be it.

The law in question censors information about abortion, so abort() is
the only reasonable place to put it.


A vague statement against censorship in general is nowhere as effective,
and I don't assume you or anyone else here to be naîve enough to think
it is.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

The Mexico City policy is clearly counter to the GNU project's philosphy:
<https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html>

Removing the "joke" now feels like a direct attack on Michelle Wolf and 
her right to satire. Are the glibc maintainers ok with looking like 
they're siding with the extremists who savagely attacked her for her 
remarks last week?

https://youtu.be/DDbx1uArVOM?t=8m14s
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/29/michelle-wolfs-caustic-comedy-routine-at-the-white-house-correspondents-dinner-annotated/>

The comment, which I'd call a paradox rather than a joke, is entirely 
appropriate as an easter egg or reminder about absurd regulations and 
the difficulties of making and distributing free software (or exercising 
other individual liberties), which is what GNU is about.

It should stay were it was.

Federico (FSFE supporter)

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > If the topic is not about abortion, then please move the censorship
  > discussion to the introduction of the manual and discuss censorship.

The joke is better, because (1) it is funny and (2) the joke relates
to a C function name.

So I must deny your request to delete the joke and replace it
with a serious discussion.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/04/2018 12:21 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
>   > If the topic is not about abortion, then please move the censorship
>   > discussion to the introduction of the manual and discuss censorship.
> 
> The joke is better, because (1) it is funny and (2) the joke relates
> to a C function name.
> 
> So I must deny your request to delete the joke and replace it
> with a serious discussion.
 
The joke has already been deleted.

My goal is to help find consensus between those that want the joke
put back, and those that don't. To find a common ground for what each
side is attempting to accomplish, and define success.

Until we reach some kind of consensus the joke will not go back into
the glibc manual according to the current community consensus rules.

In the meantime if you wish to publish something different for the 
GNU manuals, you are free to do so.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/02/2018 03:08 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 05/01/2018 08:30 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>>   To the best of our knowledge, terminating a program by calling this
>>>   function is not against the law in any jurisdiction, but there are
>>>   some jurisdictions considering laws to censor information about such
>>>   procedures.  Regardless of your opinion on the procedures, we hope you
>>>   will support our opposition to censorship.
>>
>> This is now satire, an even more difficult culturally relative form of
>> literature. I would not recommend this either.
>>
>> Why don't we find a solid common ground in wording that relates to
>> censorship and abortion.
> 
> As I just said to RMS, I formally object to the inclusion of ANY
> replacement for the joke.  I do not think that this subject should be
> discussed at all within the GNU C Library Manual, because I think that
> no matter how it is worded it winds up sounding like we're mocking the
> reader's actual beliefs about abortion - whatever they happen to be -
> by drawing a comparison to the termination of computer processes.

I agree with that. I also object to ANY replacement of the original
joke.

However, I must cede that there could be different viewpoints in the
community, particularly from RMS and Alex, and so I want to use this
patch as a discussion point over what it is they actually want to
state publicly.

> Perhaps those that feel strongly that the FSF should be taking a
> position on this -- which I can sympathize with -- should write up an
> editorial to be published on fsf.org or gnu.org, instead.

I agree with that also, which was roughly my second suggestion:
https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00003.html

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  2, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 05/01/2018 08:30 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> To the best of our knowledge, terminating a program by calling this
>> function is not against the law in any jurisdiction, but there are
>> some jurisdictions considering laws to censor information about such
>> procedures.  Regardless of your opinion on the procedures, we hope you
>> will support our opposition to censorship.

> This is now satire

Nah, it was just tongue-in-cheek.

Satire is my following fake proposal of change over yours, see below.

> +The authors of this manual would like to take the opportunity to
> +ask you to oppose @strong{censorship} of human abortion related
> +information. Regardless of your opinion on the topic of human
> +abortion, we hope you will support our opposition to censorship
> +in all forms.

To be accurate, it is now evident that it has to be reworded like this:

  Some of the authors of this manual would like to take the opportunity
  to ask you to oppose @strong{censorship} of information related with
  human abortion.  Regardless of your opinion on the topic of human
  abortion, some of us hope you will support the opposition to
  censorship that we wish all of us shared, but others among us condone
  and practice censorship just like the politicians trying to pass the
  denounced censorship bills, using such tricks as creating fait
  accompli, criticizing straw men and pretending the debate is about a
  different topic.  We now return to your regular programming.

See?, this is satire!  Bitter satire, even.  :-/


Now, I don't think the above is true; at least I hope it isn't, in spite
of the damning appearance, that nobody else thought of contacting the
project leader that appointed each one of the official maintainers, the
same person who left a note for the snippet to not be removed; that the
patch was rushed in after less than 48 hours of debate when most of us
know his email cycles are often longer than that, and that the person
who installed the patch, in spite of expressing regret for not
contacting RMS first, does not offer to correct the mistake and allow
for consensus to be built, insisting on the fait accompli until someone
else offers to revert the change.  To me, offering to correct the
mistake would show good faith, correcting the appearance of rushing the
patch in, but if that's what it takes, I offer to reverse the patch
myself, if the person who pushed it in doesn't do so in the next few
days, so that we can then seek consensus without the fait accompli
artificially shifting the baseline.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: @cartouche (was: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke)

[Dmitry V. Levin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 315 bytes --]

On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 11:28:05PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
[...]
> Note that the cartouche only affects PDF and print manuals.

This is no longer the case nowadays, see
https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Aborting-a-Program.html
It's also visible in generated .info files.


-- 
ldv

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: @cartouche

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/05/2018 07:45 AM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 11:28:05PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> [...]
>> Note that the cartouche only affects PDF and print manuals.
> 
> This is no longer the case nowadays, see
> https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Aborting-a-Program.html
> It's also visible in generated .info files.

Correct, it was my mistaken reading of the info rules for @cartouche.
The text in question appears in all formats.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > The problem with the joke is that it touches a difficult and complex
  > topic, namely abortion, and this could be a trigger for certain
  > individuals causing them to relive a traumatic memory.

It is not the joke that might lead people to think about abortion --
it doesn't refer directly to that -- but rather the name of the
library function, "abort", which is documented there.

Therefore, if you think that this is a real concern, let's put a
trigger warning at the start of the section.  I propose thus text:

   Warning: this section contains function names that might perhaps
   provoke unpleasant memories for some readers.  We suggest readers
   use their discretion about whether to read further.

A GNU manual, like a course in history, is not meant to be a "safe
space".  It is meant to address a subject.  It must cover the function
"abort", just as a course in Renaissance history must cover witch
trials and the inquisition.

However, there is no reason not to include the trigger warning if that
is of service to people.

Whether the joke is included has no effect on this issue.

Giving birth is far more traumatic than having an abortion, so we
might want to put a similar warning in sections that mention child
processes.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Ondřej Bílka]

On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 11:10:53PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
>   > The problem with the joke is that it touches a difficult and complex
>   > topic, namely abortion, and this could be a trigger for certain
>   > individuals causing them to relive a traumatic memory.
> 
> It is not the joke that might lead people to think about abortion --
> it doesn't refer directly to that -- but rather the name of the
> library function, "abort", which is documented there.
> 
> Therefore, if you think that this is a real concern, let's put a
> trigger warning at the start of the section.  I propose thus text:
> 
>    Warning: this section contains function names that might perhaps
>    provoke unpleasant memories for some readers.  We suggest readers
>    use their discretion about whether to read further.
> 
> A GNU manual, like a course in history, is not meant to be a "safe
> space".  It is meant to address a subject.  It must cover the function
> "abort", just as a course in Renaissance history must cover witch
> trials and the inquisition.
> 
> However, there is no reason not to include the trigger warning if that
> is of service to people.
> 
> Whether the joke is included has no effect on this issue.
> 
> Giving birth is far more traumatic than having an abortion, so we
> might want to put a similar warning in sections that mention child
> processes.
> 
There should be following warning

	* manual/process.texi: Warn about disadvantages of child process

diff --git a/manual/process.texi b/manual/process.texi
index b82b91f..6709e19 100644
--- a/manual/process.texi
+++ b/manual/process.texi
@@ -283,6 +283,10 @@ The child doesn't inherit alarms set by the parent process.
 The set of pending signals (@pxref{Delivery of Signal}) for the child
 process is cleared.  (The child process inherits its mask of blocked
 signals and signal actions from the parent process.)
+
+@item
+Warning: creating a child could take up to nine months and could consume all
+your resources.
 @end itemize
 
 

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Rical Jasan]

On 05/01/2018 11:26 PM, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> There should be following warning
> 
> 	* manual/process.texi: Warn about disadvantages of child process
> 
> diff --git a/manual/process.texi b/manual/process.texi
> index b82b91f..6709e19 100644
> --- a/manual/process.texi
> +++ b/manual/process.texi
> @@ -283,6 +283,10 @@ The child doesn't inherit alarms set by the parent process.
>  The set of pending signals (@pxref{Delivery of Signal}) for the child
>  process is cleared.  (The child process inherits its mask of blocked
>  signals and signal actions from the parent process.)
> +
> +@item
> +Warning: creating a child could take up to nine months and could consume all
> +your resources.
>  @end itemize

+1

Rical

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Javier Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 393 bytes --]

Current behavior of abort() is unacceptable: it terminates the process
unconditionally. glibc users should be free to decide whether a call to
abort() succeeds. It should be a user right, not a developer imposition.

Although I am in favor of user rights, some freedoms should be
restricted. For instance, calls to kill() from unprivileged users should
fail with "thou shalt not kill".

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Rical Jasan]

On 05/02/2018 12:00 AM, Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> Current behavior of abort() is unacceptable: it terminates the process
> unconditionally. glibc users should be free to decide whether a call to
> abort() succeeds. It should be a user right, not a developer imposition.
> 
> Although I am in favor of user rights, some freedoms should be
> restricted. For instance, calls to kill() from unprivileged users should
> fail with "thou shalt not kill".

+1 for the individual vs. social dynamic, but it needs a patch.  ;)

Rical

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Current behavior of abort() is unacceptable: it terminates the process
  > unconditionally. glibc users should be free to decide whether a call to
  > abort() succeeds. It should be a user right, not a developer imposition.

The GNU system already gives users this control.  For instance, you
can run the program under GDB and put a breakpoint on abort.  That's
how I normally run Emacs, for instance.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > +
  > +@item
  > +Warning: creating a child could take up to nine months and could consume all
  > +your resources.
  >  @end itemize

I like that joke, but do we also need a trigger warning?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Florian Weimer]

* Richard Stallman:

> The point of this joke is even more important now than it was when I
> first wrote it.  Please do not remove it.

But is it a joke?

It is easily interpreted in such a way that we, the glibc developers,
share the view that the U.S. government is actively suppressing
certain voices and positions on societal issues.  This view is common
among groups which are diametrically opposed to most of your personal
political views (I assume, after a quick glance at stallman.org).  I
think it is very wrong legitimize claims of such groups about
U.S. government suppression in any way, and I'm surprised that you
disagree.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > It is easily interpreted in such a way that we, the glibc developers,
  > share the view that the U.S. government is actively suppressing
  > certain voices and positions on societal issues.

There is an official US policy, commonly known as the "global gag
rule", which forbids foreign aid to clinics if they ever inform
patients about abortion and abortion rights.

This policy existed when Dubya was president.  Obama cancelled it when
he became president, and Trump reinstated it when he became president.
I think it started in the 1980s.

Congress is now considering a proposed law to extend this gag rule to
many clinics in the US.

The joke is about this policy.

    This view is common
    among groups which are diametrically opposed to most of your personal
    political views (I assume, after a quick glance at stallman.org). I
    think it is very wrong legitimize claims of such groups about
    U.S. government suppression in any way, and I'm surprised that you
    disagree.

Since the joke is a clear reference to a real US government policy, I
think its meaning is clear enough.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Florian Weimer]

* Richard Stallman:

>   > It is easily interpreted in such a way that we, the glibc developers,
>   > share the view that the U.S. government is actively suppressing
>   > certain voices and positions on societal issues.
>
> There is an official US policy, commonly known as the "global gag
> rule", which forbids foreign aid to clinics if they ever inform
> patients about abortion and abortion rights.

I didn't make that connection.

I assumed the removed text was in the tradition of notions of a War on
Christmas, so-called judicial activism against display of Christian
symbols on government property, restrictions on protests in proximity
to clinics and funerals, and things like that.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Zach van Rijn]

On Mon, 2018-04-30 at 23:03 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
> The point of this joke is even more important now than it was when I
> first wrote it.  Please do not remove it.
> 
> GNU is not a purely technical project, so the fact that this is
> not strictly and grimly technical is not a reason to remove this.
> 
> Please ack.
> 

It would be unprofessional of me to let you defend a joke about a topic
so deeply personal to some, in of all places technical documentation for
a C library, after (like me) having been made aware of its presence.

Such a joke has little to do with the merits (pro- or con-) of the issue
you care about, and presents unnecessary confusion to such a broad and
diverse community. Your personal website would be an excellent venue to
express your views, but in this case it's not comedy, nor is it comity.

And quite frankly, it smacks of the FreeBSD Code of Conduct [1] from a
different angle. It isn't political correctness to wish it removed.

ZV

[1]: https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > It would be unprofessional of me to let you defend a joke about a topic

The GNU Project does not adhere to this rigid idea of
"professionalism".  Even the name "GNU" is a joke.

  > so deeply personal to some,

The issue of gag rules is not directly personal, so I expect that
readers can see the humor in this joke whatever their views about
abortion rights themselves.

So I stand by my decision.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[rain1]

On 2018-05-01 04:03, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
> The point of this joke is even more important now than it was when I
> first wrote it.  Please do not remove it.
> 
> GNU is not a purely technical project, so the fact that this is
> not strictly and grimly technical is not a reason to remove this.
> 
> Please ack.

Your anti-natalism and pro-abortion views have had a very wide reach 
[1][2][3] from pieces on your site and so on. Relative to that the 
number of people learning about it from a section of glibc manual is 
minuscule. As this is not an effective place to proselytize, removing it 
from there will not hinder the good you aim to do with it. On the other 
hand it is such a deeply personal and in many causes traumatic 
experience that may be very upsetting to suddenly be exposed to in a 
strange mocking way, removing it would make glibc less painful to work 
with for some people.

[1] 
http://www.art.net/Studios/Hackers/Hopkins/Don/text/rms-vs-doctor.html
[2] https://stallman.org/articles/children.html
[3] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_Stallman

It would be advisable to have empathy for the struggles we do not 
personally go through and if possible involve women in this 
conversation.

Lastly I would like to ask, must one have the same political views as 
Stallman to be part of the GNU project? What if we simply believe in the 
four software freedoms, is that not enough? Should members who are 
against abortion (this includes vegans) be excluded?

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Rich Felker]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:03:16PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The point of this joke is even more important now than it was when I
> first wrote it.  Please do not remove it.
> 
> GNU is not a purely technical project, so the fact that this is
> not strictly and grimly technical is not a reason to remove this.
> 
> Please ack.

I was one of the people involved in conversations leading up to this,
and while I strongly support a message of standing up for bodily and
reproductive autonomy, and specifically the right to abortion, I saw
the joke as highly out-of-place and harmful for reasons very close to
what Carlos already explained.

Abortion is a topic potentially connected to all sorts of personal
trauma -- being forced to become or stay pregnant against one's will,
having to terminate a wanted pregnancy out of medical necessity,
being/feeling forced to terminate by someone with power over you or by
other circumstances, etc. Users of glibc should not have their
attention drawn in such directions unexpectedly when they go to lookup
whether glibc documents any specific behavior for the abort()
function, and participants in the project should not feel like they're
required to be part in pushing that experience on others.

Rich

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Ryan S. Arnold]

(resending in plain-text)

As a glibc steward, and the butt of what might be termed as "abusive
humor" in this project in the past, I won't defend keeping this joke
in place.

If this were told in a comedy club, it could be defended. In the glibc
manual (an inappropriate venue) it can't be. We really can't interpret
how this joke might be taken from any side of the political spectrum.
I've been a strong advocate of inclusiveness in glibc over the years
and don't want to alienate any contributor by making an unnecessary
(to the project) political statement.

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Ryan S. Arnold <ryan.arnold@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a glibc steward, and the butt of what might be termed as "abusive humor"
> in this project in the past, I won't defend keeping this joke in place.
>
> If this were told in a comedy club, it could be defended. In the glibc
> manual (an inappropriate venue) it can't be. We really can't interpret how
> this joke might be taken from any side of the political spectrum. I've been
> a strong advocate of inclusiveness in glibc over the years and don't want to
> alienate any contributor by making an unnecessary (to the project) political
> statement.
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
>> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
>> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>>
>> The point of this joke is even more important now than it was when I
>> first wrote it.  Please do not remove it.
>>
>> GNU is not a purely technical project, so the fact that this is
>> not strictly and grimly technical is not a reason to remove this.
>>
>> Please ack.
>>
>> --
>> Dr Richard Stallman
>> President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
>> Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
>> Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.
>>
>

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > As a glibc steward, and the butt of what might be termed as "abusive humor"
  > in this project in the past,

Can you explain how it relates to this point?  My joke makes fun of
a US gag rule; it does not "abuse" anyone.

  > If this were told in a comedy club, it could be defended. In the glibc
  > manual (an inappropriate venue) it can't be. 

The GNU Project has a broader standard of what is appropriate.
Jokes that relate to the material at hand are appropriate.

This joke is even more appropriate nowadays because of Republican plans
to broaden the gag rule.

  > I've been
  > a strong advocate of inclusiveness

"Inclusiveness" usual means rejection of bigotry against groups of
people, and in that sense we support it.  However, we must not stretch
it to mean political neutrality and silence so as to avoid ever disagreeing
with anyone.  We do not endorse or follow that narrowmindedness.

				       in glibc over the years and don't want
  > to alienate any contributor by making an unnecessary (to the project)
  > political statement.

The GNU Project defends basic rights on the internet, so criticizing
censorship is good anywhere.

We would not want to make a statement in a manual that would drive away
a large fraction of our community.  However, we know from observation
that it doesn't do that.  You're worried about hypothetical people
that seem to be very rare.

My decision is to keep the joke.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Zack Weinberg]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> The point of this joke is even more important now than it was when I
> first wrote it.  Please do not remove it.

Given the @c immediately above saying that you wrote it and did not
want it removed, we should have brought you into the discussion
earlier, and I regret not having thought of that. However, the passage
has already been removed, and if you want that change reverted, you
will have to find someone else willing to do that; I won't.

The only person who has spoken in favor of the passage, other than
yourself, made the same argument that you do -- the continued
importance of the *topic*.  And I agree with you that the topic is
important.  However, the GNU C Library Manual is an actively
inappropriate place to discuss it, as has been explained much more
eloquently by several other people already; I have nothing in
particular to add to their observations.

zw

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  >   However, the GNU C Library Manual is an actively
  > inappropriate place to discuss it,

A serious discussion of an unrelated political issue would be a
strange digression.  The joke is appropriate precisely because it is a
joke, and very short.

Since you understand it wasn't right to delete this without my
approval, would you please undo that mistake?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Zack Weinberg]

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>   >   However, the GNU C Library Manual is an actively
>   > inappropriate place to discuss it,
>
> A serious discussion of an unrelated political issue would be a
> strange digression.  The joke is appropriate precisely because it is a
> joke, and very short.

Let me be absolutely clear: in my opinion, ANY discussion of abortion
in the sense of termination of pregnancy is inappropriate for the GNU
C Library Manual.  That includes both the original joke and all of the
proposed alternatives.

The fundamental problem I have here is that no matter how cleverly you
word your joke, it winds up being at the expense of the person reading
the manual.  You're reading about a function whose name happens to be
'abort' and suddenly the manual starts talking (however coyly) about
US government policies related to abortion -- that inherently draws a
comparison between the termination of a pregnancy and the termination
of a computer process, and thus trivializes the former.  So it winds
up sounding like you are mocking the reader's actual beliefs about
abortion, whatever they happen to be.

I'm sure that was not your intent, but this is not something that can
be fixed with good intentions; it can only be fixed by dropping the
joke.

> Since you understand it wasn't right to delete this without my
> approval, would you please undo that mistake?

As I already said, I will not undo the change. And I formally object
to the inclusion of any alternative material.

zw

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

It appears that your opinion is based on a strange, roundabout
interpretation of the joke.  The joke is about a real censorship
policy, and makes humor by transposing it to the mention of a standard
C function.

I don't believe that many readers will interpret the joke in that
roundabout way, so the problem you are concerned with does not really
exist.

Thus, I stand by my decision to keep the joke.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/02/2018 08:41 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Since you understand it wasn't right to delete this without my
> approval, would you please undo that mistake?

I don't think your approval was necessary for removal since active 
reviewers involved demonstrated adequate consensus at the time.  Since 
you have an objection to the removal after the fact, we can discuss the 
possibility of reverting the change without actually reverting (since 
there is still sufficient opposition to the joke) since it does not 
break builds and/or halt development in any way other than mildly 
distracting people from hacking.

As for the change itself, I dislike the idea of injecting unrelated 
political ideology into the manual just for the heck of it.  I think it 
risks diluting the main political message we want to get across, i.e. 
freedom of expression through the software we write and/or use.

That said, the political issue in question doesn't affect me in any 
significant way in a long or short term given that I don't live in that 
country, so I care as much about abortion laws in the US as the average 
US citizen cares about AFSPA or UIDAI in India.

Siddhesh

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

As the head of the GNU Project, I am in charge of what we publish
in GNU manuals.  I decide the criteria to decide by, too.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/04/2018 09:50 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> As the head of the GNU Project, I am in charge of what we publish
> in GNU manuals.  I decide the criteria to decide by, too.

I assume you have commit access then, so please feel free to reinstate 
the change with your ID and let it be known that you do that despite 
objection from the glibc community.

Maybe the consensus[1] doc in the wiki also needs to be modified to 
reflect that reality:

'''
The GNU C Library project is mostly a consensus-based community-driven 
project.

Consensus: General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained 
opposition to substantial issues by an important part of the concerned 
interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account 
the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting 
arguments. Consensus need not imply unanimity. Although it is necessary 
for developer work to progress speedily, sufficient time is required for 
the discussion, negotiation and resolution of significant technical 
disagreements. Developers need to ensure discipline with respect to 
release schedules in order to avoid long review times. Similarly, to 
avoid re-discussion, developers have the responsibility of ensuring that 
their contribution takes into account all interests concerned, and that 
this standpoint is made clear at an early stage of the work rather than, 
for example, in a final patch or commit. (Language based loosely on the 
ISO definition).

An exception to the criteria of consensus is the case where general 
consensus in the community offends the dear leader of the GNU Project in 
  any way.
'''

Siddhesh

[1] https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Consensus

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Florian Weimer]

* Siddhesh Poyarekar:

> Maybe the consensus[1] doc in the wiki also needs to be modified to 
> reflect that reality:

Please take a deep breath and wait.  At this pace, we will have a fork
by the end of next week.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/04/2018 02:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Siddhesh Poyarekar:
> 
>> Maybe the consensus[1] doc in the wiki also needs to be modified to
>> reflect that reality:
> 
> Please take a deep breath and wait.  At this pace, we will have a fork
> by the end of next week.

You can trust me to wait for consensus ;)

Siddhesh

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > The GNU C Library project is mostly a consensus-based community-driven 
  > project.

I think that's literally true, due to the word "mostly", but people
could get the wrong idea from it.  GNU Libc is not an independent
project.

The GNU C Library is a GNU package -- part of the GNU Project.  That
means I appoint official maintainers who are in charge of the work.
They are responsible to the GNU Project and specifically to me as
Chief GNUisance.  I appointed the GNU Libc maintainers in that way.

Occasionally I give specific instructions to package maintainers about
some specific point.  But that's the rare exception.  All the other
points, I leave to the package maintainers to decide -- following the
overall policies and goals of the GNU Project.

For many GNU packages, the sole maintainer does the work.  However,
maintainers can recruit other contributors.  The maintainers of GNU
Libc recruit lots of contributors, and delegate many decisions to
them; but the maintainers are responsible to the GNU Project for all
the work on the package, including what they delegate.

As long as the maintainers carry out their responsibity, on the issues
which that touches, how they decide everything else is up to them.  If
they wish to do it through consensus among the community of project
contributors, that's fine, as long as they get good results that way.

Thus, it may be well be the case that the GNU C Library is _mostly_ a
consensus-based community-driven project -- if the maintainers have
decided to delegate most decisions that way.  However, on _some_
questions they have specific responsibility to the GNU Project,
so they can't delegate the authority to you.

I exercise my authority over Glibc very rarely -- and when I have done
so, I have talked with the official maintainers.  So rarely that some
of you thought that you are entirely autonomous.  But that is not the
case.  On this particular question, I made a decision long ago and
stated it where all of you could see it.

If you would like me to change it, it is up to you to convince me
to change my decision.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/06/2018 10:00 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
>   > The GNU C Library project is mostly a consensus-based community-driven 
>   > project.
> 
> I think that's literally true, due to the word "mostly", but people
> could get the wrong idea from it.  GNU Libc is not an independent
> project.
I have adjusted the text in [1] to reference back to the existing text
under the project maintainership page which describes those people who
are responsible for the project as GNU Maintainers.

This should hopefully avoid any confusion about being a GNU package,
and needing to adhere to GNU policies.

> I exercise my authority over Glibc very rarely -- and when I have done
> so, I have talked with the official maintainers.  So rarely that some
> of you thought that you are entirely autonomous.  But that is not the
> case.  On this particular question, I made a decision long ago and
> stated it where all of you could see it.

Several GNU package maintainers for glibc disagree with the joke, agreed
with the removal, and I do not plan to personally put it back without
a broader discussion of the purpose of the current material and what
glibc as a GNU package could stand to gain or loose from it. That discussion
is well underway, but could do with some summarizing of the various current
suggestions and statements.

Does this violate any existing GNU policies?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

[1] https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Consensus

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/07/2018 07:30 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
>    > The GNU C Library project is mostly a consensus-based community-driven
>    > project.
> 
> I think that's literally true, due to the word "mostly", but people
> could get the wrong idea from it.  GNU Libc is not an independent
> project.
> 
> The GNU C Library is a GNU package -- part of the GNU Project.  That
> means I appoint official maintainers who are in charge of the work.
> They are responsible to the GNU Project and specifically to me as
> Chief GNUisance.  I appointed the GNU Libc maintainers in that way.

I am not under any illusion that glibc is an independent project.  My 
sarcasm (!) was in response to your statement which seems to indicate 
that you're willing to disregard the consensus of the community because 
it doesn't align with your personal views.  The fact that you continue 
to discuss somewhat productively gives me some hope, which is why I 
continue arguing the matter.

I made the case for a distinction between the GNU project and the FSF 
and the feature creep in core values that you broadly agreed with (in 
theory) elsewhere but you're unwilling to accept the gravity of the 
situation because you personally don't see the seriousness of it despite 
a bunch of active contributors letting their objection be known for 
various reasons.

I am not an FSF steward you've appointed so you don't have to take me 
seriously (conversely I don't answer to you either) but we seem to 
broadly care about the same things in the context of the GNU project, as 
do most others on this thread, so I'd like you to consider that when you 
use your decree and alienate the community.

Siddhesh

PS: Alex seems to have already reverted the patch stating that you get 
final decree (and he is exercising it on your behalf) or something like 
that, which is mildly annoying in this context but I guess it's 'by the 
books'.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 22:00 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
>   > The GNU C Library project is mostly a consensus-based community-driven 
>   > project.
> 
> I think that's literally true, due to the word "mostly", but people
> could get the wrong idea from it.  GNU Libc is not an independent
> project.
> 
> The GNU C Library is a GNU package -- part of the GNU Project.  That
> means I appoint official maintainers who are in charge of the work.
> They are responsible to the GNU Project and specifically to me as
> Chief GNUisance.  I appointed the GNU Libc maintainers in that way.

To me personally, that statement is a reason for a fork; specifically,
your insistence that your personal opinion is more important than strong
consensus in the community of developers (which we had in favor of
removal of the "joke", and again against reverting the removal).

All the back-and-forth about the "joke" could be considered just a
nuisance, but escalating this to a point where you dismiss (developer)
community consensus crosses a red line for me.  glibc has been
successful in the recent past because we have been a consensus-based,
community-driven project.  I don't want to risk this just because of a
person calling himself "Chief GNUisance".

A fork has costs, but making a point that we are indeed a
consensus-based, community-driven project can have *lots* of value too.
This can send a strong message to our community and users that we
actually mean it.  We have enough resources and experience with open
source projects to quickly bring up the forked community, and never look
back.  The developers that spoke out against the "joke" do a large part
of the work overall, and much much more than the developer(s) that
wanted to keep it.

Of course, it doesn't have to come to a fork.  All it needs is an
acknowledgement that glibc is nowadays a consensus-based,
community-driven project.  That can't be that hard to agree to, can it?

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Torvald Riegel, 07/05/2018 23:21:
> I don't want to risk this just because of a
> person calling himself "Chief GNUisance".

Can you clarify what you mean? This sounds like you take issue not with 
an idea or a decision, but with a person (or a person's self-identity?).

Federico

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 23:42 +0300, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Torvald Riegel, 07/05/2018 23:21:
> > I don't want to risk this just because of a
> > person calling himself "Chief GNUisance".
> 
> Can you clarify what you mean? This sounds like you take issue not with 
> an idea or a decision, but with a person (or a person's self-identity?).

The expression "person calling himself "Chief GNUisance" is just
restating what the person said himself, and I cite: "to me as Chief
GNUisance".  This is in context of the discussion about who can make
decisions, so the name "Chief GNUisance" is in the context of roles in
that decision process.
So, this reduces my statement to "I don't want to risk [consensus-based,
community-driven] because [the role the person assumes to have in this
context]".

I can't comment on your question about self-identity -- that's obviously
a question you need to ask this person, if you'd think that this would
be appropriate.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/01/2018 11:11 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
>   >   However, the GNU C Library Manual is an actively
>   > inappropriate place to discuss it,
> 
> A serious discussion of an unrelated political issue would be a
> strange digression.  The joke is appropriate precisely because it is a
> joke, and very short.
> 
> Since you understand it wasn't right to delete this without my
> approval, would you please undo that mistake?
 
As a GNU Developer for the community I OK'd the patch.

As a GNU Developer I answer to the GNU Project.

I also apologize for not contacting you directly.

This does not change my position on the joke and it's relation to
abortion and censorship.

A large group of developers, serious senior developers, at least 3
project stewards (GNU Developers for the project), are indicating
that they do not share your same view on the joke. Please consider
their input and work with me to reach a consensus position.

The underlying notions that the joke tries to express are important
and I am more than willing to engage with you and Alex to write
new text and put it back into the manual to meet our needs to
express a viewpoint on censorship.

Let me propose another the following patch for discussion. It is
*not* a @cartouche, and will therefore be visible in all of our
info and html files (which is better IMO).

2018-05-03  Carlos O'Donell  <carlos@systemhalted.org>

	* manual/intro.texi (Government Censorship): New node.

diff --git a/manual/intro.texi b/manual/intro.texi
index cc9c99f543..b413652194 100644
--- a/manual/intro.texi
+++ b/manual/intro.texi
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ portability.
 
 @menu
 * Getting Started::             What this manual is for and how to use it.
+* Government Censorship::       Government censorship.
 * Standards and Portability::   Standards and sources upon which the GNU
                                  C library is based.
 * Using the Library::           Some practical uses for the library.
@@ -29,7 +30,7 @@ portability.
                                  this manual.
 @end menu
 
-@node Getting Started, Standards and Portability,  , Introduction
+@node Getting Started, Government Censorship,  , Introduction
 @section Getting Started
 
 This manual is written with the assumption that you are at least
@@ -56,6 +57,21 @@ are writing your programs you can recognize @emph{when} to make use of
 library functions, and @emph{where} in this manual you can find more
 specific information about them.
 
+@node Government Censorship, Standards and Portability, Getting Started, Introduction
+@section Government Censorship
+@cindex censorship
+
+@string{Trigger warning: Talk of abortion.}
+
+The GNU project takes the position that government censorship should
+not be supported.  Censorship threatens the distribution of information
+in ways that restricts the freedoms of our users and harms the creativity
+of the project.
+
+Censorship of technical information, cultural information, and even
+information related to human abortion (regardless of your position on
+the topic), should not be supported. Such censorship restricts the
+freedoms of all users.
 
 @node Standards and Portability, Using the Library, Getting Started, Introduction
 @section Standards and Portability
---

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/03/2018 10:06 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> As a GNU Developer for the community I OK'd the patch.
> 
> As a GNU Developer I answer to the GNU Project.
> 
> I also apologize for not contacting you directly.
> 
> This does not change my position on the joke and it's relation to
> abortion and censorship.
> 
> A large group of developers, serious senior developers, at least 3
> project stewards (GNU Developers for the project), are indicating
> that they do not share your same view on the joke. Please consider
> their input and work with me to reach a consensus position.
> 
> The underlying notions that the joke tries to express are important
> and I am more than willing to engage with you and Alex to write
> new text and put it back into the manual to meet our needs to
> express a viewpoint on censorship.
> 
> Let me propose another the following patch for discussion. It is
> *not* a @cartouche, and will therefore be visible in all of our
> info and html files (which is better IMO).
> 
> 2018-05-03  Carlos O'Donell  <carlos@systemhalted.org>
> 
> 	* manual/intro.texi (Government Censorship): New node.

That still doesn't make it any more relevant to the GNU project, let 
alone glibc.  I agree that it may be relevant to the FSF, but does that 
mean that I can submit patches to add snippets about privacy invasions 
and/or human rights violations in India given that I am an active GNU 
contributor?

We probably agree on a lot of political and social issues (not that it 
is even necessary), but the manual is just not the forum for it.

Siddhesh

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Adhemerval Zanella]

On 03/05/2018 04:01, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 05/03/2018 10:06 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> As a GNU Developer for the community I OK'd the patch.
>>
>> As a GNU Developer I answer to the GNU Project.
>>
>> I also apologize for not contacting you directly.
>>
>> This does not change my position on the joke and it's relation to
>> abortion and censorship.
>>
>> A large group of developers, serious senior developers, at least 3
>> project stewards (GNU Developers for the project), are indicating
>> that they do not share your same view on the joke. Please consider
>> their input and work with me to reach a consensus position.
>>
>> The underlying notions that the joke tries to express are important
>> and I am more than willing to engage with you and Alex to write
>> new text and put it back into the manual to meet our needs to
>> express a viewpoint on censorship.
>>
>> Let me propose another the following patch for discussion. It is
>> *not* a @cartouche, and will therefore be visible in all of our
>> info and html files (which is better IMO).
>>
>> 2018-05-03  Carlos O'Donell  <carlos@systemhalted.org>
>>
>>     * manual/intro.texi (Government Censorship): New node.
> 
> That still doesn't make it any more relevant to the GNU project, let alone glibc.  I agree that it may be relevant to the FSF, but does that mean that I can submit patches to add snippets about privacy invasions and/or human rights violations in India given that I am an active GNU contributor?
> 
> We probably agree on a lot of political and social issues (not that it is even necessary), but the manual is just not the forum for it.
> 
> Siddhesh

I agree with Siddhesh, as we are seeing politics is a quite touchy subject
specially with a forum with participants with different nationalities and
political views.  The current subject of abortion is *much* more complex
than discussion so far, can be viewed from multiples political and 
philosophical ways than mere 'government censorship', and I really think
glibc documentation is not the place to engage in such discussion. 

I see it is wiser to try to be more strictly formal and technical on a 
glibc documentation.

We currently have many other places were one can express his political
views and if you are not heard as you expect it is something you need to
deal it. 

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Rafal Luzynski]

3.05.2018 13:07 Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 03/05/2018 04:01, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > [...] I agree that it may be relevant to the FSF, but does that mean that I
> > can submit patches to add snippets about privacy invasions and/or human
> > rights violations in India given that I am an active GNU contributor?
> >
> > We probably agree on a lot of political and social issues (not that it is
> > even necessary), but the manual is just not the forum for it.
> >
> > Siddhesh
>
> I agree with Siddhesh, as we are seeing politics is a quite touchy subject
> specially with a forum with participants with different nationalities and
> political views. The current subject of abortion is *much* more complex
> than discussion so far, can be viewed from multiples political and
> philosophical ways than mere 'government censorship', and I really think
> glibc documentation is not the place to engage in such discussion.
>
> I see it is wiser to try to be more strictly formal and technical on a
> glibc documentation.
>
> We currently have many other places were one can express his political
> views and if you are not heard as you expect it is something you need to
> deal it.

I agree with these arguments.  It seems to me that the joke is impossible
to understand without a deep knowledge of internal affairs of the USA
(I hope I guessed correctly which country is this about), also it is not
clear if it refers to the current events or to some in the past.  Even
if understood it is not necessarily agreed by the readers, even if agreed
it is not relevant for those of us who are not US citizens, same as
our knowledge and opinion is not relevant to the US lawmakers.  IMHO this
makes the manual not appropriate to publish political messages applying to
a single country, no matter which country it is.  Should we all write about
the internal issues of our respective countries?  Thank you for removing
this part from the manual.  As the removal has now been reverted - well,
I have no power to object this.

Also, some of the posts here make me wonder if I have joined the right
project.  It definitely was not my intention to join any political or social
organization.  My motivation has always been exclusively technical.
Fortunately I am too young to actually have experienced this but I've heard
enough stories about scientific or industrial projects led by politicians
and persecution of scientists, engineers, and other employees who refused
to follow the core values of their leaders.

Regards,

Rafal

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/07/2018 07:43 PM, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
> Also, some of the posts here make me wonder if I have joined the right
> project.  It definitely was not my intention to join any political or social
> organization.  My motivation has always been exclusively technical.
> Fortunately I am too young to actually have experienced this but I've heard
> enough stories about scientific or industrial projects led by politicians
> and persecution of scientists, engineers, and other employees who refused
> to follow the core values of their leaders.

Thank you for your post Rafal. I hope that we will continue to receive your
contributions in the future and I will do everything I possibly can to make
that easier for you.

The GNU C Library project is a GNU Project, and that means that we do have
a mission, particularly aligned with the GNU project [1]. These discussions
have roots in the structure of our societies, and thus touch upon subjects
like laws, censorship, etc. Therefore we do talk about these things, but in
this case there is a deep disagreement over how and where the discussion
should be had.

Thank you again for providing your input.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-history.en.html

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Jeff Law]

On 05/03/2018 01:01 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 05/03/2018 10:06 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> As a GNU Developer for the community I OK'd the patch.
>>
>> As a GNU Developer I answer to the GNU Project.
>>
>> I also apologize for not contacting you directly.
>>
>> This does not change my position on the joke and it's relation to
>> abortion and censorship.
>>
>> A large group of developers, serious senior developers, at least 3
>> project stewards (GNU Developers for the project), are indicating
>> that they do not share your same view on the joke. Please consider
>> their input and work with me to reach a consensus position.
>>
>> The underlying notions that the joke tries to express are important
>> and I am more than willing to engage with you and Alex to write
>> new text and put it back into the manual to meet our needs to
>> express a viewpoint on censorship.
>>
>> Let me propose another the following patch for discussion. It is
>> *not* a @cartouche, and will therefore be visible in all of our
>> info and html files (which is better IMO).
>>
>> 2018-05-03  Carlos O'Donell  <carlos@systemhalted.org>
>>
>>     * manual/intro.texi (Government Censorship): New node.
> 
> That still doesn't make it any more relevant to the GNU project, let
> alone glibc.  I agree that it may be relevant to the FSF, but does that
> mean that I can submit patches to add snippets about privacy invasions
> and/or human rights violations in India given that I am an active GNU
> contributor?
> 
> We probably agree on a lot of political and social issues (not that it
> is even necessary), but the manual is just not the forum for it.
Agreed 100%.

jeff

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Florian Weimer]

* Carlos O'Donell:

> +@node Government Censorship, Standards and Portability, Getting Started, Introduction
> +@section Government Censorship
> +@cindex censorship
> +
> +@string{Trigger warning: Talk of abortion.}
> +
> +The GNU project takes the position that government censorship should
> +not be supported.  Censorship threatens the distribution of information
> +in ways that restricts the freedoms of our users and harms the creativity
> +of the project.
> +
> +Censorship of technical information, cultural information, and even
> +information related to human abortion (regardless of your position on
> +the topic), should not be supported. Such censorship restricts the
> +freedoms of all users.

In most cultures, government restrictions on access to information
which is specifically designed to enable people to commit illegal acts
are not considered censorship.  I don't think you can list abortion in
this context without taking sides.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  3, 2018, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:

> In most cultures, government restrictions on access to information
> which is specifically designed to enable people to commit illegal acts
> are not considered censorship.  I don't think you can list abortion in
> this context without taking sides.

There's law in the US that makes it a crime to publish information on
how to circumvent digital handcuffs, you know.  Even if you rationalize
it and frame it with another term to make it more palatable, it's still
censorship of information for practical use.

GNU is the software development branch of the Free Software social and
political movement.  We don't mind taking sides; in fact, if we didn't,
it wouldn't be a social and political movement.  Our raison d'être are
the essential freedoms over information for practical use.

The law criticized in the snippet under dispute is one that denies
people the essential freedom to share information for practical use.  It
is fundamentally at odds with the most essential core value of our
movement.

I'm very disappointed and baffled that an allusion to a taboo topic
that's two-levels removed, in a context in which the taboo topic is
already established and unavoidable, is enough for people to gang up
against not only the founder and leader of the movement, but also its
most fundamental value, and to take the opposite side, practicing
censorship and, by removing the criticism, taking the side of the
censors that established the denounced censorship law.

I'd have thought essential core values and the project leader's request
would trample aesthetic reasons, personal preferences and even the
discomfort of extending the coverage of a taboo topic.  But no, the
project has been taken out of the hands of its founder, and most of the
appointed stewards seem to think it's reasonable to disregard it, to
betray the core values, to practice the opposite of what we should stand
for, so that we can have bland, pasteurized, neutral purely technical
documentation that won't bring anyone any moral discomfort.  Way to go
to open sores hell: losing the moral backbone, standing for nothing,
giving up and betraying the essential freedoms.  What a shame!

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Zach van Rijn]

On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 17:11 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  3, 2018, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> 
> > In most cultures, government restrictions on access to information
> > which is specifically designed to enable people to commit illegal
> > acts are not considered censorship.  I don't think you can list
> > abortion in this context without taking sides.
> 
> There's law in the US that makes it a crime to publish information on
> how to circumvent digital handcuffs, you know.  Even if you rationalize
> it and frame it with another term to make it more palatable, it's still
> censorship of information for practical use.
> 
> GNU is the software development branch of the Free Software social and
> political movement.  We don't mind taking sides; in fact, if we didn't,
> it wouldn't be a social and political movement.  Our raison d'être are
> the essential freedoms over information for practical use.
> 

I agree with Florian's latter point: "I don't think you can list abortion
in this context without taking sides."

If it is appropriate for a "freedom fighter" to demand that a joke
supporting abortion be included in the manual, then it is appropriate for
a "freedom fighter" on the other "side" to demand that SIGCHLD be
relabeled "terminate an unwanted child process ignoring its silent
scream" --

Or perhaps, as I've stated previously, and numerous others have
expressed: the glibc manual is not the appropriate forum for a public
statement by either side of [the topic of human abortion]. Humor in
general? Censorship? As appropriate.

One proposed solution was to move specifically any discussion of
censorship to the Introductory section, as censorship appears to be the
core issue.

Your response was [00061]:
> Moving it elsewhere, where it's less effective, and removing the humor,
> that's one of the most effective ways to convey criticism and bypass
> learned rejections to such criticism, is just a softer form of
> censorship.  To me it comes across as "ok, you want to speak, go ahead
> and do so, but speak from this corner where pretty much nobody can see
> you, without a microphone, and don't make any effective criticism."
...
> A vague statement against censorship in general is nowhere as
> effective, and I don't assume you or anyone else here to be naîve
> enough to think it is.

I'll agree with you that this is absolutely true. So, as Zack [Weinberg]
proposed [00048]:

> Perhaps those that feel strongly that the FSF should be taking a
> position on this -- which I can sympathize with -- should write up an
> editorial to be published on fsf.org or gnu.org, instead.

It's clear, I feel, that if a polarizing "joke" is to be included, then
the organization must either:

(a) Permit such jokes on both "sides"; such as SIGCHLD 
    being redocumented to mention silent screams, or

(b) The organization as a whole needs to take a position on specific
    issues, and should do so definitively on their official website

> 
> I'm very disappointed and baffled that an allusion to a taboo topic
> that's two-levels removed, in a context in which the taboo topic is
> already established and unavoidable, is enough for people to gang up
> against not only the founder and leader of the movement, but also its
> most fundamental value, and to take the opposite side, practicing
> censorship and, by removing the criticism, taking the side of the
> censors that established the denounced censorship law.

Alexandre, you're minimizing the concerns of those who have already
clearly expressed dislike for the joke's existence, and conflating the
two issues that are (1) abortion and (2) censorship.

When you use the term "gang up" what you're saying is, that you notice
how (many) others have been vocal about keeping this particular joke out
of the documentation, a viewpoint you seem to oppose.

If I may quote RMS directly [00017]:
> A GNU manual, like a course in history, is not meant to be a "safe
> space".  It is meant to address a subject.  It must cover the function
> "abort", just as a course in Renaissance history must cover witch
> trials and the inquisition.

Perhaps the commit history of the manual would be a more instructive
course in history. No one has suggested removal of the library function
'abort()' as far as I'm aware. If a statement is to be made about this
particular law, a clear and direct statement in a more prominent location
(e.g., FSF or GNU main site). The joke is, again, unnecessarily confusing
and the manual is not an appropriate venue for it.

Quoting RMS directly again [00014]:
> We would not want to make a statement in a manual that would drive away
> a large fraction of our community.  However, we know from observation
> that it doesn't do that.  You're worried about hypothetical people
> that seem to be very rare.

Which is precisely your own argument for its inclusion (that only a small
fraction of the community seems to mind). This is a two-way street. I
would argue that only a small fraction of the community opposes its
removal, and that the overwhelming majority would not miss it.

Quoting you again [00052]:
> Please stop pretending the subject of the snippet is abortion.  The
> topic is censorship, and the irony of a group censoring a denouncement
> of censorship would be delicious if it weren't so tragic.

Likewise, please stop pretending it's not a sensitive topic and that
nobody cares about whether it's a direct joke or a "two-levels removed"
allusion. Your point is clear. If it weren't a tool to further your
political movement, you wouldn't be "freedom fighting" those who wish it
removed.

> 
> I'd have thought essential core values and the project leader's request
> would trample aesthetic reasons, personal preferences and even the
> discomfort of extending the coverage of a taboo topic.  But no, the
> project has been taken out of the hands of its founder, and most of the
> appointed stewards seem to think it's reasonable to disregard it, to
> betray the core values, to practice the opposite of what we should
> stand for, so that we can have bland, pasteurized, neutral purely
> technical documentation that won't bring anyone any moral
> discomfort.  Way to go to open sores hell: losing the moral backbone,
> standing for nothing, giving up and betraying the essential 
> freedoms.  What a shame!
> 

Now, as far as FSF vs. GNU is concerned, if GNU is going to "take a side"
which "side" will it be? What gives you the right to assume that it won't
be the other wide which also views itself as "freedom fighter"?

I look forward to reading an official statement or editorial on the
matter.

Respectfully,

ZV

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  3, 2018, Zach van Rijn <me@zv.io> wrote:

> On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 17:11 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On May  3, 2018, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>> 
>> > In most cultures, government restrictions on access to information
>> > which is specifically designed to enable people to commit illegal
>> > acts are not considered censorship.  I don't think you can list
>> > abortion in this context without taking sides.

> I agree with Florian's latter point: "I don't think you can list abortion
> in this context without taking sides."

Contrast with the famous quote "I don't agree with what you say, but
I'll defend to death your right to say it."

> If it is appropriate for a "freedom fighter" to demand that a joke
> supporting abortion be included in the manual

That's a straw man.  The joke under discussion does not support (human)
abortion in any way; it doesn't even support the abortion of programs!
Please read it again, below, and point out where or explain why you
believe it does.

@strong{Future Change Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations
may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
calling this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
acceptable way of terminating a program.


> a "freedom fighter" on the other "side" to demand that SIGCHLD be
> relabeled "terminate an unwanted child process ignoring its silent
> scream" --

That would be technically inaccurate (SIGCHLD is delivered to the parent
process when a child process dies), but it could be adjusted to make for
technically accurate criticism of abortion, if we set out to do so.
Nobody has suggested us to take a stand for or against abortion, though,
so that's a non-issue.


> Or perhaps, as I've stated previously, and numerous others have
> expressed: the glibc manual is not the appropriate forum for a public
> statement by either side of [the topic of human abortion].

Nobody has expressed disagreement with that.

The core of the misunderstanding seems to be the unwarranted assumption
that the joke does so.

> When you use the term "gang up" what you're saying is, that you notice
> how (many) others have been vocal about keeping this particular joke out
> of the documentation, a viewpoint you seem to oppose.

That term also highlights the highly emotional mob behavior that I
observe.

> I would argue that only a small fraction of the community opposes its
> removal, and that the overwhelming majority would not miss it.

That is quite an understatement.  The reaction is a lot more than "would
not miss it".  It comes across as Dr Who's Daleks' "EX TERMINATE!  EX
TERMINATE!"  Excuse me if that reeks of censorship to the point of
turning me into a fierce opponent of the removal of a snippet that I
formerly didn't care so much about.

> Now, as far as FSF vs. GNU is concerned, if GNU is going to "take a side"
> which "side" will it be?

For the freedom to distribute unmodified copies of the information for
practical use, and the freedom to distribute improved copies of the
information for practical use.  It's hardly news that the Free Software
movement takes that stance.

That such freedom is denied by the censorship law on information for
practical use about human abortion seems to be surprising news.  How
come?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Zack Weinberg]

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> I'm very disappointed and baffled that an allusion to a taboo topic
> that's two-levels removed, in a context in which the taboo topic is
> already established and unavoidable, is enough for people to gang up
> against not only the founder and leader of the movement, but also its
> most fundamental value, and to take the opposite side, practicing
> censorship and, by removing the criticism, taking the side of the
> censors that established the denounced censorship law.

My day job is all about monitoring, researching, and engaging in
advocacy against online censorship.  As such I take exception to
cheapening the word "censorship" by applying it to the present
argument.

The "gag rule" which the original passage was intended to comment on
is indeed an act of censorship.  It was imposed by a sovereign state,
on ordinary citizens and organizations, restricting them from saying
certain things, without exception or recourse, backed up by an
explicit threat of withdrawal of funding, and an implicit threat of
violence (as all state acts are).  That's the central meaning of the
word.

It is legitimate to expand the definition to non-state actors who are
also in a position of significant power, capable of imposing similar
bans on entire types of content, groups of people, or subjects of
discussion, without recourse.  Facebook, for instance, is in a
position to act as a censor, and arguably does censor with its "real
names" policy which excludes entire groups of people from a public
forum because either they wish to remain anonymous, or their actual
names don't look sufficiently "real" to whoever is making the call
today.  Another historical example is the Comics Code Authority, a
cartel of comic-book publishers who, for several decades collectively
refused to print anything that didn't fit a narrow, socially normative
ideal.

But what's happening here and now is not censorship.  I committed a
patch which I believed to have consensus of the active maintainers.
The original author of the text removed by the patch objected to the
change, and we are now discussing whether the text should be
reinstated or replaced with something new.  Nobody in the conversation
has any particular power over anyone else, and no decisions are being
taken in secret or without recourse.  I still won't back the patch out
myself, but if you or anyone else does, I can't stop you.

----

> that the patch was rushed in after less than 48 hours of debate when
> most of us know his email cycles are often longer than that, and that
> the person who installed the patch, in spite of expressing regret for
> not contacting RMS first, does not offer to correct the mistake and
> allow for consensus to be built, insisting on the fait accompli until
> someone else offers to revert the change.

It's fair to ask why I didn't consult RMS.  First off, I honestly did
not know that he reads and replies to email in batches with a day or
more of lag.  I cannot remember the last time I had any reason to
communicate with him about _anything_, and my current email archive
(which goes back to 2005ish) contains only a handful of messages from
him prior to this conversation, all of which were addressed to mailing
list threads that I wasn't involved with.

The passage that was removed did have an annotation in the Texinfo
source specifically saying that it was written by RMS and was not to
be removed.  However, that annotation (and the passage itself) is so
old that the git history does not record when it was added; it has
been untouched since before 1995.  I assumed that he would not care
any more, perhaps not even remember, and it did not seem important
enough to bother him about.  Again, I regret this incorrect assumption.

Despite that, I don't think I did anything wrong procedurally.  RMS
may be the project leader, but he is not a glibc maintainer.  His
wishes regarding glibc are perhaps to be given _some_ more weight than
those of any other individual, particularly when he is also the author
of text under dispute, but we have never, to my knowledge, treated
them as mandates.

----

> most of the appointed stewards seem to think it's reasonable to
> disregard it, to betray the core values, to practice the opposite of
> what we should stand for, so that we can have bland, pasteurized,
> neutral purely technical documentation that won't bring anyone any
> moral discomfort.

Speaking only for myself, it is not moral discomfort that I am
concerned with when I say that the manual should avoid the topics of
abortion and abortion-related censorship.  I am concerned with
personal trauma.  I know people who have actually had abortions.  I
also know people who _didn't_ have abortions despite significant
family pressure to do so.  For all of them, the incident is long in
the past, but the nerves are still raw enough that it is not something
casually discussed, certainly not joked about.

But this is just another anecdote, similar to those several other
people have offered.  And to be frank, I _don't_ know what they would
think of either RMS's original joke or any of the suggested
replacements.  This brings me to an important meta-point.  Almost
everyone involved in this thread uses a stereotypically male name.  It
seems likely that most, if not all, of us can at best claim to _know_
people who have been directly affected by either the gag rule, or the
restrictions and controversy over access to abortion, birth control,
etc. more generally.

I have been taking a hard line here -- these are not appropriate
topics for the manual _at all_ -- because I don't think any of us is
qualified to write a _good_ joke on this topic, one that would
actually be cathartic for the people most directly affected by either
abortion- or censorship-related trauma, when they happen upon it
unexpectedly in a document that isn't about that. I suppose we could
hire Leslie Jones to write one for us.

zw

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  3, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:

> But what's happening here and now is not censorship.  I committed a
> patch which I believed to have consensus of the active maintainers.
> The original author of the text removed by the patch objected to the
> change, and we are now discussing whether the text should be
> reinstated or replaced with something new.  Nobody in the conversation
> has any particular power over anyone else, and no decisions are being
> taken in secret or without recourse.  I still won't back the patch out
> myself, but if you or anyone else does, I can't stop you.

I respectfully disagree.  The group does have that power, and it is
wielding that power against its leader, while the leader attempts to
resist with minimal support.  That's the struggle underway.

Would you agree to name it an attempt at censorship?

> It's fair to ask why I didn't consult RMS.  First off, I honestly did
> not know that he reads and replies to email in batches with a day or
> more of lag.

Thanks for the clarification.  I hereby acknowledge that neither your
general stance nor your description seem to support the notion that you
behaved with an intent to deny RMS a chance to oppose the removal, or
that you deviated from the community procedures.  This is quite a
relief.

> Speaking only for myself, it is not moral discomfort that I am
> concerned with when I say that the manual should avoid the topics of
> abortion and abortion-related censorship.  I am concerned with
> personal trauma.  I know people who have actually had abortions.  I
> also know people who _didn't_ have abortions despite significant
> family pressure to do so.  For all of them, the incident is long in
> the past, but the nerves are still raw enough that it is not something
> casually discussed, certainly not joked about.

Given your accumulated experience at your day job, could you offer
insights on personal trauma of people who suffered censorship, and how
they might react to humor denouncing censorship?  That would probably be
a far more valuable insight for the conversation at hand.

Thanks,

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Zack Weinberg]

On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On May  3, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
>> Nobody in the conversation has any particular power over anyone
>> else, and no decisions are being taken in secret or without
>> recourse.  I still won't back the patch out myself, but if you or
>> anyone else does, I can't stop you.
>
> I respectfully disagree.  The group does have that power, and it is
> wielding that power against its leader, while the leader attempts to
> resist with minimal support.  That's the struggle underway.
>
> Would you agree to name it an attempt at censorship?

No.  This is not any kind of censorship or attempted censorship.
This is an editorial disagreement among the coauthors of a document.

Again: to be censorship someone in the discussion would have to have
the power to force others to go along with their unilateral decision
or else suffer personal consequences, such as inability to speak one's
mind _anywhere_ that it might be heard, loss of employment, loss of
funding, or physical violence.  Nobody involved can do anything of the
sort.

(Part of why I have repeatedly refused to back my patch out is to
stand for the principle that the GNU Project Leader _shouldn't_ have
ex officio power to override a consensus decision of the active
maintainers of a specific piece of software.  He should have to
persuade us to change our minds, instead.)

> Given your accumulated experience at your day job, could you offer
> insights on personal trauma of people who suffered censorship, and
> how they might react to humor denouncing censorship?  That would
> probably be a far more valuable insight for the conversation at
> hand.

That's a big topic.  I will try to answer briefly.

Censorship is most likely to be personally traumatic when it directly
affects people trying to _publish_ material.  It doesn't have to lead
to jailtime or other such extreme sanctions to do that.  In fact, it
doesn't even have to be happening at all!  People can get very, very
upset just because they _think_ their website is being deprioritized
by a search engine for political reasons, or their social media
presence is "shadowbanned", or similar, even if what's really going on
is that nobody links to them because nobody wants to hear about how
the earth is flat.

In countries where there's been a lot of censorship for a long time,
we see "chilling effects" where people have an internal model of what
the censors don't want you to talk about, and they avoid those topics
themselves.  We also see this contributing to radicalization.  When
people are frustrated that they can't speak their minds to a general
audience, they will find quiet corners where they _can_ speak their
minds, and when the other people in those quiet corners tell them that
there is a government conspiracy manipulating everything, they'll be
receptive.

Humor denouncing censorship is common, enthusiastically received, and
often deliberately allowed to stand by the censors, because they know
that it serves as a release valve for tension that might otherwise
feed more effective modes of protest.  They also know that it is
relatively easy for humor that was _intended_ to denounce censorship
to instead read as if it is mocking the people who are getting
censored, which both plays into the censors' hands, and contributes to
the trauma of the censorship itself.

Let me give an example that isn't related to the argument we're having
right now.  A few months ago, the CDN company CloudFlare decided that
they no longer wanted to do business with the people responsible for a
major neofascist website (IIRC it was Stormfront, but don't quote me
on that).  A couple weeks ago, probably as a consequence of the SESTA
legislation in the USA, they decided that they also didn't want to do
business with the people responsible for an important advertising
venue for sex work (don't remember which one and can't look it up at
the moment).  Both of these are indeed acts of censorship in a broad
sense.  I've seen several attempts at mockery go by, in which the
authors attempt to make fun of CloudFlare for treating sex-work ads as
just as problematic as neofascism.  Some of them were actually funny.
Others wound up reading like "if only those sex workers were
neofascists then the company would have worried more about dumping
them", which is technically still criticism of CloudFlare, but imagine
yourself reading it from the shoes of the sex worker who's now in
significantly more personal danger: it comes across as blaming _them_
for not being neofascists, which is extra awful in this case because
they may well be in significantly more personal danger _from_ the
neofascists.

Now let's go back to the joke that we're arguing about.  In the
description of the C library function named "abort," the manual has a
box in which it warns that "proposed censorship regulations may
prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
calling this function."  Put yourself in the shoes of someone who
doesn't know about the USA's "gag rule", but does know that the
English word for intentionally terminating a pregnancy is "abort", and
that this is controversial in many places, and, perhaps, has had to
struggle with a decision to do this or not do this herself.

Do you see that it can be read as _trivializing_ that decision, by
comparing it to the actually-trivial decision that a programmer makes
when they write code that calls abort()?

Do you see how _merely bringing the topic up at all_ could be an
unwelcome reminder for someone who had had a bad abortion-related
experience in the past, whatever that was?

zw

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Zack Weinberg]

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
> Now let's go back to the joke that we're arguing about.  In the
> description of the C library function named "abort," the manual has a
> box in which it warns that "proposed censorship regulations may
> prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
> calling this function."  Put yourself in the shoes of someone who
> doesn't know about the USA's "gag rule", but does know that the
> English word for intentionally terminating a pregnancy is "abort", and
> that this is controversial in many places, and, perhaps, has had to
> struggle with a decision to do this or not do this herself.
>
> Do you see that it can be read as _trivializing_ that decision, by
> comparing it to the actually-trivial decision that a programmer makes
> when they write code that calls abort()?

Maybe even more importantly, do you see how this trivializes _the
censorship_, by virtue of that same implicit comparison?

zw

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  6, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:

> (Part of why I have repeatedly refused to back my patch out is to
> stand for the principle that the GNU Project Leader _shouldn't_ have
> ex officio power to override a consensus decision of the active
> maintainers of a specific piece of software.  He should have to
> persuade us to change our minds, instead.)

Do you agree, however, that the consensus was only apparent, because
nobody else thought of asking him, and I, who was uncomfortable with the
change, decided to only speak up after consulting him?

> That's a big topic.  I will try to answer briefly.

Thanks for taking the time to put together all that information!  That's
appreciated.


> Now let's go back to the joke that we're arguing about.  In the
> description of the C library function named "abort," the manual has a
> box in which it warns that "proposed censorship regulations may
> prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
> calling this function."  Put yourself in the shoes of someone who
> doesn't know about the USA's "gag rule", but does know that the
> English word for intentionally terminating a pregnancy is "abort",
> and that this is controversial in many places, and, perhaps, has had
> to struggle with a decision to do this or not do this herself.

Wait, is it only for intentional termination?  I was thinking
miscarriage throughout most of the entire conversation, and missed some
of the possibilities of trauma for that.

As for not knowing about the law, that's a shortcoming that's easy to
fix with more speech, not less.

We could have a note along these lines, sidestepping the humor, giving
more information and still clearly taking the anti-censorship stand:

  It is our belief that our providing information on how to call this
  function, or what it does, does not run afoul of the unjust US gag
  rule that punishes with financial strangling organizations that offer
  medical advice or information about the possibility of interrupting
  pregnancies.  If our understanding is found to be incorrect, we may be
  forced to remove this piece of documentation.  That would be
  unfortunate, but not as bad as being forced to withhold from patients
  information that could enable them to decide more intelligently about
  their own health and lives.


> Do you see that it can be read as _trivializing_ that decision, by
> comparing it to the actually-trivial decision that a programmer makes
> when they write code that calls abort()?

> Maybe even more importantly, do you see how this trivializes _the
> censorship_, by virtue of that same implicit comparison?

I think I do, and I hope the suggestion above addresses both points.


> Do you see how _merely bringing the topic up at all_ could be an
> unwelcome reminder for someone who had had a bad abortion-related
> experience in the past, whatever that was?

I do, but I also realize that the alternative would be to remove the
documentation for abort altogether.  Since nobody suggested us to do
that, I assume we're in consensus about documenting it regardless of the
fact that it is a reminder of such traumatic experiences.  Hopefully the
suggestion above will put it under an adequate light.


-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Zack Weinberg]

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On May  6, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> (Part of why I have repeatedly refused to back my patch out is to
>> stand for the principle that the GNU Project Leader _shouldn't_ have
>> ex officio power to override a consensus decision of the active
>> maintainers of a specific piece of software.  He should have to
>> persuade us to change our minds, instead.)
>
> Do you agree, however, that the consensus was only apparent, because
> nobody else thought of asking him, and I, who was uncomfortable with the
> change, decided to only speak up after consulting him?

I am not sure if I understand this question.  If the following
hypothetical scenario doesn't answer it, please let me know what you
still want to know.

Suppose that last week, at the point when I committed the patch, I had
instead contacted RMS directly to inform him that we were considering
the removal of his joke and we wanted to know if he still felt it
should stay there.  Suppose also that he had replied more or less as
he actually did, saying only that he did want it to stay there,
without offering any more compelling of an argument for its presence
than what he has so far posted, and suppose that all the other people
involved took the same positions they actually did.

In that case, I would have given the discussion a few more days to
settle, but after getting to where we are today -- everyone's position
seems to have hardened and nobody is offering new arguments for or
against -- it would still have been my assessment that the consensus
of the active maintainers of glibc was to remove the joke.  I might
have left the final call to someone more centrally involved than
myself, though.

> Wait, is [abort] only for intentional termination?  I was thinking
> miscarriage throughout most of the entire conversation, and missed some
> of the possibilities of trauma for that.

In modern American English, yes, "abort[ion]" is applied only to
intentional termination of a human pregnancy.  I think I have read
older, possibly British, texts where it was used for miscarriage
caused by a bacterial infection...but that was in farm animals (cows,
sheep).

> We could have a note along these lines, sidestepping the humor, giving
> more information and still clearly taking the anti-censorship stand:
>
>   It is our belief that our providing information on how to call this
>   function, or what it does, does not run afoul of the unjust US gag
>   rule that punishes with financial strangling organizations that offer
>   medical advice or information about the possibility of interrupting
>   pregnancies.  If our understanding is found to be incorrect, we may be
>   forced to remove this piece of documentation.  That would be
>   unfortunate, but not as bad as being forced to withhold from patients
>   information that could enable them to decide more intelligently about
>   their own health and lives.

This seems plausible as a starting point for an editorial article
about the gag rule posted on the FSF's website, but it is still
inappropriate for the glibc manual, IMHO.

A trivializing comparison is inherent in bringing up abortion in the
medical sense in the context of a C library function.  I do not see
any way to avoid this with clever words; the only solution that
presently seems acceptable to me is for the manual to leave the topic
strictly untouched.

>> Do you see how _merely bringing the topic up at all_ could be an
>> unwelcome reminder for someone who had had a bad abortion-related
>> experience in the past, whatever that was?
>
> I do, but I also realize that the alternative would be to remove the
> documentation for abort altogether.

I don't see how that follows.  The problem is not with the _word_
'abort'; it has several senses and the manual _would_ be clearly using
it in the sense of "stop a mechanical process that has malfunctioned",
like you abort a rocket launch when it goes off course; that doesn't
have negative associations...as long as we don't bring up the
"intentional termination of pregnancy" sense.

(There _are_ words that are problematic in themselves to the point
where I would support eradicating them from the manual, e.g. 'slave',
but this is not one of them.)

zw

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  6, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On May  6, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> (Part of why I have repeatedly refused to back my patch out is to
>>> stand for the principle that the GNU Project Leader _shouldn't_ have
>>> ex officio power to override a consensus decision of the active
>>> maintainers of a specific piece of software.  He should have to
>>> persuade us to change our minds, instead.)
>> 
>> Do you agree, however, that the consensus was only apparent, because
>> nobody else thought of asking him, and I, who was uncomfortable with the
>> change, decided to only speak up after consulting him?

> I am not sure if I understand this question.  If the following
> hypothetical scenario doesn't answer it, please let me know what you
> still want to know.

Your hypothetical scenario seems to have been carefully crafted so as to
discount my opinion.  I may not have been an active GNU libc developer,
but I'm still appointed by the GNU project as one of the maintainers,
and part of the job is precisely to stand for GNU's values and try to
steer the community when it diverges from that.

>> Wait, is [abort] only for intentional termination?  I was thinking
>> miscarriage throughout most of the entire conversation, and missed some
>> of the possibilities of trauma for that.

> In modern American English, yes, "abort[ion]" is applied only to
> intentional termination of a human pregnancy.

Interesting.  I believe this is not the case in Latin-based languages;
at least it isn't in those I speak.

>>> Do you see how _merely bringing the topic up at all_ could be an
>>> unwelcome reminder for someone who had had a bad abortion-related
>>> experience in the past, whatever that was?

>> I do, but I also realize that the alternative would be to remove the
>> documentation for abort altogether.

> I don't see how that follows.

The first point I brought into this conversation was that, possibly
because of my language background, the very definition of the function,
because of its name (and most often uses thereof) bring me memories of a
very traumatic miscarriage my wife and I had many years ago.  That was
one of the triggers that led me into depression for several years.

> (There _are_ words that are problematic in themselves to the point
> where I would support eradicating them from the manual, e.g. 'slave',
> but this is not one of them.)

For someone who appears to be so concerned about people's traumatic
experiences regarding intentional termination of pregnancies, you seem
to be far too unconcerned about those who underwent unintentional ones
but have different language backgrounds.

There are a lot more people around the world with a different language
background from yours, than people with a similar one, and that
nevertheless are able to communicate in English to the point of being
able to read the manual.  Our ability to do so does not disconnect us
from our native languages and connotations that words bring about.  The
false authority with which you state that this word is not one of them
is not just offensive to me, because it suggests you don't accept my
earlier report, and disrespectful to others like me who have suffered
such traumatic experiences, and whose memories are brought back by the
term despite your denial.


I haven't double-checked, but I guess you'll see that all of the people
who brought in opinions in support of keeping the joke, and even
suggesting other jokes along the same lines, have Latin surnames.  I
guess that's because, for us, the topics of abortion and miscarriages
are already a given within the definition of 'abort', so the humor about
the unrelated topic of censorship helps release the tension.


See, what was just a matter of censorship and pregnancy termination is
now also a matter of racial/linguistic discrimination :-(

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/06/2018 08:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> See, what was just a matter of censorship and pregnancy termination is
> now also a matter of racial/linguistic discrimination :-(
 
This is a distinct issue from the deletion of the text in question.

We can absolutely start a project to evaluate the manual and all of it's
context across those languages for which people are willing to help review.

That doesn't detract from Zack's main points about the joke.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  6, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 05/06/2018 08:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> See, what was just a matter of censorship and pregnancy termination is
>> now also a matter of racial/linguistic discrimination :-(
 
> That doesn't detract from Zack's main points about the joke.

Come again?

We're oh so concerned about the poor people who experience distress by a
joke that does not even mention abortion, so we must EX TERMINATE!! it,

but if some people experience unavoidable distress by that portion of
the manual, and the humor next to it helps relieve and soothe it, then
that's of no concern.


Does this show that all of the rigmarole about people's traumas is an
excuse for something else, or what?  You're freaking talking to someone
who experience such trauma and are so looking forward to dismissing this
opinion that you don't even see how it relates with the point at hand?!?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/06/2018 09:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  6, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 05/06/2018 08:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> See, what was just a matter of censorship and pregnancy termination is
>>> now also a matter of racial/linguistic discrimination :-(
>  
>> That doesn't detract from Zack's main points about the joke.
> 
> Come again?
> 
> We're oh so concerned about the poor people who experience distress by a
> joke that does not even mention abortion, so we must EX TERMINATE!! it,
> 
> but if some people experience unavoidable distress by that portion of
> the manual, and the humor next to it helps relieve and soothe it, then
> that's of no concern.
>  
> Does this show that all of the rigmarole about people's traumas is an
> excuse for something else, or what?  You're freaking talking to someone
> who experience such trauma and are so looking forward to dismissing this
> opinion that you don't even see how it relates with the point at hand?!?
 
Not at all.

I am splitting it into two discussions:

(1) Discuss the deletion of the abortion/censorship joke.

(2) Discuss trauma caused by function names and their associations to other
    languages.

If your issue is with (2), then I'm suggesting we have another discussion
about this particular topic.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  6, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> I am splitting it into two discussions:

> (1) Discuss the deletion of the abortion/censorship joke.

> (2) Discuss trauma caused by function names and their associations to other
>     languages.

The issues are one and the same.

The deletion of the censorship joke is (allegedly) justified by
undesirable emotions that might allegedly be brought about by the joke,
but its effect on at least one of the persons who shared information
about their own trauma points at the opposite effect: the joke brings
relief, which the deletion would take away.  That's the *opposite* of
the allegedly intended effect of the deletion.  By dismissing that and
pretending it to be a separate discussion you're just making it plain
that you don't really care about the excuses for the deletion.

Since it all seems to be a sham, I'm about to comply with the decision
of the project leader and primary and ultimate maintainer, who partially
delegated maintainership to myself and others under certain constraints,
and proceed to reverse the deletion.

This is also in line with the community-agreed procedures.

It is obvious that we didn't have consensus on a decision to install
that patch, since both sides are still arguing over it.

As for the decision to reverse the deletion, if we even need one to
counter a move that did not have consensus, although nobody else offered
to install the reversal and restore the status prior to the fait
accompli, and some explicitly refused to do so themselves, nobody
objected when I offered to do so.  Therefore, by the same reasoning that
led to the mistaken installation of the patch, and after a much longer
wait for objections, I understand there is consensus on my reverting it.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[DJ Delorie]

Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
> nobody objected when I offered to do so.

I objected strongly to re-introducing the text to the manual.  Perhaps
you missed that email.  None of the arguments put forth have changed my
opinion of the patch.

> Therefore, by the same reasoning that led to the mistaken installation
> of the patch,

The patch had consensus according to our procedures at the time.
Consensus does not require unanimity, nor does it require an arbitrarily
long time to allow for interested parties to respond.

> and after a much longer wait for objections, I understand there is
> consensus on my reverting it.

We continue to discuss it, and opinions are strong on both sides.  IMHO
we do not have consensus, and reversion is not yet justified under the
consensus rules.

If you wish to justify reversion under the "I was ordered to do so by
the president" argument, that's different (although that also seems to
be a topic of dicussion).

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  7, 2018, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
>> nobody objected when I offered to do so.

> I objected strongly to re-introducing the text to the manual.  Perhaps
> you missed that email.

I didn't miss that email.  You expressed an opinion about the larger
issue, namely, whether or not that snipped should be removed, but NOT on
whether we should restore the initial status quo while we saught
consensus on the larger issue.

There appears to be a lot of confusion about what I did, and why I did
it, so bear with me while I present my case.

1. We do not yet have consensus on whether to remove that snippet.

Our rules are clear:

  Consensus: General agreement, characterized by the absence of
  sustained opposition to substantial issues by an important part of the
  concerned interests [...]
  https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Consensus

Nobody could possibly suggest that we don't have sustained opposition to
substantial issues on either side of the argument.  Surely the people
who voiced support to the removal are important parts of the concerned
interests, but so are those who voiced opposition to the removal, even
more so one of the parts, the GNU Project itself.  I understand, thus,
that it would not be correct to make a move before reaching consensus,
any more that it would be to install any controversial patch, and then
insist on seeking an impossible consensus for its reversal.

2. We seemed to have consensus for the initial patch, but that was a
consequence of a mistake.

Zack installed the patch, and later expressed regret for not having
consulted RMS about it first.  Since we regret mistakes, not things we
did correctly, therefore installing the patch without consulting RMS was
a mistake.  Had RMS been consulted first, he would have objected, as he
did as soon as I brought the issue to his attention, and therefore we
would NOT have reached consensus, and the patch would not have been
mistakenly installed.

3. I offered twice to temporarily revert the mistakenly installed patch

On May 1st, Zack wrote:

  the passage has already been removed, and if you want that change
  reverted, you will have to find someone else willing to do that; I
  won't

On May 2nd, I wrote:

  To me, offering to correct the mistake would show good faith,
  correcting the appearance of rushing the patch in, but if that's what
  it takes, I offer to reverse the patch myself, if the person who
  pushed it in doesn't do so in the next few days, so that we can then
  seek consensus without the fait accompli artificially shifting the
  baseline.

I did get a (private) nod from our most senior maintainer, and no
objections.  (Like DJ's, there were objections to the ultimate reversal,
but none to the reversal *during* consensus seeking on the larger issue.

After that, I'm pretty sure I wrote again that I had offered to do the
reversal, but I'm yet to find that message.  Once I do, I'll quote it.
But I'm posting this now so that the undue noise does not spread
further.

Last night, after waiting for more than 4 days (twice as long as the
initial patch, and even longer than it took between the initial patch
and RMS's voicing his opposition), I concluded we had consensus for the
temporary reversal and installed it.

4. Did we need consensus for that?

I'm not sure.  I decided to play it safe, under the same (or more
stringent) rules that had been applied to the initial patch.

Now, if you believe there were objections, or that objections were
raised after the fact, then the same argument would apply to the initial
patch, and we'd end up with it reversed anyway.


We can now go back to the discussion about the larger issue, without the
unusual distortion by which those who wished to retain the status quo
had to convince those who had sneaked a change in to revert it.  Our
rules were made for the opposite to be the case: those who wish to make
a change are the ones with the onus of seeking and obtaining consensus.
Insisting on the opposite would be cheating.  That is why I felt it was
so important to install the patch, and why I offered to do so.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[DJ Delorie]

Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
> I didn't miss that email.  You expressed an opinion about the larger
> issue, namely, whether or not that snipped should be removed, but NOT
> on whether we should restore the initial status quo while we saught
> consensus on the larger issue.

I will quote my original email on the 3rd:

"I strongly object to having this text - or any similar text - in the
 manual." [1]

You reverted the patch against my explicit and strong objections.  Do
not claim otherwise or play word games to try to justify your decision.
There may be other ways to justify your decision, but do not pretend
that I agreed with it.

[1] https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00068.html

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Florian Weimer]

* DJ Delorie:

> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
>> I didn't miss that email.  You expressed an opinion about the larger
>> issue, namely, whether or not that snipped should be removed, but NOT
>> on whether we should restore the initial status quo while we saught
>> consensus on the larger issue.
>
> I will quote my original email on the 3rd:
>
> "I strongly object to having this text - or any similar text - in the
>  manual." [1]

> [1] https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00068.html

Given DJ's comment, I did not see a need to post my own objection.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Jeff Law]

On 05/07/2018 12:36 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * DJ Delorie:
> 
>> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
>>> I didn't miss that email.  You expressed an opinion about the larger
>>> issue, namely, whether or not that snipped should be removed, but NOT
>>> on whether we should restore the initial status quo while we saught
>>> consensus on the larger issue.
>>
>> I will quote my original email on the 3rd:
>>
>> "I strongly object to having this text - or any similar text - in the
>>  manual." [1]
> 
>> [1] https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00068.html
> 
> Given DJ's comment, I did not see a need to post my own objection.
> 

Similarly.
jeff

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Adhemerval Zanella]

On 07/05/2018 15:41, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/07/2018 12:36 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * DJ Delorie:
>>
>>> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
>>>> I didn't miss that email.  You expressed an opinion about the larger
>>>> issue, namely, whether or not that snipped should be removed, but NOT
>>>> on whether we should restore the initial status quo while we saught
>>>> consensus on the larger issue.
>>>
>>> I will quote my original email on the 3rd:
>>>
>>> "I strongly object to having this text - or any similar text - in the
>>>  manual." [1]
>>
>>> [1] https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00068.html
>>
>> Given DJ's comment, I did not see a need to post my own objection.
>>
> 
> Similarly.
> jeff
> 

Same from me.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 15:57 -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> 
> On 07/05/2018 15:41, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 05/07/2018 12:36 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * DJ Delorie:
> >>
> >>> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
> >>>> I didn't miss that email.  You expressed an opinion about the larger
> >>>> issue, namely, whether or not that snipped should be removed, but NOT
> >>>> on whether we should restore the initial status quo while we saught
> >>>> consensus on the larger issue.
> >>>
> >>> I will quote my original email on the 3rd:
> >>>
> >>> "I strongly object to having this text - or any similar text - in the
> >>>  manual." [1]
> >>
> >>> [1] https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00068.html
> >>
> >> Given DJ's comment, I did not see a need to post my own objection.
> >>
> > 
> > Similarly.
> > jeff
> > 
> 
> Same from me.

And me.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  7, 2018, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
>> I didn't miss that email.  You expressed an opinion about the larger
>> issue, namely, whether or not that snipped should be removed, but NOT
>> on whether we should restore the initial status quo while we saught
>> consensus on the larger issue.

> I will quote my original email on the 3rd:

I saw that.  It was in response to RMS, nothing to do with my offer to
restore the initial status quo until the discussion you took part in
reached consensus.


Next time you wish to respond to a proposal of mine, consider responding
to me, or making it clear that your response, in spite of being to
someone else and in the context of a larger context, has to do with a
different issue.

> "I strongly object to having this text - or any similar text - in the
>  manual." [1]

> You reverted the patch against my explicit and strong objections.

I just assumed and understood your opinion was WRT to the larger issue,
since it was part of that discussion.

Assuming otherwise would be assuming you wanted to cheat so as to have
the patch you supported in before we have consensus about it.  (or do
you by any chance believe we do have consensus on the larger issue,
under the project governance rules?)


> do not pretend that I agreed with it.

I don't.  I don't even know that you read my proposal.  I only said you
(and all the others claiming to have objected to it through you) did not
object to it, which is true.  If you did object to MY PROPOSAL, quote
and link to that, instead of twisting your own words.  It's not like you
didn't have an opportunity.  You had much longer than RMS.


In https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00053.html I wrote

  To me, offering to correct the mistake would show good faith,
  correcting the appearance of rushing the patch in, but if that's what
  it takes, I offer to reverse the patch myself, if the person who
  pushed it in doesn't do so in the next few days, so that we can then
  seek consensus without the fait accompli artificially shifting the
  baseline.

According to the records of the list, there wasn't any response to that
message, aside from the private nod from RMS.

I searched again and couldn't find the other message in which I thought
I had restated my proposal to restore the initial conditions, so I must
conclude I had only done so in a draft, and the restatement ended up not
being posted to the list.  But that doesn't change anything, does it?
You still had opportunity to object to my proposal and didn't, even if
it was voiced only once.  Anyway, I apologize for mistakenly stating I
had posted it twice.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/07/2018 12:45 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I did get a (private) nod from our most senior maintainer, and no
> objections.

Let me be clear here. You had many objections. Including those from
me as a GNU project maintainer.

You cannot go back in time to a past discussions, claim there wasn't
consensus, and revert the patches. The marker in the sand is that the
commit was made with at least 2 GNU project maintainers approving.
After that point you are responsible for arguing the other position.
However, you find yourself on the difficult end of that discussion
because a lot of people want the joke removed. Rather than do the
difficult work of building consensus...

You ignored consensus.

You ignored objections from your fellow GNU project maintainers.

In the end you did what you wanted, and to some degree you have those
rights as a GNU project maintainer, but it doesn't mean you acted in
any way with consensus.

You didn't summarize any of the positions of the various parties.

You didn't try to build consensus.

You checked the joke back in by yourself, without any commit message
review, for your own reasons.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 05/07/2018 12:45 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I did get a (private) nod from our most senior maintainer, and no
>> objections.

> Let me be clear here. You had many objections. Including those from
> me as a GNU project maintainer.

I think I understand why you might think so, but I really did not.

You wrote:

  Until we reach some kind of consensus the joke will not go back into
  the glibc manual according to the current community consensus rules.

but we *did* reach consensus, under the present rules, about my proposal
to restore the initial state, therefore the condition that limited your
objection above was met.

> You cannot go back in time to a past discussions, claim there wasn't
> consensus, and revert the patches.

I don't really have to go back in time.  There never was consensus.
There was one objection there all the way from the beginning, that
everyone else seems to have been blind to (for the lack of a better
explanation).  Here, let me quote it for you:

  @c Put in by rms.  Don't remove.

Consensus my rmS! :-)  (forgive the pun, couldn't help)

(FWIW, there was also an objection by Ondřej Bílka, but I can't tell
whether he meant it or was just kidding, and I don't see any
confirmation that the objection was not serious)

> After that point you are responsible for arguing the other position.

See other emails I posted today with explanations of why that is a bug
that needs fixing, and how we can fix it.  Can you really not believe I
could honestly believe people had agreed with restoring a fair baseline
for the discussion to proceed undistorted, even if that would raise
their nominal but likely trivial burden of overcoming objections?

> You ignored consensus.

That's a very serious accusation.  I guess I can't object to that
because I've accused the opposite position of cheating, but, really...
It seems to me like you all ignored the consensus rules as well.  And
also denied having contributed to what I actually took as consensus.

Looking back, that's not surprising, considering the highly emotional
positions and underlying topic.  If we can't agree on the ground issue
because of all the heat, we will hardly be able to reach consensus on
whether there was any consensus :-/ That's... not good, if you'll pardon
the understatement.

> You ignored objections from your fellow GNU project maintainers.

I really didn't.  I totally understood the stated positions in response
to RMS to be about the topic that's still open to debate, that bears
hardly any relationship with the starting conditions for the debate.

> In the end you did what you wanted,

Guilty as charged, but I have peace of mind of having strictly followed
all of the stated rules, as much as others might disagree or disbelieve
me.

> You didn't summarize any of the positions of the various parties.

There weren't any to summarize.  I just proposed to restore the initial
condition so that the discussion could proceed without the distortion,
RMS emailed me in private, and that was all.  No responses whatsoever.

  Oh, but I wrote elsewhere and you should have guessed!

  Well, sorry, please be clear that you're responding to my proposal,
  and not to something else, next time.

> You didn't try to build consensus.

How could I imagine there'd be any controversy about that?  It was so
obviously fair and reasonable!  I shouldn't have assumed everyone else
was trying to cheat, should I?  Please try to see that from my POV;
denying RMS the chance to object (again) before checking the patch in,
then refusing to back it out, then insisting that *he* now had the
burden of overcoming objections.  It's obviously a twisted situation.
It's obvious (to me) that the rules were never meant to offer such
trivial exploits to reverse the burden.  (See my other post that
elaborates on why, with advice on how to improve that)

> You checked the joke back in by yourself, without any commit message
> review, for your own reasons.

I don't see that phrased as accusations against e.g. Zack, but AFAICT he
also checked in the removal of the joke by himself (except he
disregarded RMS's comments from consensus assessment), without comment
message review, for reasons of his own.  The only problem I see with
that is disregarding a relevant opinion or two when assessing consensus,
but what do I know?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 01:45 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 05/07/2018 12:45 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> I did get a (private) nod from our most senior maintainer, and no
> >> objections.
> 
> > Let me be clear here. You had many objections. Including those from
> > me as a GNU project maintainer.
> 
> I think I understand why you might think so, but I really did not.
> 
> You wrote:
> 
>   Until we reach some kind of consensus the joke will not go back into
>   the glibc manual according to the current community consensus rules.
> 
> but we *did* reach consensus, under the present rules, about my proposal
> to restore the initial state, therefore the condition that limited your
> objection above was met.

No, just because people didn't think that you would actually ignore the
consensus to remove, doesn't mean there was consensus.  Enough people
wanted it to be gone.

> > You cannot go back in time to a past discussions, claim there wasn't
> > consensus, and revert the patches.
> 
> I don't really have to go back in time.  There never was consensus.
> There was one objection there all the way from the beginning, that
> everyone else seems to have been blind to (for the lack of a better
> explanation).  Here, let me quote it for you:
> 
>   @c Put in by rms.  Don't remove.

Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimous consent.  People have seen
it, and it didn't change their opinion.

Please don't try to frame it all as one accidental mistake of forgetting
who the true leader is supposed the be, or something like that.  He has
a right to an opinion as everyone else does, but that's it, and it
matters whether there is consensus in the community or not.

> > You ignored consensus.
> 
> That's a very serious accusation.  I guess I can't object to that
> because I've accused the opposite position of cheating, but, really...
> It seems to me like you all ignored the consensus rules as well.  And
> also denied having contributed to what I actually took as consensus.

There was consensus to remove.  It doesn't need to be unanimous.  And
there still is strong consensus to remove.  There's no cheating in that
either.

> I don't see that phrased as accusations against e.g. Zack, but AFAICT he
> also checked in the removal of the joke by himself (except he
> disregarded RMS's comments from consensus assessment), without comment
> message review, for reasons of his own.  The only problem I see with
> that is disregarding a relevant opinion or two when assessing consensus,
> but what do I know?

It doesn't need to be unanimous.

FTR, I also agree with Carlos' other statements.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/08/2018 12:45 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 05/07/2018 12:45 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> I did get a (private) nod from our most senior maintainer, and no
>>> objections.
> 
>> Let me be clear here. You had many objections. Including those from
>> me as a GNU project maintainer.
> 
> I think I understand why you might think so, but I really did not.
> 
> You wrote:
> 
>   Until we reach some kind of consensus the joke will not go back into
>   the glibc manual according to the current community consensus rules.
> 
> but we *did* reach consensus, under the present rules, about my proposal
> to restore the initial state, therefore the condition that limited your
> objection above was met.
No. You didn't. No weasel wording gets you out of this.

You can believe what you wish, but you've been told you did not follow the
rules for the community. Told by multiple people. It's really quite clear,
you just need to be transparent about what you're going to do, post a patch
about the reversal, and allow people to review it.

That's OK. You don't have to. You're a GNU package maintainer.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Andreas Schwab]

I wonder why that paragraph has never been detected in the 26(!) years
it has been present in the manual?

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/08/2018 03:36 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> I wonder why that paragraph has never been detected in the 26(!) years
> it has been present in the manual?

How does that matter?  Are you trying to imply that it's not important 
enough?  I agree, which is why if someone is bothered by it, it makes 
sense to just drop it since it doesn't do anything very useful in the 
context of the GNU project anyway given that multiple fellow developers 
have objected to it for various reasons and to various degrees.

Siddhesh

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Andreas Schwab]

On Mai 08 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> On 05/08/2018 03:36 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> I wonder why that paragraph has never been detected in the 26(!) years
>> it has been present in the manual?
>
> How does that matter?  Are you trying to imply that it's not important
> enough?

It means that for 26 years it was not a problem.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/08/2018 05:06 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> How does that matter?  Are you trying to imply that it's not important
>> enough?
> 
> It means that for 26 years it was not a problem.

But it apparently is now, 26 years (almost 2 generations) later, which 
is a sign of evolution of the community and society as a whole.

Siddhesh

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Andreas Schwab]

On Mai 08 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> But it apparently is now, 26 years (almost 2 generations) later, which is
> a sign of evolution of the community and society as a whole.

Could be, but that doesn't mean we have to rush.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/08/2018 05:39 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mai 08 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
> 
>> But it apparently is now, 26 years (almost 2 generations) later, which is
>> a sign of evolution of the community and society as a whole.
> 
> Could be, but that doesn't mean we have to rush.

A two day and 10 mail thread of discussion is not rushing.

Siddhesh

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Andreas Schwab]

On Mai 08 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> On 05/08/2018 05:39 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> On Mai 08 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
>>
>>> But it apparently is now, 26 years (almost 2 generations) later, which is
>>> a sign of evolution of the community and society as a whole.
>>
>> Could be, but that doesn't mean we have to rush.
>
> A two day and 10 mail thread of discussion is not rushing.

It is, compared to 26 years of waiting.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/08/2018 07:33 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> It is, compared to 26 years of waiting.

Nobody actually *waited* for 26 years to post a patch, nor was the 
snippet actually even discussed for 26 years.  It survived the years 
because nobody really noticed.  That's not a good enough reason to 
assume that the comedic value of the manual will suffer greatly if the 
snippet was removed.

Regardless of that point, it did get reviewed and approved by 4 
different individuals.  Contrast that to the fact that most of our 
patches usually just get one review.  Tell me again why was there a need 
to wait anything more than the two days?  Please don't say 26 years 
again because that doesn't make sense in this context.

Siddhesh

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Andreas Schwab]

On Mai 08 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> Regardless of that point, it did get reviewed and approved by 4 different
> individuals.

Without even trying to talk to the original author.  That's what makes
this a mistake.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/08/2018 10:26 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mai 08 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
> 
>> Regardless of that point, it did get reviewed and approved by 4 different
>> individuals.
> 
> Without even trying to talk to the original author.  That's what makes
> this a mistake.

No. This is what delegation means. You, Andreas Schwab, as a GNU package
maintainer for glibc have the right to remove whatever you want, but you
must follow GNU policy.

It was a mistake not to inform Richard that we were removing the code,
yes, we were not courteous in that sense. I have apologized.

That does not make the removal a mistake.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/08/2018 07:56 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Without even trying to talk to the original author.  That's what makes
> this a mistake.

OK, that's a valid point.

You could have said that 3 emails ago :)

Siddhesh

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> On 05/08/2018 07:56 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Without even trying to talk to the original author.  That's what makes
>> this a mistake.

> OK, that's a valid point.

> You could have said that 3 emails ago :)

FTR, that had been stated much earlier in the debate already.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 13:32 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 05/08/2018 07:56 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> Without even trying to talk to the original author.  That's what makes
> >> this a mistake.
> 
> > OK, that's a valid point.
> 
> > You could have said that 3 emails ago :)
> 
> FTR, that had been stated much earlier in the debate already.

FTR, Andreas didn't say that.  Siddhesh asked Andreas about his opinion.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/08/2018 10:03 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mai 08 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 05/08/2018 05:39 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> On Mai 08 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But it apparently is now, 26 years (almost 2 generations) later, which is
>>>> a sign of evolution of the community and society as a whole.
>>>
>>> Could be, but that doesn't mean we have to rush.
>>
>> A two day and 10 mail thread of discussion is not rushing.
> 
> It is, compared to 26 years of waiting.

That's a reductive argument that isn't a fair comparison.

If you were being technically objective, is 48 hours, 10 mails,
and 2 GNU package maintainers ACK enough for the removal of the
joke?

If it's not enough time, how much time is enough?

If it's not about time, please state so, for example you may object
to the removal of code or comments that say "Don't remove me."

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Andreas Schwab]

On Mai 08 2018, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> If it's not enough time, how much time is enough?

It's not about time, it's about manner.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/08/2018 10:27 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mai 08 2018, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> If it's not enough time, how much time is enough?
> 
> It's not about time, it's about manner.

Understood. Thank you for the clarification. 

In which case my other email covers this point.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: commit reversion without review (was: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke)

[Dmitry V. Levin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1136 bytes --]

On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 01:36:41PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mai 08 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> 
> > On 05/08/2018 03:36 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> I wonder why that paragraph has never been detected in the 26(!) years
> >> it has been present in the manual?
> >
> > How does that matter?  Are you trying to imply that it's not important
> > enough?
> 
> It means that for 26 years it was not a problem.

IMO, it's not the joke that's the problem, it's the unilateral commit
reversion made by Alexandre Oliva despite of consensus and in clear
violation of the accepted way of doing things, i.e. posting a proposed
patch to the list for review prior to pushing it to glibc.git.

Given that Alexandre Oliva is an occasional glibc contributor nowadays
(zero commits in glibc-2.23, glibc-2.24, and glibc-2.26, two commits
in glibc-2.25, and a single commit in glibc-2.27), I suppose
he just forgot how things are done here.

Alexandre, please do not repeat this mistake.  Your contributions are
certainly welcome, but please do not forget to post proposed patches
to the list first.


-- 
ldv

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: commit reversion without review

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org> wrote:

> I suppose he just forgot how things are done here.

It is absolutely correct to state I had no idea that reverting a patch
that had gone in without consensus and that was still under discussion
required the reversal patch to be posted in any special way.  I don't
see any such rule spelled out.  Still, I followed the written procedure:
I posted the proposal, met the consensus criterion and, after several
days, I installed the proposed reversal.

I do not see how it was a mistake.  It was *fixing* a mistake.  If
anything, I might not have to have waited that long to do so, but since
following the procedures was not such a big deal, I did.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: commit reversion without review

[Dmitry V. Levin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2938 bytes --]

On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 01:22:32PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org> wrote:
> 
> > I suppose he just forgot how things are done here.
> 
> It is absolutely correct to state I had no idea that reverting a patch
> that had gone in without consensus and that was still under discussion
> required the reversal patch to be posted in any special way.  I don't
> see any such rule spelled out.  Still, I followed the written procedure:
> I posted the proposal, met the consensus criterion and, after several
> days, I installed the proposed reversal.
> 
> I do not see how it was a mistake. [...]

This is obvious.  What we usually commit without review is trivial bug-fix
changes (there is a tentative list of that kind of changes in the wiki).  
For a revert commit to fall into this category, it has to be trivial.
Let's have a look at your commit message from this perspective.

$ git show --no-patch ffa81c22a3ac0fb75ad9bf2b1c3cdbf9eafa0bc9
commit ffa81c22a3ac0fb75ad9bf2b1c3cdbf9eafa0bc9
Author: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@gnu.org>
Date:   Mon May 7 01:37:37 2018 -0300

    Revert:
    2018-04-30  Raymond Nicholson <rain1@airmail.cc>
    * manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove inappropriate joke.
    
    This complies with the decision of the project leader and primary and
    ultimate maintainer, who partially delegated maintainership to myself
    and others under certain constraints.
    
    This is also in line with the community-agreed procedures.
    
    It is obvious that we didn't have consensus on a decision to install
    that patch, since both sides are still arguing over it.
    
    As for the decision to reverse the deletion, if we even need one to
    counter a move that did not have consensus, although nobody else offered
    to install the reversal and restore the status prior to the fait
    accompli, and some explicitly refused to do so themselves, nobody
    objected when I offered to do so.  Therefore, by the same reasoning that
    led to the mistaken installation of the patch, and after a much longer
    wait for objections, I understand there is consensus on my reverting it.

The first issue with this commit is technical: if you were using "git revert",
it would've produced a git friendly commit message.  If you'd posted your
proposed commit for review, this minor issue could have been easily fixed.

The second issue is the lengthy text full of controversial statements:
every paragraph starting with the second one contains at least one
statement that was a subject of heated discussions in this list.

If you'd posted your proposed commit for review, this could've been fixed,
but you didn't, and this controversial commit message, unfortunately,
had sneaked in.

So let me reiterate: next time please post your proposed commits for review.

Thanks,


-- 
ldv

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: commit reversion without review

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  9, 2018, "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 01:22:32PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On May  8, 2018, "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > I suppose he just forgot how things are done here.
>> 
>> It is absolutely correct to state I had no idea that reverting a patch
>> that had gone in without consensus and that was still under discussion
>> required the reversal patch to be posted in any special way.  I don't
>> see any such rule spelled out.  Still, I followed the written procedure:
>> I posted the proposal, met the consensus criterion and, after several
>> days, I installed the proposed reversal.
>> 
>> I do not see how it was a mistake. [...]

> This is obvious.  What we usually commit without review is trivial bug-fix
> changes (there is a tentative list of that kind of changes in the wiki).  

Yeah, I'm familiar with that list.

> For a revert commit to fall into this category, it has to be trivial.

It was trivial indeed, but I did not rely put it in as a trivial
bug-fix, but rather as a consensual restore of initial conditions.

> Let's have a look at your commit message from this perspective.

> The first issue with this commit is technical: if you were using "git revert",

I did use git revert.  Have you ever used that in GNU libc?  There's
this thing, the ChangeLog, that can't just be reverted, and that "git
revert" will nearly always report conflicts on.

So I had to manually fix the ChangeLog.  Then, as in recommended
practice, I put that ChangeLog in the commit message, along with the
rationale for the change.

> If you'd posted your proposed commit for review

Indeed, I posted just an offer of reversal (the patch for a revert is
the same as the initial patch, applied with -R).  Others had signaled
the reversal as a possibility before ("I won't revert it myself, but if
you can find someone else to do it", quoted form memory).  I waited for
days after the offer, and no one responded to it other than Richard.  So
I understood there was consensus to restore the initial conditions and
installed it.

> The second issue is the lengthy text full of controversial statements:

You and others may have found them controversial, but it was my
rationale for the (to me) consensual and obvious fix.

Any obvious fix could carry its own rationale, and nobody would object
to that the way you did.  I wonder why.

> every paragraph starting with the second one contains at least one
> statement that was a subject of heated discussions in this list.

Every one of the arguments has an analogous argument that applies to the
initial commit, but somehow the initial commit is not controversial.  I
wonder why.

> So let me reiterate: next time please post your proposed commits for review.

I did, but AFAICT nobody read it, so nobody objected, so it went in.
What I did NOT do was to post the patch, which I still think is not
necessary for a revert, and I did NOT post it as a separate thread,
which I now regret, for it would have made it more visible, so there
wouldn't be much doubt about whether objections applied to it (they'd be
raised in response to the proposal, I suppose)

In case you missed the proposed commit, see
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00053.html
and look at the very end:

  [...]  I offer to reverse the patch myself, if the person who pushed
  it in doesn't do so in the next few days, so that we can then seek
  consensus without the fait accompli artificially shifting the
  baseline.

this was in response (as in reaction, not followup) to:
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00010.html

  if you want that change reverted, you will have to find someone else
  willing to do that; I won't.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: commit reversion without review

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/10/2018 01:21 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Indeed, I posted just an offer of reversal (the patch for a revert is
> the same as the initial patch, applied with -R).  Others had signaled
> the reversal as a possibility before ("I won't revert it myself, but if
> you can find someone else to do it", quoted form memory).  I waited for
> days after the offer, and no one responded to it other than Richard.  So
> I understood there was consensus to restore the initial conditions and
> installed it.

You did not have consensus.

>> So let me reiterate: next time please post your proposed commits for review.
> 
> I did, but AFAICT nobody read it, so nobody objected, so it went in.
> What I did NOT do was to post the patch, which I still think is not
> necessary for a revert, and I did NOT post it as a separate thread,
> which I now regret, for it would have made it more visible, so there
> wouldn't be much doubt about whether objections applied to it (they'd be
> raised in response to the proposal, I suppose)
> 
> In case you missed the proposed commit, see
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00053.html
> and look at the very end:
> 
>   [...]  I offer to reverse the patch myself, if the person who pushed
>   it in doesn't do so in the next few days, so that we can then seek
>   consensus without the fait accompli artificially shifting the
>   baseline.
> 
> this was in response (as in reaction, not followup) to:
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00010.html
> 
>   if you want that change reverted, you will have to find someone else
>   willing to do that; I won't.
 
Dmitry is right. Please listen to what he has to say.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/08/2018 06:06 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> I wonder why that paragraph has never been detected in the 26(!) years
> it has been present in the manual?

It's a ~1200 page manual, with a single cartouche block in the middle.

I've been using the manual for 15+ years and I'd never seen that text.

Let me ask you clearly though.

Are you opposed to the removal of the joke?

If so, would you please state why?

As a GNU package maintainer for glibc you have accepted the responsibility
to maintain glibc, this includes '5. Recruting Developers', do you believe
that this joke helps or hinders recruiting developers?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Andreas Schwab]

On Mai 08 2018, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> As a GNU package maintainer for glibc you have accepted the responsibility
> to maintain glibc, this includes '5. Recruting Developers', do you believe
> that this joke helps or hinders recruiting developers?

No.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/08/2018 08:45 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mai 08 2018, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> As a GNU package maintainer for glibc you have accepted the responsibility
>> to maintain glibc, this includes '5. Recruting Developers', do you believe
>> that this joke helps or hinders recruiting developers?
> 
> No.

Do you believe that the joke, as it is, will be neutral in this case? It will
neither help nor hinder?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/08/2018 08:45 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mai 08 2018, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> As a GNU package maintainer for glibc you have accepted the responsibility
>> to maintain glibc, this includes '5. Recruting Developers', do you believe
>> that this joke helps or hinders recruiting developers?
> 
> No.
It was just pointed out to me that the joke has caused at least one user to
be confused enough by it to write to stack overflow as recently as 3 months
ago, and it has been viewed ~200 times.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48445031/why-would-it-be-illegal-to-inform-about-abort

The linked reddit thread from 7 years ago:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/d4783/federal_censorship_regulations_may_restrict/

Shows users do think it's a joke about abortion, rather than strictly about
censorship, and again the joke is seen as low quality.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> As a GNU package maintainer for glibc you have accepted the responsibility
> to maintain glibc, this includes '5. Recruting Developers', do you believe
> that this joke helps or hinders recruiting developers?

You didn't ask for my opinion, but...

I think it hardly matters.

The tempest in a teapot and the insulting attitude towards another
maintainer, namely Richard Stallman, is certain to push some people
away.  OTOH, in other groups, demeaning him seems to be quite popular,
so it might also attract members of that group, but I really don't think
we want more of those.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 13:36 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > As a GNU package maintainer for glibc you have accepted the responsibility
> > to maintain glibc, this includes '5. Recruting Developers', do you believe
> > that this joke helps or hinders recruiting developers?
> 
> You didn't ask for my opinion, but...
> 
> I think it hardly matters.

I think it hinders.  Several people spoke out against it, on this
mailing list.  Fewer people have said that they don't mind keeping it,
but only a minority has said that they think it helps.  Even you don't
say it helps.  That gives pretty clear indication.

> The tempest in a teapot and the insulting attitude towards another
> maintainer,

Please stop claiming that people have insulted him -- or at least try to
give a somewhat objective reasoning why that should be the case.

> namely Richard Stallman, is certain to push some people
> away.  OTOH, in other groups, demeaning him seems to be quite popular,
> so it might also attract members of that group, but I really don't think
> we want more of those.

There was a discussion, and even if we ignore whether consensus existed
initially, it seems pretty obvious now that the majority of people who
have spoken out are in favor of removing the "joke".  IOW, the
community's consensus process was followed, and a decision was made.
Why should that push anyone away?

What also happened, though, is that RMS showed up and that said that the
community's consensus process wouldn't apply, that he'd have the last
say, always, if he wanted, and that the arguments and opinions of a
majority of the active developers don't matter.
That will push people away, because it undermines the community.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:

> it seems pretty obvious now that the majority of people who
> have spoken out are in favor of removing the "joke"

You've been a lot more involved with glibc day to day than I have
lately, but it seems to me that you're confused about the governing
rules adopted by this community.

The stepping stone is not tiranny of the majority, but rather consensus
building.

This means that if there is opposition to a proposed change, it is up to
the proponent to listen to the involved parties and attempt to find
middle ground so that opinions converge, or at least that objections be
withdrawn.

Is that not so?


> What also happened, though, is that RMS showed up and that said that the
> community's consensus process wouldn't apply, that he'd have the last
> say, always, if he wanted, and that the arguments and opinions of a
> majority of the active developers don't matter.
> That will push people away, because it undermines the community.

You might be surprised that I very much agree with your perception
stated in the paragraph above, and also with your conclusion.  It was
not nice that he did so.  The community had not been nice to him either.
All involved parties were at fault, and throwing feces at each other
won't get us very far, other than far from each other.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 16:27 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > it seems pretty obvious now that the majority of people who
> > have spoken out are in favor of removing the "joke"
> 
> You've been a lot more involved with glibc day to day than I have
> lately, but it seems to me that you're confused about the governing
> rules adopted by this community.

It's not appropriate for you to say that I'm confused. 

> The stepping stone is not tiranny of the majority, but rather consensus
> building.

We did work towards consensus.  Look at this thread and all the
thought-out replies and opinions.

If you think that tyranny of the majority is avoided by endless
approaches to try to reach consensus, then that's tyranny of the
minority.  That's why we say that unanimous consent is not necessary to
reach consensus.  Look at the numbers, please -- we're not talking about
a 60/40 split or something like that.

> This means that if there is opposition to a proposed change, it is up to
> the proponent to listen to the involved parties and attempt to find
> middle ground so that opinions converge, or at least that objections be
> withdrawn.
> 
> Is that not so?

And we tried that, and the majority and you have not changed their
opinions.  So, given that the majority is much bigger, we follow the
majority and move on.

> > What also happened, though, is that RMS showed up and that said that the
> > community's consensus process wouldn't apply, that he'd have the last
> > say, always, if he wanted, and that the arguments and opinions of a
> > majority of the active developers don't matter.
> > That will push people away, because it undermines the community.
> 
> You might be surprised that I very much agree with your perception
> stated in the paragraph above, and also with your conclusion.  It was
> not nice that he did so.

So what does that mean precisely, for you?  According to other
statements by you, you still don't seem to accept that we are
consensus-based project.  Can we actually get you and RMS to acknowledge
that?

> The community had not been nice to him either.

The community disagreed with him.  Nobody has insulted him as you try to
claim.

> All involved parties were at fault, and throwing feces at each other
> won't get us very far, other than far from each other.

Nobody has been throwing feces.  You made some toxic remarks.  That's
it.  Don't try to claim that everyone is a victim here.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:

> We did work towards consensus.

The only person I recall actually trying to find some middle ground or
alternative position that could be acceptable to all was Carlos (it
always amazes me how he manages to do that, hats off!).  Can you show
other examples of the "we"?

Or is your idea of "working towards consensus" for each group to
repeatedly shout its unmovable position in the hope that the other party
will be convinced or defeated by exhaustion?

> Look at this thread and all the thought-out replies and opinions.

Most of the thread was actually discussing procedure, not the subject
matter.  And at that (procedure) we don't seem to have taken steps
towards consensus either.

> If you think that tyranny of the majority is avoided by endless
> approaches to try to reach consensus, then that's tyranny of the
> minority.  That's why we say that unanimous consent is not necessary to
> reach consensus.

Yeah.  That's a slightly contradictory passage opening the rules.  It
defines consensus in a way that precludes sustained objections by
relevant parties, and then states it doesn't imply unanimity.  I
understand that's what this is about, but I think it would make more
sense to define general agreement as either (unanimous) consensus (as in
the first sentence), or, failing that, the result of a structured
procedure to override objections that can't be overcome.  Anyway...

Does it seem to you that the proposed removal "takes into account all
interests concerned", or that, before the initial patch was committed,
given the existence of at least one objection by email and another in
the comments proposed for removal, "sufficient time [was allowed] for
the discussion, negotiation and resolution of significant technical
disagreements", following "a process that involves seeking to take into
account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any
conflicting arguments"?

Where was success defined?  Where's the summary of participant
positions?  Where are the complaints and concerns recorded for future
use?

I get it that it says consensus needs not be unanimous, but there isn't
any guidance whatsoever as to when it might be acceptable to decide
there's consensus or general agreement despite sustained objections, or
when there was enough discussion.  I get it that these things need a lot
of wiggle room because decisions of very different complexity might need
very different parameters.  Still, some examples of acceptable and
unacceptable situations might be useful for reference.

Like, if we have 4 voices for and 1 or 2 against, is it ok to proceed
after as little as one day?  If there are some 30 voices for and 5
against?  How about 5 for and 30 against?  Do voices count the same, or
are users, occasional contributors, regular developers, appointed
maintainers and ultimate maintainers counted differently, if counting is
even relevant.

Or does it not even matter how many voices there are for, and what
really matters is whether there's a reasonable amount of opposition to a
change?

There's nothing about this in the process, and this was one of the
sources of stress for me when trying to decide whether or not installing
a proposed change was in line with the process.  The application of the
rules appears to be completely arbitrary and, in this case, it seems to
have fallen back to what position shouts louder.

At an organization I'm a part of, we also strive for consensus, but we
have a fallback voting process for when we can't reach consensus.  I'm
not suggesting we adopt something along these lines, because the
structure of the group is very different (that is a closed group), but
it might be clearer and more honest to admit that the initial definition
of consensus is NOT what we mean by consensus, or consensus-driven, and
that there are arbitrary (or democratic, or what?) fallback processes
when sustained objections remain.


>> This means that if there is opposition to a proposed change, it is up to
>> the proponent to listen to the involved parties and attempt to find
>> middle ground so that opinions converge, or at least that objections be
>> withdrawn.
>> 
>> Is that not so?

> And we tried that, and the majority and you have not changed their
> opinions.  So, given that the majority is much bigger, we follow the
> majority and move on.

Nothing like that is stated in the rules.  Per what's written, it might
seem perfectly legitimate for me to take note of the objections of the
majority and write them off, and moving forward with the position of the
minority.  That would be unusual, but it is within the written rules
AFAICT.

>> > What also happened, though, is that RMS showed up and that said that the
>> > community's consensus process wouldn't apply, that he'd have the last
>> > say, always, if he wanted, and that the arguments and opinions of a
>> > majority of the active developers don't matter.
>> > That will push people away, because it undermines the community.
>> 
>> You might be surprised that I very much agree with your perception
>> stated in the paragraph above, and also with your conclusion.  It was
>> not nice that he did so.

> So what does that mean precisely, for you?

It means he stated his authority as GNU project leader in a way that
wasn't very nice (understatement :-), and that this wasn't taken well by
many, even by those who realized this was the case, and perhaps more so
by those who did not realize it was so.  I don't have a lot of
experience with positions of authority, and I've been a disaster in the
few I've occupied, but there might be other ways to lead that don't
involve entering pissing contests and power struggles.

There might be, however, times in which the struggle is unavoidable; I
wonder if this is one of those cases.

> According to other statements by you, you still don't seem to accept
> that we are consensus-based project.  Can we actually get you and RMS
> to acknowledge that?

Acknowledge what, "we do not accept it", or "we are consensus-based
project"?

I can't get RMS to do anything.  You might be surprised, but he has a
mind of his own, just like you and I do.  He listens to ideas and
arguments presented to him, and it hardly matters who they come from.

What I can say is that it's not reasonable for GNU, or any group with a
well-defined purpose, especially political purposes, to be both open for
anyone's participation and consensus-based.  The risk of hostile capture
is too high, and the more relevant the project, the higher the risk.  At
least some lines of defense are needed against that, for the project to
remain carrying out its goals.  Being part of the GNU project, it is
just natural for GNU leadership to play such a line of defense in GNU
libc and all other GNU projects.  GNU official maintainers are another
line of defense, but historically this line of defense alone hasn't
always been enough.  It's a tricky balance to make room for the project
to flourish while ensuring it doesn't turn against its purpose.  I ain't
easy to be in Richard's shoes.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 23:26 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > We did work towards consensus.
> 
> The only person I recall actually trying to find some middle ground or
> alternative position that could be acceptable to all was Carlos (it
> always amazes me how he manages to do that, hats off!).  Can you show
> other examples of the "we"?
> 
> Or is your idea of "working towards consensus" for each group to
> repeatedly shout its unmovable position in the hope that the other party
> will be convinced or defeated by exhaustion?

There was debate.  For example, I'm still responding to your claims, all
across this thread.  Debate doesn't mean that people always agree with
you, or move towards your position.  Sometimes debate leads to movement,
sometimes it doesn't.  You cannot claim absence of work towards
consensus just because people disagree with you, and keep disagreeing
with you in this debate.

Working towards consensus does not mean that eventually, you will always
get your say, or get to define some percentage of the final outcome.

> > Look at this thread and all the thought-out replies and opinions.
> 
> Most of the thread was actually discussing procedure, not the subject
> matter.

How is that relevant for whether there was discussion?  Of course
general procedure requires more careful debate than that "joke".  And
you do know that removal of the "joke" was pretty obviously the right
thing to do in the opinion of most people, so why would there be more
debate?

> And at that (procedure) we don't seem to have taken steps
> towards consensus either.

We have taken steps towards trying to reach consensus, because we're
discussing this.  This doesn't mean that I can convince you or you can
convince me.

> Does it seem to you that the proposed removal "takes into account all
> interests concerned", or that, before the initial patch was committed,
> given the existence of at least one objection by email and another in
> the comments proposed for removal, "sufficient time [was allowed] for
> the discussion, negotiation and resolution of significant technical
> disagreements", following "a process that involves seeking to take into
> account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any
> conflicting arguments"?

I'm not going to join you in trying to derail this discussion.

*Right now*, we have 12 to 3 in favor of removal.  We had enough time,
everyone was able to speak up, we had lots of debate.

Even at the time of the initial decision, there was enough time allowed
for the resolution of *significant technical disagreements*.  A 26-year
old comment simply saying "Don't remove." was taking into account -- in
all it's detail -- and considered to be insufficient.  As Carlos said at
the very beginning, maintainers rightly considered this to have
consensus at the time.  And we still have consensus.

> Where was success defined?  Where's the summary of participant
> positions?  Where are the complaints and concerns recorded for future
> use?
> 
> I get it that it says consensus needs not be unanimous, but there isn't
> any guidance whatsoever as to when it might be acceptable to decide
> there's consensus or general agreement despite sustained objections, or
> when there was enough discussion.  I get it that these things need a lot
> of wiggle room because decisions of very different complexity might need
> very different parameters.  Still, some examples of acceptable and
> unacceptable situations might be useful for reference.
> 
> Like, if we have 4 voices for and 1 or 2 against, is it ok to proceed
> after as little as one day?  If there are some 30 voices for and 5
> against?  How about 5 for and 30 against?  Do voices count the same, or
> are users, occasional contributors, regular developers, appointed
> maintainers and ultimate maintainers counted differently, if counting is
> even relevant.
> 
> Or does it not even matter how many voices there are for, and what
> really matters is whether there's a reasonable amount of opposition to a
> change?

I agree that the rules written down in the wiki could potentially be
much more detailed and formal.  But it doesn't change that we have a
very large and stable majority in favor of the removal.

So, if you want to improve the clarity of the rules, please do so in a
separate thread and discussion.

> There's nothing about this in the process, and this was one of the
> sources of stress for me when trying to decide whether or not installing
> a proposed change was in line with the process.

If you were unsure, you should have just discussed more with others
first.  Or listened to the guidance of your fellow GNU maintainers (eg,
Carlos).  Notice that others who use the consensus process much more
often that you do (because they are much more active in the community
than you in recent times) did not think that the process wasn't clear
enough to judge this case.

> The application of the
> rules appears to be completely arbitrary and, in this case, it seems to
> have fallen back to what position shouts louder.

That's an incorrect accusation.  You can't accuse N people to have more
to say than M people, if N is much larger than M.  Specifically, please
compare the number of message you have sent vs. the number of messages
sent by others, *per person*.  If someone "shouts louder", than it's
you.  You can do similar comparisons with the number of lines written
etc.  And please also note that most messages others have been sending
recently are responses to you; elsewhere you complained that there would
be not enough debate, and now you complain that others talk to much.

For example, I just wrote 8 lines because I had to debunk on your wrong
accusations. 

> At an organization I'm a part of, we also strive for consensus, but we
> have a fallback voting process for when we can't reach consensus.

The votes so far are 12 to 3 in favor of the removal.

> I'm
> not suggesting we adopt something along these lines, because the
> structure of the group is very different (that is a closed group), but
> it might be clearer and more honest to admit that the initial definition
> of consensus is NOT what we mean by consensus, or consensus-driven, and
> that there are arbitrary (or democratic, or what?) fallback processes
> when sustained objections remain.

While it may be made more clear in the wiki page describing our
consensus process, majority votes is what we have effectively used all
the time.  The notion that consensus doesn't require unanimous consent
is a majority vote.

> 
> >> This means that if there is opposition to a proposed change, it is up to
> >> the proponent to listen to the involved parties and attempt to find
> >> middle ground so that opinions converge, or at least that objections be
> >> withdrawn.
> >> 
> >> Is that not so?
> 
> > And we tried that, and the majority and you have not changed their
> > opinions.  So, given that the majority is much bigger, we follow the
> > majority and move on.
> 
> Nothing like that is stated in the rules.  Per what's written, it might
> seem perfectly legitimate for me to take note of the objections of the
> majority and write them off, and moving forward with the position of the
> minority.  That would be unusual, but it is within the written rules
> AFAICT.

"Keep in mind consensus need not be unanimous":  We have 12 to 3 in
favor of the removal.  What else do you need?
"sustained opposition to substantial issues by an important part of the
concerned interests": 3 compared to 12 is not important either, in
particular considering that for 1 of the 3, it wasn't clear whether it
was a joke, another one is a 26-year-old comment, and 1 hasn't been an
active developer in the past.  The other 12 were to large extent active
developers or GNU maintainers.

Like in the real world, not all laws are perfectly formalized.  They
evolve into a set of rules according to how things work in practice.  We
don't have courts, but if the majority of the community disagrees with
you, including other maintainers, that's a pretty good indication that
your interpretation of the consensus page might not fit the reality of
the community you want to participate in.

> >> > What also happened, though, is that RMS showed up and that said that the
> >> > community's consensus process wouldn't apply, that he'd have the last
> >> > say, always, if he wanted, and that the arguments and opinions of a
> >> > majority of the active developers don't matter.
> >> > That will push people away, because it undermines the community.
> >> 
> >> You might be surprised that I very much agree with your perception
> >> stated in the paragraph above, and also with your conclusion.  It was
> >> not nice that he did so.
> 
> > So what does that mean precisely, for you?
> 
> It means he stated his authority as GNU project leader in a way that
> wasn't very nice (understatement :-), and that this wasn't taken well by
> many, even by those who realized this was the case, and perhaps more so
> by those who did not realize it was so.

So, should RMS have the authority to overrule the community or not?  You
say the way in which he did wasn't nice, but you don't comment on
whether he should have that power or not.  And whether that will
undermine the community in your opinion.

(I'm asking because I think it will undermine, and you said that you
agree with some of that.)

> > According to other statements by you, you still don't seem to accept
> > that we are consensus-based project.  Can we actually get you and RMS
> > to acknowledge that?
> 
> Acknowledge what, "we do not accept it", or "we are consensus-based
> project"?

The latter, of course.  Though even the former would clarify the current
state, I guess.

> I can't get RMS to do anything.

Sure, and that's not what I asked.

> What I can say is that it's not reasonable for GNU, or any group with a
> well-defined purpose, especially political purposes, to be both open for
> anyone's participation and consensus-based.  The risk of hostile capture
> is too high, and the more relevant the project, the higher the risk.  At
> least some lines of defense are needed against that, for the project to
> remain carrying out its goals.  Being part of the GNU project, it is
> just natural for GNU leadership to play such a line of defense in GNU
> libc and all other GNU projects.  GNU official maintainers are another
> line of defense, but historically this line of defense alone hasn't
> always been enough.

Well, at least that's a start for a clearer position we can argue about.

Because you spent so much time dissecting glibc's consensus rules, could
you also work towards providing the same level of detail for the rules
that specify what kind of governance GNU projects would have to endure?
For example, what do you consider hostile capture?

> It's a tricky balance to make room for the project
> to flourish while ensuring it doesn't turn against its purpose.

Frankly, that's your and RMS's problem.

IMO, you need to convince the current glibc community and its developers
that you can provide an umbrella that's worth working under, not vice
versa.  Your and RMS' recent behavior hasn't been helpful to achieve
this, IMO.

I suggest that both of you (1) let the glibc community do it's job and
continue working as it has been in the past years, and (2) concurrently
work on a clearer description of what kind of powers you'd like to
reserve for projects working under your umbrella. 

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Maurizio Manfredini]

On 5/8/2018 9:27 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, Torvald Riegel<triegel@redhat.com>  wrote:
> 
>> it seems pretty obvious now that the majority of people who
>> have spoken out are in favor of removing the "joke"
> You've been a lot more involved with glibc day to day than I have
> lately, but it seems to me that you're confused about the governing
> rules adopted by this community.
> 
> The stepping stone is not tiranny of the majority, but rather consensus
> building.
> 
> This means that if there is opposition to a proposed change, it is up to
> the proponent to listen to the involved parties and attempt to find
> middle ground so that opinions converge, or at least that objections be
> withdrawn.
> 
> Is that not so?
> 
> 

Hi,

I am not used to get involved in this kind of discussions, anyway, 
having followed this thread, I feel to say my opinion on the matter, 
although it may be not relevant to the FSF or the GNU project (I am only 
a user and interested bystander).

First, the matter at hand, the joke:
Obviously, abortion is a very divisive subject, and people from the two 
sides of the aisle have fundamental differences in opinion about the 
subject.

Yet on one thing they both agree: abortion is no joke.

Therefore, my opinion is that such an attempt to make fun about it 
should be removed as inappropriate (even more in a software manual, 
where it is entirely off-topic), if not even rude to the awareness of 
both pro-life and pro-choice people, i.e. pretty much anyone.
I would like to emphasize the excellent point made here:
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00291.html


Second, defense of human rights:
I am totally in for defending freedom, including freedom of speech.
I also think that, especially when it is about divisive matters, a bad 
defense can be sometimes as counter-productive as an offense.
I think this joke falls under the category of bad defense, despite the 
intentions of the author, because of the above.


Finally, tyranny:
 From what I have read of the thread, I have seen no tyranny. These 
terms are IMHO the result of the heat of the discussion.
I believe that the controversial could be solved with some level of good 
old common sense: the joke is a bad joke, and is best removed.
It is right to build opportunities to promote freedom and human rights 
in an effective way. I think this joke is not one of them.

Thanks,
Maurizio

[PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/07/2018 12:41 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  6, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> I am splitting it into two discussions:
> 
>> (1) Discuss the deletion of the abortion/censorship joke.
> 
>> (2) Discuss trauma caused by function names and their associations to other
>>     languages.
> 
> The issues are one and the same.
> 
> The deletion of the censorship joke is (allegedly) justified by
> undesirable emotions that might allegedly be brought about by the joke,
> but its effect on at least one of the persons who shared information
> about their own trauma points at the opposite effect: the joke brings
> relief, which the deletion would take away.  That's the *opposite* of
> the allegedly intended effect of the deletion.  By dismissing that and
> pretending it to be a separate discussion you're just making it plain
> that you don't really care about the excuses for the deletion.

I care deeply, but in order to make progress issues need to be dealt
with individually in order for differing groups to make progress.

It will be hard to make progress with multiple issues at the same time.

> Since it all seems to be a sham, I'm about to comply with the decision
> of the project leader and primary and ultimate maintainer, who partially
> delegated maintainership to myself and others under certain constraints,
> and proceed to reverse the deletion.

Correct. However, you go against the objections of at least 3 of your fellow
GNU project maintainers. Consider that please.

> This is also in line with the community-agreed procedures.

No. Is not in line. You have ignored the community principles and checked
in the patch against the objections of fellow GNU package maintainers.
 
> It is obvious that we didn't have consensus on a decision to install
> that patch, since both sides are still arguing over it.

No. At the time the patch had consensus. The reversal does not. It's OK
though as a GNU package maintainer you do not need to follow any of these
rules.

> As for the decision to reverse the deletion, if we even need one to
> counter a move that did not have consensus, although nobody else offered
> to install the reversal and restore the status prior to the fait
> accompli, and some explicitly refused to do so themselves, nobody
> objected when I offered to do so.  Therefore, by the same reasoning that
> led to the mistaken installation of the patch, and after a much longer
> wait for objections, I understand there is consensus on my reverting it.

No. You do not have consensus, but that's OK, *you* alone are putting the
patch back in and the rest of us will have nothing to do with it.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abort joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

I fixed the subject for you.

The joke is about abort, the function.

I read in the dictionary that the noun form for abort, in the computing
sense, is also abort, not abortion.

With that fix, the subject won't be as misleading in the framing of the
debate.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abort joke removal.

[DJ Delorie]

Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
> The joke is about abort, the function.

If what you say is true, we should be able to apply it to other
functions.  memcmp() for example:

  @strong{Future Change Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship
  regulations may prohibit us from giving you information about the
  possibility of calling this function.  We would be required to say
  that this is not an acceptable way of comparing data.

Is it still funny?

Should we apply this warning to *every* function?

Replicating this warning throughout the manual would improve its chances
of being seen by readers, and further spreading our political agenda,
despite not in any way improving the manual's value as a technical
reference.  I say we do it!

(For those of you who aren't native English speakers, or might be
distracted by a traumatic experience with memcmp(), that last paragraph
was sarcasm.)

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abort joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  7, 2018, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
>> The joke is about abort, the function.

> If what you say is true, we should be able to apply it to other
> functions.  memcmp() for example:

>   @strong{Future Change Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship
>   regulations may prohibit us from giving you information about the
>   possibility of calling this function.  We would be required to say
>   that this is not an acceptable way of comparing data.

> Is it still funny?

Yeah, I found it hilarious, but probably not for the reasons you meant.

For the analogy to be valid, and for your attempt at humor to work,
you'd have to find actual censorship legislation that related with the
function name in some surprising way.

That might have worked with crypt(), but it wouldn't be that funny
because the relationship with the function name would not be surprising.


@strong{Past Change Warning:} Patches to glibc have remove()d any
traces of memory about GNU's standing against censorship.
Unfortunately, you'll never read() about it, since even the memory
holding this warning is now free()d.


-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abort joke removal.

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 297 bytes --]

El dl 07 de 05 de 2018 a les 17:41 -0400, DJ Delorie va escriure:
> (For those of you who aren't native English speakers, or might be
> distracted by a traumatic experience with memcmp(), that last
> paragraph
> was sarcasm.)

Comparisons are odious. Why should one be "less" than the other?

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> It will be hard to make progress with multiple issues at the same time.

It's not multiple issues.

> However, you go against the objections of at least 3 of your fellow
> GNU project maintainers.

Show me where they objected to MY proposal.

I don't care if they objected to something else in the larger debate.
The larger debate isn't over yet, so whatever their opinion is matters
once consensus is reached for the larger debate.  People's opinions
regarding a debate are supposed to affect the state *after* the debate,
not *during* it.  Right?  Or are you suggesting we should change the
rules so as to say that, if enough people shout loud enough or sneak the
patch in early enough, they get to change the initial conditions of the
debated issue in their favor?

>> This is also in line with the community-agreed procedures.

> No. Is not in line. You have ignored the community principles and checked
> in the patch against the objections of fellow GNU package maintainers.
 
I have not.  Again, show me ANY objections to MY proposal, posted before
I pushed the reversal, or before the email in which I said I was doing
so.

>> It is obvious that we didn't have consensus on a decision to install
>> that patch, since both sides are still arguing over it.

> No. At the time the patch had consensus.

No, it only seemed to have consensus, because of a regrettable mistake
on the committer's part, and another of mine (I decided to ask RMS
*before* raising my objection).  I objected, and RMS objected.  He
hadn't been given a chance to speak yet.  That's not consensus, that's
sneaking stuff in.

> The reversal does not.

The restoration of the initial status quo to unbias the discussion was
not opposed by anyone, if it was even read.

> It's OK though as a GNU package maintainer you do not need to follow
> any of these rules.

Thank you for that concession, but it's not necessary.  I'm perfectly in
line with the consensus rules, regardless of how others might prefer to
confess to cheating in the consensus rules than to admitting that they
did not respond to my proposal.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[DJ Delorie]

Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
> I don't care if they objected to something else in the larger debate.

Perhaps you should.

For the record, because you have demonstrated that exact statements to
each item must be present, I hereby expressly object to any and every
proposal you might make now or in the future, unless I recind said
blanket objection explicitly and specifically.

I really don't like it when someone works around my obvious opinion by
way of weasel words.

> The restoration of the initial status quo

... is still a change, and still requires consensus.  The only
exclusions to consensus are those noted in our wiki page, and this case
is not one of those so excluded.

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  7, 2018, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
>> I don't care if they objected to something else in the larger debate.

> Perhaps you should.

It's irrelevant WRT my proposal.  It was obvious to me that consensus
wouldn't be reached in the larger debate any time soon.

> For the record, because you have demonstrated that exact statements to
> each item must be present, I hereby expressly object to any and every
> proposal you might make now or in the future, unless I recind said
> blanket objection explicitly and specifically.

Now you're just trolling; I'm pretty sure you don't want to legitimize
this sort of blanket sustained objection.  You'd have a lot more to lose
than I if they were to be admitted as evidence of objections.


Be honest, did you even read my proposal?

If you felt so strongly about it, why did you not respond there?


>> The restoration of the initial status quo

> ... is still a change, and still requires consensus.

I'm pretty sure you don't want to legitimize such sneaking in of changes
as happened (without malice AFAICT) in Zack's case, to then demand
consensus to be obtained to back it out, while the entire debate plays
out.  Seriously, think about it.

1. A wishes to force in a change that is sure to face objections.

2. A and B agree to make the change: A posts it, B supports it, and A
proceeds to check it in right away, before the expected objections come
up.

3. C objects, but now it's too late, and now it's C that has to convince
everyone including A and B to back it out.

Gee, look!, that looks a bit familiar, doesn't it?  Isn't that *almost*
what you've just objected to my doing?  Except there was no prior
agreement between myself and RMS, and I gave people plenty of time to
respond and object, and nobody did before I actually carried it out five
days later.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Jonathan Nieder]

Hi,

Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> If you felt so strongly about it, why did you not respond there?

I feel the need to speak up, because you are encouraging a kind of
behavior that can deeply harm a project.

The standard of consensus used by this project is not "if you do not
speak up very very quickly, then your opinion does not matter".

This project relies on maintainers' ability to judge consensus, and
several of the maintainers have already judged it accurately, in my
opinion.  On the other hand you are a GNU maintainer and have some
responsibilities associated with that, and I don't fault you for
carrying them out.  Just don't pretend this is consensus, and don't
encourage people to quickly pile on to every patch they dislike for
fear that consensus will be misjudged.

Annoyed,
Jonathan

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/07/2018 07:51 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
>> If you felt so strongly about it, why did you not respond there?
> 
> I feel the need to speak up, because you are encouraging a kind of
> behavior that can deeply harm a project.
> 
> The standard of consensus used by this project is not "if you do not
> speak up very very quickly, then your opinion does not matter".
> 
> This project relies on maintainers' ability to judge consensus, and
> several of the maintainers have already judged it accurately, in my
> opinion.  On the other hand you are a GNU maintainer and have some
> responsibilities associated with that, and I don't fault you for
> carrying them out.  Just don't pretend this is consensus, and don't
> encourage people to quickly pile on to every patch they dislike for
> fear that consensus will be misjudged.

Agreed.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  7, 2018, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If you felt so strongly about it, why did you not respond there?

> I feel the need to speak up, because you are encouraging a kind of
> behavior that can deeply harm a project.

> The standard of consensus used by this project is not "if you do not
> speak up very very quickly, then your opinion does not matter".

I guess we've somehow miscommunicated, because I'm actually pointing out
a weakness in the current rules, that was proponents of the removal of
the snippet under dispute were taking advantage of.

The argument brought forth by some of them was precisely that, because
Richard did not speak up quickly enough, he would then have to overcome
objections, because he'd have been turned into a proponent of a change
to revert what had been sneaked past him, whereas had he spoken up very
very quickly, those having to overcome objections would be those seeking
to make the change.

At the same time, it was argued that the rules were made so that those
proposing a change were the ones who had to overcome objections.

See, the *current* rules, per their argument, only serve their stated
goals for those who reply very very quickly.  That's a bug.

The *current* rules fail to serve their stated goal if a slightly late
response reverses the burden of overcoming objections, as some who
support the removal claim to prefer.

I denounce these distortions and expose them as bugs in the rules, but
fighting an uphill battle because the underlying topic is far too hot
and polarized.

And yet, I do not take advantage of the hole to denounce it.  I waited
more than twice as long as the sneaked-in patch for objections.

> This project relies on maintainers' ability to judge consensus, and
> several of the maintainers have already judged it accurately, in my
> opinion.

There is indeed a very significant majority that voiced support for the
removal.

The current rules adopted by the community, however, speak of consensus
in terms that can be exploited by sufficiently stubborn people (say,
like DJ, RMS and myself :-) as DJ has just demonstrated by his blanket
objection to any of my future proposals.

> On the other hand you are a GNU maintainer and have some
> responsibilities associated with that, and I don't fault you for
> carrying them out.

Thanks for your understanding.

> Just don't pretend this is consensus,

The larger debate on whether to remove the snippet is still ongoing, so
I agree there's no consensus on that.  However, my proposal to restore
the initial state so that the debate could take place without distortion
did not face any objections over several days.  Per our rules, and
without exploiting any of the weaknesses I denounce, that's consensus
for restoring the initial state while the debate plays out, but not for
anything else.

> and don't encourage people to quickly pile on to every patch they
> dislike for fear that consensus will be misjudged.

*nod*


I will take this opportunity to suggest two improvements for the
consensus rules:

- establish reasonable time limits for objections to be raised before
  one can conclude that consensus was reached, or, for expediency,
  explicitly allow for (not too) late objections to be raised, in such a
  way that the burden of overcoming objections is not reversed just
  because there *appeared* to be consensus

- relax the consensus requirements such that even a sustained objection
  by a (stubborn) concerned interest won't block changes indefinitely,
  with fallback decision-making procedures such as collective decisions
  by maintainers, escalating to GNU or somesuch

  BUT

  documenting that, being part of GNU, the first and only operating
  system developed for ethical reasons, GNU libc may be asked to install
  or to back out changes that might not seem relevant under the
  technical light of the developer community, but that are deemed
  important by the GNU project.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/08/2018 06:38 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I guess we've somehow miscommunicated, because I'm actually pointing out
> a weakness in the current rules, that was proponents of the removal of
> the snippet under dispute were taking advantage of.
> 
> The argument brought forth by some of them was precisely that, because
> Richard did not speak up quickly enough, he would then have to overcome
> objections, because he'd have been turned into a proponent of a change
> to revert what had been sneaked past him, whereas had he spoken up very
> very quickly, those having to overcome objections would be those seeking
> to make the change.
> 
> At the same time, it was argued that the rules were made so that those
> proposing a change were the ones who had to overcome objections.
> 
> See, the *current* rules, per their argument, only serve their stated
> goals for those who reply very very quickly.  That's a bug.

Not really, because commits are not necessarily final.  They can be 
reverted (as you have demonstrated), just that there needs to be a 
proper discussion if the opposition comes up after the commit has 
already happened.  It seems that you see the commit as being some sort 
of strategic advantage, which it isn't.

It becomes an irreversible issue if the commit in question has an ABI 
change and we are near a release (in which case our 1 month freeze 
protects us) but in those cases we as a community stick to the more 
conservative stand of backing out the change.

The patch in question is clearly not an ABI change.

> And yet, I do not take advantage of the hole to denounce it.  I waited
> more than twice as long as the sneaked-in patch for objections.

The opposition was apparent in every email everyone sent, so it is 
clearly not a consensus decision.  You specifically mentioned RMS' super 
powers in the project as one of the driving reasons for the change, at 
which point there is no real discussion or dissent, just annoyance.  If 
you do the commit as you just did, you do it on the basis of those super 
powers, not on the basis of consensus.

> The current rules adopted by the community, however, speak of consensus
> in terms that can be exploited by sufficiently stubborn people (say,
> like DJ, RMS and myself :-) as DJ has just demonstrated by his blanket
> objection to any of my future proposals.

I read DJ's comment as being a reaction to your comment about assumed 
consensus.  In the normal case (i.e. the last 7-8 years!) we have 
successfully put trust in each other to act in good faith.

>> and don't encourage people to quickly pile on to every patch they
>> dislike for fear that consensus will be misjudged.
> 
> *nod*
> 
> 
> I will take this opportunity to suggest two improvements for the
> consensus rules:
> 
> - establish reasonable time limits for objections to be raised before
>    one can conclude that consensus was reached, or, for expediency,
>    explicitly allow for (not too) late objections to be raised, in such a
>    way that the burden of overcoming objections is not reversed just
>    because there *appeared* to be consensus

This assumes commits to be some sort of strategic advantage, it is not. 
We are not a hostile community, as we demonstrated over the past years. 
The only reason this discussion is turning hostile is because (1) 
commits are being seen as some sort of strategic advantage and (2) there 
are repeated calls to authority in the absence of actual merit in the 
opposition.

> - relax the consensus requirements such that even a sustained objection
>    by a (stubborn) concerned interest won't block changes indefinitely,
>    with fallback decision-making procedures such as collective decisions
>    by maintainers, escalating to GNU or somesuch
> 
>    BUT
> 
>    documenting that, being part of GNU, the first and only operating
>    system developed for ethical reasons, GNU libc may be asked to install
>    or to back out changes that might not seem relevant under the
>    technical light of the developer community, but that are deemed
>    important by the GNU project.

That's not the consensus part, that's the 'dear leader does not like it' 
part.

Siddhesh

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> On 05/08/2018 06:38 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I guess we've somehow miscommunicated, because I'm actually pointing out
>> a weakness in the current rules, that was proponents of the removal of
>> the snippet under dispute were taking advantage of.
>> 
>> The argument brought forth by some of them was precisely that, because
>> Richard did not speak up quickly enough, he would then have to overcome
>> objections, because he'd have been turned into a proponent of a change
>> to revert what had been sneaked past him, whereas had he spoken up very
>> very quickly, those having to overcome objections would be those seeking
>> to make the change.
>> 
>> At the same time, it was argued that the rules were made so that those
>> proposing a change were the ones who had to overcome objections.
>> 
>> See, the *current* rules, per their argument, only serve their stated
>> goals for those who reply very very quickly.  That's a bug.

> Not really, because commits are not necessarily final.

That doesn't mean there isn't a reversal of the burden of overcoming
objections, as someone (I forget who, sorry) pointed out very early in
this debate.  That's what makes a very very quick objection tactically
more powerful to a slightly late one: the latter faces a much heavier
burden to preserve the initial status quo, because they table is turned
as the sneaked-in change is taken as a given and what would have been a
status-preserving objection is now mistaken as a proposed change that
must overcome objections to the reversal.


> They can be reverted (as you have demonstrated), just that there needs
> to be a proper discussion if the opposition comes up after the commit
> has already happened.  It seems that you see the commit as being some
> sort of strategic advantage, which it isn't.

Do you really not see the contradiction between your two sentences?

Is it really just as hard to object to a change, and to have to convince
others who object to backing it out?

If it was so, why was it important for you to highlight the "there needs
to be a proper discussion", if it's just the same, and someone else
wrote something to the effect that now he has to convince others to back
it out?  (feel free to speculate about the latter ;-)


That said, you're right that it's not the installation of the patch
that's the key point.  If objections were taken as such for a bit, even
after the patch was installed, then it wouldn't matter.


> The patch in question is clearly not an ABI change.

Fully agreed.


>> And yet, I do not take advantage of the hole to denounce it.  I waited
>> more than twice as long as the sneaked-in patch for objections.

> The opposition

to what?

> You specifically mentioned RMS' super powers in the project as one of
> the driving reasons for the change,

There was no change.  It's just what it was before the discussion
started, just as it should be until the discussion is over.

It was the removal that had stepped over RMS's objection.  It couldn't
have gone in like that.

> at which point there is no real discussion or dissent, just annoyance.

I totally understand that.  I can't say that RMS dealt with it well.  It
doesn't change the fact that he should have been contacted, that his
objection (in the comments) was ignored, and the patch was put in
despite the lack of consensus.

> If you do the commit as you just did, you do it on the
> basis of those super powers, not on the basis of consensus.

I took his sustained objection, and his decision, as another reason to
proceed to reverse the incorrect status of the tree, indeed, but it's
not correct to say that restoring the initial state was not object of
consensus.

>> The current rules adopted by the community, however, speak of consensus
>> in terms that can be exploited by sufficiently stubborn people (say,
>> like DJ, RMS and myself :-) as DJ has just demonstrated by his blanket
>> objection to any of my future proposals.

> I read DJ's comment as being a reaction to your comment about assumed
> consensus.

I've known DJ long enough, and we've been at opposite sides of debates
long enough, and trolled each other in friendly ways (and, occasionally,
not so friendly ones) enough times that I know he was just pushing it
past the limit to make a point.  Even if it was a bad point ;-)

> In the normal case (i.e. the last 7-8 years!) we have
> successfully put trust in each other to act in good faith.

Looks like we'd never hit such a heated situation in which both sides
accuse each other of cheating the consensus rules, while insisting on
having complied with them.

> We are not a hostile community, as we demonstrated over the past
> years.

I'm sorry to say, but this whole debate seemed very very hostile to me.
I don't exclude myself from that, but I'm not alone in that either.

> The only reason this discussion is turning hostile is because
> (1) commits are being seen as some sort of strategic advantage

But they are, until the rules are changed so that they aren't.

> and (2) there are repeated calls to authority in the absence of actual
> merit in the opposition.

On both sides, I must say.

>> - relax the consensus requirements such that even a sustained objection
>> by a (stubborn) concerned interest won't block changes indefinitely,
>> with fallback decision-making procedures such as collective decisions
>> by maintainers, escalating to GNU or somesuch
>> 
>> BUT
>> 
>> documenting that, being part of GNU, the first and only operating
>> system developed for ethical reasons, GNU libc may be asked to install
>> or to back out changes that might not seem relevant under the
>> technical light of the developer community, but that are deemed
>> important by the GNU project.

> That's not the consensus part, that's the 'dear leader does not like
> it' part.

Yeah, both parts should be there.  We don't want to grant veto powers to
any sufficiently stubborn interest, but we (GNU maintainers) must ensure
GNU can occasionally put in or take out changes decided by the project
as a whole, even if overriding decisions of the specific subproject.
There shouldn't be any surprise or news about that, as much as any of us
might disapprove of the way RMS conveyed his position.  Of course he had
every right to feel extremely insulted for having had his explicit
request (early objection) completely ignored, regardless of his position
in the GNU project.  If he behaved badly, consider he was reacting to
incredible insult.  What excuse did the community have for its
incredibly insulting behavior?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Torvald Riegel]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 03:30 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Of course he had
> every right to feel extremely insulted for having had his explicit
> request (early objection) completely ignored, regardless of his position
> in the GNU project.  If he behaved badly, consider he was reacting to
> incredible insult.  What excuse did the community have for its
> incredibly insulting behavior?

Really???  Is it now an "incredible insult" if community consensus
considers but does not agree with your opinion?  Especially if the
opinion comes in the form of a 20+ year old comment?  You are accusing
others of bad behavior (ie, an insult) without having any reason for it
at all.

It was a completely professional discussion, he didn't win according to
community consensus rules, that's it.

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 03:30 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Of course he had
>> every right to feel extremely insulted for having had his explicit
>> request (early objection) completely ignored, regardless of his position
>> in the GNU project.  If he behaved badly, consider he was reacting to
>> incredible insult.  What excuse did the community have for its
>> incredibly insulting behavior?

> Really???  Is it now an "incredible insult" if community consensus
> considers but does not agree with your opinion?

No, that's not the insulting part.

The insulting part is seeing (and posting as part of the patch) the "Do
not remove", not asking him or even letting him know, and putting the
change in despite the "Do not remove" objection, as if it wasn't even
there.  Not as if his opinion was like anyone else's, but as if it
didn't even count.

> It was a completely professional discussion, he didn't win according to
> community consensus rules, that's it.

"He didn't win" would be almost funny, if this were a game.  Not just
because the debate is still underway, but mainly because he wasn't even
invited to the game before it was first misregarded as over.  It's so
stacked that it almost underflows.  (see?, I made another joke.  not a
good one either :-)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/08/2018 11:20 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> The insulting part is seeing (and posting as part of the patch) the "Do
> not remove", not asking him or even letting him know, and putting the
> change in despite the "Do not remove" objection, as if it wasn't even
> there.  Not as if his opinion was like anyone else's, but as if it
> didn't even count.

No that's not an insult Alex.  You're once again attributing to malice 
what can be attributed to oversight.

Siddhesh

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Zack Weinberg]

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
> On 05/08/2018 11:20 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> The insulting part is seeing (and posting as part of the patch) the "Do
>> not remove", not asking him or even letting him know, and putting the
>> change in despite the "Do not remove" objection, as if it wasn't even
>> there.  Not as if his opinion was like anyone else's, but as if it
>> didn't even count.
>
> No that's not an insult Alex.  You're once again attributing to malice what
> can be attributed to oversight.

I have mostly said everything that I have to say about this issue
already, but since I was the one who originally decided that we had
consensus in spite of the "Do not remove" in the manual, and that it
was not necessary to consult him before removing it, let me take this
opportunity to spell out exactly what I was thinking.

As I have said before, because RMS has not been actively involved in
the glibc project as a maintainer or contributor for many years, his
agreement to patches is not required in general.  Normally, we do not
even think of bringing him into our discussions; the last time I
recall its happening is when we were discussing changes to malloc that
affected Emacs, to which he *is* an active contributor; even then, we
consulted with the Emacs development community as a group, not him
specifically.  In this case, the only concrete reason why we might
have wanted to have his opinion was, we knew he originally wrote the
text that was proposed for removal, and we knew that *at the time* he
cared strongly enough about its inclusion to put a note in the source
code saying not to remove it.  But.  He did that in 1992.  (Thanks for
digging up the exact year, Joseph.)  1992 was twenty-six years ago.
RMS is known for his strongly and persistently held opinions, but even
so: do *you* still care about any particular two sentences of text you
wrote twenty-six years ago?

So my intention was to avoid wasting his time over something that I
doubted he cared about anymore.

zw

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:

> In this case, the only concrete reason why we might have wanted to
> have his opinion was, we knew he originally wrote the text that was
> proposed for removal, and we knew that *at the time* he cared strongly
> enough about its inclusion to put a note in the source code saying not
> to remove it.  But.  He did that in 1992.  (Thanks for digging up the
> exact year, Joseph.)  1992 was twenty-six years ago.  RMS is known for
> his strongly and persistently held opinions, but even so: do *you*
> still care about any particular two sentences of text you wrote
> twenty-six years ago?

May the lesson be learned ;-)  I was surprised myself, but he still
does.  Let's ask next time, shall we?


> So my intention was to avoid wasting his time over something that I
> doubted he cared about anymore.

Would you be so kind as to also comment on this apparent still-standing
objection, please, and why you seem to have entirely disregarded it?

https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-04/msg00599.html

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 341 bytes --]

El dt 08 de 05 de 2018 a les 16:33 -0300, Alexandre Oliva va escriure:
> On May  8, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
> > do *you*
> > still care about any particular two sentences of text you wrote
> > twenty-six years ago?
> 
> I was surprised myself, but he still
> does.

I am surprised that you two were surprised.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 177 bytes --]

El dt 08 de 05 de 2018 a les 21:54 +0200, Javiera Serrano Polo va
escriure:
> I am surprised that you two were surprised.

Clarification: RMS' behavior is not that uncommon.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Javiera Serrano Polo <javier@jasp.net> wrote:

> El dt 08 de 05 de 2018 a les 16:33 -0300, Alexandre Oliva va escriure:
>> On May  8, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
>> > do *you*
>> > still care about any particular two sentences of text you wrote
>> > twenty-six years ago?
>> 
>> I was surprised myself, but he still does.

> I am surprised that you two were surprised.

I was surprised because it was about law under discussion all the way
back then, and I wasn't familiar with any such law in effect today, so I
hoped it had been defeated and it was no longer an issue.

I'm sad it's still an issue, but I'm glad we're still fighting it.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Zack Weinberg]

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 3:33 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
>
> May the lesson be learned ;-)  I was surprised myself, but he still
> does.  Let's ask next time, shall we?

I certainly will.

> Would you be so kind as to also comment on this apparent still-standing
> objection, please, and why you seem to have entirely disregarded it?
>
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-04/msg00599.html

Huh? I responded directly to that at the time it was posted.

zw

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 3:33 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On May  8, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
>> 
>> May the lesson be learned ;-)  I was surprised myself, but he still
>> does.  Let's ask next time, shall we?

> I certainly will.

>> Would you be so kind as to also comment on this apparent still-standing
>> objection, please, and why you seem to have entirely disregarded it?
>> 
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-04/msg00599.html

> Huh? I responded directly to that at the time it was posted.

Yeah, we know you knew about it, and there's no record that it was
withdrawn.  And yet you proceded to install the patch as if there
weren't any objections and consensus had been achieved.  How can that
be?

Carlos, you had suggested Zack to go ahead and install the patch.  Would
you share with us the rationale for dismissing a (AFAICT) pending
objection instead of attempting to seek consensus?

Thanks,

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/08/2018 09:15 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 3:33 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On May  8, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> May the lesson be learned ;-)  I was surprised myself, but he still
>>> does.  Let's ask next time, shall we?
> 
>> I certainly will.
> 
>>> Would you be so kind as to also comment on this apparent still-standing
>>> objection, please, and why you seem to have entirely disregarded it?
>>>
>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-04/msg00599.html
> 
>> Huh? I responded directly to that at the time it was posted.
> 
> Yeah, we know you knew about it, and there's no record that it was
> withdrawn.  And yet you proceded to install the patch as if there
> weren't any objections and consensus had been achieved.  How can that
> be?
> 
> Carlos, you had suggested Zack to go ahead and install the patch.  Would
> you share with us the rationale for dismissing a (AFAICT) pending
> objection instead of attempting to seek consensus?

Certainly.

In a community, particularly a community one contributes to actively,
and is involved in on day-to-day functioning. You get to know the
individuals, their styles, their jokes. With this experience in hand
you get to understand the flow of consensus building, and gathering
input from various experienced people, and their perspectives.

My analysis was that Ondrej made a joke. Had it not been a joke he
would have responded so here, because I trust Ondrej to do that,
he's quite outspoken when he doesn't agree, and I know that from
experience. Ask him directly if you like.

Therefore there was consensus.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May 10, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> In a community, particularly a community one contributes to actively,
> and is involved in on day-to-day functioning.

Hey, Torvald, you might want to complain about the snarky remark above,
in addition to my present response ;-)

> My analysis was that Ondrej made a joke.

So you did not confirm before telling Zack to install the patch.

> Had it not been a joke he would have responded so here

But then it would be too late.  Zack installed the patch just two hours
after you gave the green light.

> Therefore there was consensus.

Except for RMS's preexisting objection on the record, and other actual
objections (like mine) that weren't posted because there was an
*apparent* standing objection by Ondřey.  The argument about unvoiced
additional objections because of a presumably standing one was accepted
when it favored your position, why not when it disfavors it?  You also
endorsed someone's email who purported to disagree with me stating that
our community is not about posting objections very very quickly.  I had
pointed out the rules led to just that undesirable behavior.  But when
it favors your position, you don't seem to mind its undesirable effects.

Anyway, given all of this, wouldn't it be more honest to conclude that
there *seemed* to be consensus, provided that objections on the record
were assumed irrelevant, and assuming the absence of unvoiced objections
expecting the consensus-building process to be followed to the letter?

Unless you want to pretend that we really had consensus, and all the
debate that ensued was just violent agreement.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/10/2018 12:41 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 10, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> In a community, particularly a community one contributes to actively,
>> and is involved in on day-to-day functioning.
> 
> Hey, Torvald, you might want to complain about the snarky remark above,
> in addition to my present response ;-)

Sorry, I didn't intend it to be snarky, just instructive. I see how it
might be perceived that way by you though. Sorry about that.

>> My analysis was that Ondrej made a joke.
> 
> So you did not confirm before telling Zack to install the patch.

No.

>> Had it not been a joke he would have responded so here
> 
> But then it would be too late.  Zack installed the patch just two hours
> after you gave the green light.

Correct, at that point I'd be asking Ondrej to give a much more detailed
objection before reverting the patch.

>> Therefore there was consensus.
> 
> Except for RMS's preexisting objection on the record, and other actual
> objections (like mine) that weren't posted because there was an
> *apparent* standing objection by Ondřey.  The argument about unvoiced
> additional objections because of a presumably standing one was accepted
> when it favored your position, why not when it disfavors it?  You also
> endorsed someone's email who purported to disagree with me stating that
> our community is not about posting objections very very quickly.  I had
> pointed out the rules led to just that undesirable behavior.  But when
> it favors your position, you don't seem to mind its undesirable effects.

An objection is something that happens in a discussion about a patch.

> Anyway, given all of this, wouldn't it be more honest to conclude that
> there *seemed* to be consensus, provided that objections on the record
> were assumed irrelevant, and assuming the absence of unvoiced objections
> expecting the consensus-building process to be followed to the letter?

No. There was consensus. There was perhaps a small chance that Ondrej's
post was misunderstood, that's true.

> Unless you want to pretend that we really had consensus, and all the
> debate that ensued was just violent agreement.

I don't follow. Are you making a joke here?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May 10, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 05/10/2018 12:41 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On May 10, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In a community, particularly a community one contributes to actively,
>>> and is involved in on day-to-day functioning.
>> 
>> Hey, Torvald, you might want to complain about the snarky remark above,
>> in addition to my present response ;-)

> Sorry, I didn't intend it to be snarky, just instructive. I see how it
> might be perceived that way by you though. Sorry about that.

Then I, in turn, apologize for misunderstanding your intent (I must say
I was surprised indeed to see that coming from you :-), and for
returning in (perceived) kind what you did not deserve.

>> Unless you want to pretend that we really had consensus, and all the
>> debate that ensued was just violent agreement.

> I don't follow. Are you making a joke here?

Yeah, the "pretend" and the "violent agreement" were meant as humorous,
to soften my opposite opinion and understanding of the situation.

Despite the (ambiguous, I guess from your question) attempt at humor, I
really meant that whatever apparent consensus there was was not real:
there's no doubt that there were objections that hadn't been posted
quickly enough (Richard's came in shortly after the patch made it), and
the ongoing discussion is more than proof that there really was no
consensus in the usual sense.  I acknowledge, however, that,
disregarding enough stuff for various reasons, one might have concluded
that there was consensus, but that conclusion, even if apparently
correct, would be a mistake, given the subsequent debate.  That was not
the only mistake in the process that led to the installation of the
patch.  But that's ok.  Those mistakes are now fixed, and we can focus
on the upcoming release, and then get the consensus-seeking process on
this issue back underway.

Thanks a lot for suggesting the cool down period, BTW.  Really
appreciated.  Until the consensus-building efforts are restarted, I
won't post to the list messages about the debates on the removal of the
joke, or about restoring the initial conditions while the debate plays
out. or even about the process issues around them.  I guess a reasonable
exception to that might be further posts about my suggestions for
improvement of the consensus-building process, but even that, I'll only
post if prompted to do so, and entirely outside the context of the
aforementioned debates.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Torvald Riegel]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 16:33 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
> 
> > In this case, the only concrete reason why we might have wanted to
> > have his opinion was, we knew he originally wrote the text that was
> > proposed for removal, and we knew that *at the time* he cared strongly
> > enough about its inclusion to put a note in the source code saying not
> > to remove it.  But.  He did that in 1992.  (Thanks for digging up the
> > exact year, Joseph.)  1992 was twenty-six years ago.  RMS is known for
> > his strongly and persistently held opinions, but even so: do *you*
> > still care about any particular two sentences of text you wrote
> > twenty-six years ago?
> 
> May the lesson be learned ;-)  I was surprised myself, but he still
> does.  Let's ask next time, shall we?

You don't answer Zack's question.  You say what you believe RMS thinks.

I don't think Zack did anything wrong here.  Asking RMS might kept him
happy, but that might have only removed one objection.  There was, and
is, still consensus for the removal, even with the objection.

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> On 05/08/2018 11:20 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> The insulting part is seeing (and posting as part of the patch) the "Do
>> not remove", not asking him or even letting him know, and putting the
>> change in despite the "Do not remove" objection, as if it wasn't even
>> there.  Not as if his opinion was like anyone else's, but as if it
>> didn't even count.

> No that's not an insult Alex.  You're once again attributing to malice
> what can be attributed to oversight.

Having often been on the delivering side of allegedly-insulting remarks,
I learned it doesn't take speaker's malice for the listener to be
justifiably insulted.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Torvald Riegel]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 14:50 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 03:30 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Of course he had
> >> every right to feel extremely insulted for having had his explicit
> >> request (early objection) completely ignored, regardless of his position
> >> in the GNU project.  If he behaved badly, consider he was reacting to
> >> incredible insult.  What excuse did the community have for its
> >> incredibly insulting behavior?
> 
> > Really???  Is it now an "incredible insult" if community consensus
> > considers but does not agree with your opinion?
> 
> No, that's not the insulting part.
> 
> The insulting part is seeing (and posting as part of the patch) the "Do
> not remove", not asking him or even letting him know, and putting the
> change in despite the "Do not remove" objection, as if it wasn't even
> there.  Not as if his opinion was like anyone else's, but as if it
> didn't even count.

You don't know that it was disregarded.  Because in case if was counted,
the outcome would have been the same.

Claiming ownership to a 26-year old piece of code in a project that one
doesn't contribute to anymore, and saying that every change is an
insult, is a little funny from a copyleft perspective, don't you
think? :) 

> > It was a completely professional discussion, he didn't win according to
> > community consensus rules, that's it.
> 
> "He didn't win" would be almost funny, if this were a game.

You realize one also uses "win" in the context of discussions or
arguments?  Like in "win a completely professional discussion", to
remind you of the first part of my sentence?

> Not just
> because the debate is still underway,

Look at the numbers.  You can of course think there's still a chance for
a major change in opinions, but that seems very unlikely to me.

> but mainly because he wasn't even
> invited to the game before it was first misregarded as over.

Not every situation in life is like a coin toss, where you have an
always fair chance of winning (ie, 50%).  That does not mean the
discussion is unfair.

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/08/2018 12:00 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> That doesn't mean there isn't a reversal of the burden of overcoming
> objections, as someone (I forget who, sorry) pointed out very early in
> this debate.  That's what makes a very very quick objection tactically
> more powerful to a slightly late one: the latter faces a much heavier
> burden to preserve the initial status quo, because they table is turned
> as the sneaked-in change is taken as a given and what would have been a
> status-preserving objection is now mistaken as a proposed change that
> must overcome objections to the reversal.

You continue to call it 'sneaked-in', which implies malice.  Please 
don't do that.

And yes, I acknowledge the perception of the tactical advantage (I 
mentioned it in the first place) and I'm trying to make the case that it 
shouldn't matter in a consensus driven discussion because ideally you'd 
have the same set of arguments and hence the same set of results.

For example with this patch, not having applied the patch wouldn't have 
changed the fact that most of the community is in fact in favour of 
removing it and I'd hazard a guess that RMS would have declared his veto 
power in any case or stopped responding (and assuming that his grand 
opposition has been registered) resulting in the same set of results as 
we have now.

> Do you really not see the contradiction between your two sentences?

No, see above.  I don't claim that it's not unequal, I claim that it 
doesn't matter for the outcome.

>> You specifically mentioned RMS' super powers in the project as one of
>> the driving reasons for the change,
> 
> There was no change.  It's just what it was before the discussion
> started, just as it should be until the discussion is over.
> 
> It was the removal that had stepped over RMS's objection.  It couldn't
> have gone in like that.

You were within your right to back it out.  It was annoying (because you 
repeatedly cited RMS' super powers as one of the reasons behind it) and 
not a result of a consensus, but you were within your right to do that. 
I think enough of us have said that already.

>> In the normal case (i.e. the last 7-8 years!) we have
>> successfully put trust in each other to act in good faith.
> 
> Looks like we'd never hit such a heated situation in which both sides
> accuse each other of cheating the consensus rules, while insisting on
> having complied with them.

We may have argued over consensus in the past (string benchmarks come to 
mind in the early days of benchtests) but we have never had the case of 
someone stating that their word overrules any consensus.  Roland 
actually had that documented status for years and he did not state that 
as a threat in that time.

>> and (2) there are repeated calls to authority in the absence of actual
>> merit in the opposition.
> 
> On both sides, I must say.

You can't be serious about this now, or are you referring to the threat 
of a fork as being an equally powerful authority to that of RMS?  In 
that case that is your first admission of the community actually having 
some credibility, so I guess, thank you?

> Yeah, both parts should be there.  We don't want to grant veto powers to
> any sufficiently stubborn interest, but we (GNU maintainers) must ensure
> GNU can occasionally put in or take out changes decided by the project
> as a whole, even if overriding decisions of the specific subproject.
> There shouldn't be any surprise or news about that, as much as any of us
> might disapprove of the way RMS conveyed his position.  Of course he had
> every right to feel extremely insulted for having had his explicit
> request (early objection) completely ignored, regardless of his position
> in the GNU project.  If he behaved badly, consider he was reacting to
> incredible insult.  What excuse did the community have for its
> incredibly insulting behavior?

I'm sorry but I don't answer to authority in the same way you do.  I do 
not see any merit in that silly joke so disagreeing with him and asking 
him for a justification or a modification does not constitute an insult.

Also, please stop trying to defend RMS, I'm sure he is capable of doing 
that for himself.  In the process you're making assumptions about his 
behaviour that don't necessarily reflect well on him and may not even be 
true.

Siddhesh

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> I don't claim that it's not unequal, I claim that it doesn't matter
> for the outcome.

Thanks for acknowledging the difference.  IMHO, your assumption that it
doesn't matter does not follow from the rules.  The logic derived from
the application leads to very significant differences.  Why would so
many supporters of the removal be making such a fuss about restoring the
initial conditions for the debate to play out under them otherwise?
They might seem the same given the practice outside the rules about
arbitrarily disregarding objections, but are we debating the
consequences of the strict application of the rules, or the arbitrary
work-arounds to them?

> You were within your right to back it out.  It was annoying (because
> you repeatedly cited RMS' super powers as one of the reasons behind
> it) and not a result of a consensus, but you were within your right to
> do that.

I listed several reasons that supported the move.  You've added one
more.  The preexisting objections to the initial removal add another.
All I needed was one reason, really, but accusing me of working outside
the bounds of the rules that I very carefully followed, when it was
actually reverting a very explicit deviation from the same rules, is...
I wanted to say dishonest, but let's go for inconsistent, shall we?

> we have never had the case of someone stating that their word
> overrules any consensus.

But sustained objections have been disregarded, as recently as last
week.  There's this "consensus is not unanimity" motto, but it's not
part of the rules, and it's applied quite arbitrarily.

>>> and (2) there are repeated calls to authority in the absence of actual
>>> merit in the opposition.

>> On both sides, I must say.

> You can't be serious about this now,

I am.  There are non-withdrawn objections on the record to the patch
before it was installed, that imply it should never have gone in, but
fixing that mistake has faced ferocious criticism.  How's that not
authoritarian?  Selective application of the rules, undocumented
exceptions as work arounds when it's convenient...  Challenges face
ferocious mob attacks and attempts to silencing, on top of the initial
censorship.  The excuse for all that seems to be that "he didn't let us
have unfetteret authority and absolute power over the project"

> or are you referring to the threat of a fork as being an equally
> powerful authority to that of RMS?  In that case that is your first
> admission of the community actually having some credibility, so I
> guess, thank you?

I didn't mean that, so your uncertain gratitute is indeed misplaced.

However, we all realize there is such a community power, though I won't
equate the community threatening to exercise that power right now with
the entire community of glibc contributors and developers.  Part of that
power is that of mobilizing a mob (redundant much? :-) to overthrow a
leader.  None of that is unheard of.

However, what we have now is a balance in place.  There is a de jure
authority, that has appointed maintainers and can occasionally request
inserts or removes to be made in the interest of the project as a whole.
That power is kept in check by the community collective power to fork.

Now, what some seem to wish for is unchecked, absolute power for the
community, which, given the selective application of the non-unanimity
motto, means absolute power for a few leaders, who could then deviate
from GNU however much they like.

Assume you really mean it when you say we're all on the same side, is
this what you support?  Balance of powers in check, or absolute power?


> I do not see any merit in that silly joke so disagreeing with him and
> asking him for a justification or a modification does not constitute
> an insult.

Consider "I do not see any merit in your silly argument so disagreeing
with you and asking you for a justification or a modification does not
constitute an insult.  I'll just strike your argument out of the records
and proceed."

Do you consider that nice, polite, professoinal behavior, really?

> Also, please stop trying to defend RMS, I'm sure he is capable of
> doing that for himself.

Wow, really?  If we weren't all on the same side, I might almost mistake
that as "don't help him, you're making it harder for us to beat him up!"

Do you realize suppression of dissent and isolation of opponents are
features of authoritarian regimes?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Torvald Riegel]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 15:14 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
> 
> > I don't claim that it's not unequal, I claim that it doesn't matter
> > for the outcome.
> 
> Thanks for acknowledging the difference.  IMHO, your assumption that it
> doesn't matter does not follow from the rules.  The logic derived from
> the application leads to very significant differences.  Why would so
> many supporters of the removal be making such a fuss about restoring the
> initial conditions for the debate to play out under them otherwise?

Siddhesh already answered that.  There is still consensus to remove the
"joke", your reversal of the patch does not increase consensus in any
way, and you invoke the superpowers claim.
Bottom line: you ignored the community's consensus.

> > we have never had the case of someone stating that their word
> > overrules any consensus.
> 
> But sustained objections have been disregarded, as recently as last
> week.  There's this "consensus is not unanimity" motto, but it's not
> part of the rules, and it's applied quite arbitrarily.

Compare the numbers (eg, developers who have spoken out).  Do you really
want to say that 1-2 trumps 12 (RMS is not a developer)?

> >>> and (2) there are repeated calls to authority in the absence of actual
> >>> merit in the opposition.
> 
> >> On both sides, I must say.
> 
> > You can't be serious about this now,
> 
> I am.  There are non-withdrawn objections on the record to the patch
> before it was installed, that imply it should never have gone in, but
> fixing that mistake has faced ferocious criticism.  How's that not
> authoritarian?

Look at the numbers.  These show consensus in the community.  If you
want to claim that as authoritarian, you're wrong.  It's a majority
decision, but it's not based on giving a specific part of the developers
more power than others.

> Selective application of the rules, undocumented
> exceptions as work arounds when it's convenient... Challenges face
> ferocious mob attacks and attempts to silencing, on top of the initial
> censorship.

Alex, this is toxic behavior.  These are all wrong accusations, and you
have no proof for them.  It is not a "ferocious mob attack" if many
people disagree with you.  And the accusation of "silencing" is
ridiculous.

Count your messages in this thread and compare them to the number of
messages sent by others.

> The excuse for all that seems to be that "he didn't let us
> have unfetteret authority and absolute power over the project"

Oh, you mean it's a problem if the community would like to follow it's
own rules, so being consensus-based and community-driven?  Is that
something you don't want?  Do you feel you should perhaps have more
authority over the people doing the work?  How nice of you!

You won't get support for more authority though.  You can wish you'd
have it, but I don't think it will happen.  So just accept that, please.

> > or are you referring to the threat of a fork as being an equally
> > powerful authority to that of RMS?  In that case that is your first
> > admission of the community actually having some credibility, so I
> > guess, thank you?
> 
> I didn't mean that, so your uncertain gratitute is indeed misplaced.

See, you don't like slightly snarky comments either.  That should be
enough reason for you to stop doing that yourself repeatedly.

> However, we all realize there is such a community power, though I won't
> equate the community threatening to exercise that power right now with
> the entire community of glibc contributors and developers.  Part of that
> power is that of mobilizing a mob (redundant much? :-) to overthrow a
> leader.  None of that is unheard of.

There's no "mob".  The notion of there being a leader exists only in
your world view.  Look at how we collaborated in glibc community in the
past years: it was all about community process, not about a leader.  And
it worked really well, we got stuff done, we had a good atmosphere to
work in.  That's the reality, at least for the developers doing the
work.  If you try to enforce your worldview, developers are free to
collaborate under a different umbrella, and will do so at a certain
level of annoyance.

> However, what we have now is a balance in place.  There is a de jure
> authority, that has appointed maintainers and can occasionally request
> inserts or removes to be made in the interest of the project as a whole.
> That power is kept in check by the community collective power to fork.

So, where's the balance in this model of yours?  What the community does
right now is keeping RMS in check, and apparently you're not happy with
the outcome.

> Now, what some seem to wish for is unchecked, absolute power for the
> community, which, given the selective application of the non-unanimity
> motto,

Unsubstantiated claim.

> means absolute power for a few leaders, who could then deviate
> from GNU however much they like.

First of all, they can do so anyway.  You said it yourself, forking is
always an option.

Second, you're wrong in your assessment that a few leaders would then
hold more power than others.  To make a fork feasible, you still need to
convince a majority of developers to work on the new fork.  Which means
that a successful fork is indeed a majority vote.  That's where the
balance of power comes from, not from adding in some arbitrary source of
authority.  There is no absolute power (remember, that's how copyleft
works...).

> > I do not see any merit in that silly joke so disagreeing with him and
> > asking him for a justification or a modification does not constitute
> > an insult.
> 
> Consider "I do not see any merit in your silly argument so disagreeing
> with you and asking you for a justification or a modification does not
> constitute an insult.  I'll just strike your argument out of the records
> and proceed."
> 
> Do you consider that nice, polite, professoinal behavior, really?

Nobody striked any arguments out of the record.  It's all on this
mailing list.

Second, while Siddhesh has used the word "silly" here, he hasn't
previously.  So, scratch that too if you want this to be correct
statement.  This leads to:

"I do not see any merit in that "joke" so disagreeing with him and
asking him for a justification or a modification does not constitute
an insult."

And that is *not* an insult.  Please accept that, Alex.

> > Also, please stop trying to defend RMS, I'm sure he is capable of
> > doing that for himself.
> 
> Wow, really?  If we weren't all on the same side, I might almost mistake
> that as "don't help him, you're making it harder for us to beat him up!"

Toxic behavior, again.  You imply that Siddhesh would think about
beating someone up.  Don't do that on this mailing list.

Second, you also cited only parts of Siddhesh's statement, thus
distorting what he said.  This second sentence really belongs to the
first you cited, and without it you change the meaning:
[Siddhesh:] "In the process you're making assumptions about his 
behaviour that don't necessarily reflect well on him and may not even be
true." 

> Do you realize suppression of dissent and isolation of opponents are
> features of authoritarian regimes?

Toxic behavior again.  You imply that this is what happens here, which
is obviously not the case.

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

I'm sorry, Torvald, but there's nothing of substance in this message of
yours that I haven't already just responded in other messages, so I'll
just refer you to the other responses.

If there's any answer you're still missing after reading my other
replies, please bring it back in a smaller message and let's go from
there, shall we?

The reason for me to suggest this is that, as much as I remember, you
and I have never been able to convince each other of anything, really,
and our debates have tended to degenerate into nit-picking and
distractions as each party saught a "win" over the other in some
irrelevant point, while relegating the relevant matter to the side.

I don't want to subject others to such drivel from both of us, and I
don't want to subject myself to it either.  I've long concluded it's
waste of time for both of us, and I have no reason to expect this to be
different.  We just have explosive chemistry when at opposite sides of
an argument, so I'll cut our direct interaction down to a minimum.


>> I didn't mean that, so your uncertain gratitute is indeed misplaced.

> See, you don't like slightly snarky comments either.

I think we've miscommunicated.  I didn't have any issue whatsoever about
the comment, it just carried an incorrect assumption.  I corrected that
incorrect assumption, for the record (as we often do to each other), and
then proceeded to agree that the raised issue was quite relevant indeed.

I can't imagine how you concluded from this that I didn't like it,
specifically, or in general.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Torvald Riegel]

On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 00:04 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I'm sorry, Torvald, but there's nothing of substance in this message of
> yours that I haven't already just responded in other messages, so I'll
> just refer you to the other responses.

I disagree.  The accusations of mob attacks etc. (in the glibc
community) are still there and you haven't clarified or retracted those
statements of yours yet.  Also, "selective application of the
non-unanimity motto", "absolute power for a few leaders", etc., just to
give key phrases made by you.

> The reason for me to suggest this is that, as much as I remember, you
> and I have never been able to convince each other of anything, really,
> and our debates have tended to degenerate into nit-picking and
> distractions as each party saught a "win" over the other in some
> irrelevant point, while relegating the relevant matter to the side.

I respect that that's your understanding of what happens, but I disagree
with this description, and it does not characterize the root cause.

For example, it's true that I will respond to statements by you about
"mob attacks", and I will not let them go uncommented.  Your statement
is not related to the original question that started the discussion, and
neither is my response.  However, my response is not the problem --
making accusations of "mob attacks" is the underlying problem.

I will also speak up when I see statements that I believe are toxic for
the glibc community.

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  9, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:

> I will also speak up when I see statements that I believe are toxic for
> the glibc community.

I thank you for speaking up for the community.

I was just being considerate enough to explain why I wouldn't express my
own disagreement with your assessment: from past experience, I'm
confortable assuming my doing so wouldn't lead to any convergence of
minds or conflict resolution or even productive conversation.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

[snipping comments on consensus because we've beaten it to death]

On 05/08/2018 11:44 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> However, we all realize there is such a community power, though I won't
> equate the community threatening to exercise that power right now with
> the entire community of glibc contributors and developers.  Part of that
> power is that of mobilizing a mob (redundant much? :-) to overthrow a
> leader.  None of that is unheard of.
> 
> However, what we have now is a balance in place.  There is a de jure
> authority, that has appointed maintainers and can occasionally request
> inserts or removes to be made in the interest of the project as a whole.
> That power is kept in check by the community collective power to fork.

A single ultimate authority is not a balance of power.  And therein lies 
the difference between your perception of the GNU project and mine.  You 
see it as the all-powerful being that will intervene whenever there is 
imbalance in this universe.  I see it as a custodian of our copyright 
that should have the resources to fight on our behalf if our rights are 
violated.

> Now, what some seem to wish for is unchecked, absolute power for the
> community, which, given the selective application of the non-unanimity
> motto, means absolute power for a few leaders, who could then deviate
> from GNU however much they like.

Who suggested deviation from GNU in this thread?  Do you realize the 
gravity of accusing people of conspiring to deviate from GNU?

>> I do not see any merit in that silly joke so disagreeing with him and
>> asking him for a justification or a modification does not constitute
>> an insult.
> 
> Consider "I do not see any merit in your silly argument so disagreeing
> with you and asking you for a justification or a modification does not
> constitute an insult.  I'll just strike your argument out of the records
> and proceed."

Please revisit my critique of the joke.  I called it silly here and not 
during the discussion.  Also, I've called the joke silly here, not him.

Also do read the discussion that I am having with RMS, it is decidedly 
more grown up than you seem to think, maybe because you see him as a 
deity who must not be questioned, only cajoled and worshiped.

>> Also, please stop trying to defend RMS, I'm sure he is capable of
>> doing that for himself.
> 
> Wow, really?  If we weren't all on the same side, I might almost mistake
> that as "don't help him, you're making it harder for us to beat him up!"
> 
> Do you realize suppression of dissent and isolation of opponents are
> features of authoritarian regimes?

Read my whole statement.  I said your defence of RMS is making *him* 
look bad because you're busy projecting him as a deity.  He doesn't 
appear as thin skinned as you seem to think (or maybe has has the 
ability to rebound) because he seems to be back and making more coherent 
arguments elsewhere in the thread.

Siddhesh

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  9, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> You see it as the all-powerful being that will intervene
> whenever there is imbalance in this universe.  I see it as a custodian
> of our copyright that should have the resources to fight on our behalf
> if our rights are violated.

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.

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
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?

>> Now, what some seem to wish for is unchecked, absolute power for the
>> community, which, given the selective application of the non-unanimity
>> motto, means absolute power for a few leaders, who could then deviate
>> from GNU however much they like.

> Who suggested deviation from GNU in this thread?

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.

> Do you realize the gravity of accusing people of conspiring to deviate
> from GNU?

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.

>>> I do not see any merit in that silly joke so disagreeing with him and
>>> asking him for a justification or a modification does not constitute
>>> an insult.
>> 
>> Consider "I do not see any merit in your silly argument so disagreeing
>> with you and asking you for a justification or a modification does not
>> constitute an insult.  I'll just strike your argument out of the records
>> and proceed."

> Please revisit my critique of the joke.  I called it silly here and
> not during the discussion.  Also, I've called the joke silly here, not
> him.

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.


>>> Also, please stop trying to defend RMS, I'm sure he is capable of
>>> doing that for himself.
>> 
>> Wow, really?  If we weren't all on the same side, I might almost mistake
>> that as "don't help him, you're making it harder for us to beat him up!"
>> 
>> Do you realize suppression of dissent and isolation of opponents are
>> features of authoritarian regimes?

> Read my whole statement.

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.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

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

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  9, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> 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.

Ok, I guess I should have elaborated on that point before, since you've
stated that misunderstanding before and I chose not to pursue it.

The FSF is exclusively about freedoms and rights related with software,
including human rights that are affected by software.

GNU is about developing software for the ethical reasons behind the Free
Software movement, reasons that make essential the four freedoms that
apply equally to software, documentation, and any other kind of
information for practical use.

So, you see, the GNU agenda is broader, not narrower, than the FSF's, in
spite of the *means* to advance that agenda being narrower, namely,
developing and publishing software and its corresponding documentation,
rather than all sorts of political and social activism.

For this reason, GNU might advance agendas that are slightly out of
scope for the FSF.  This is one such case: opposition to censorship laws
about information for practical use is in scope for GNU, but if the
information is not in some way related with software or its
documentation, and their users in their uses thereof, it is probably out
of scope for the FSF.

It is in scope for the Free Software movement, though: it has to do with
the ethical reasons and the essential freedoms.

> That hostile organization could be the FSF too.  What's the guarantee
> that RMS or whoever replaces him as the benevolent leader in future

You don't say it, but this (partial) paragraph might be interpreted as
implying that it is the FSF that appoints the Chief GNUisance.  AFAIK,
it's not.  I honestly don't know how Richard's sucessor in that position
will be appointed, but I assume Richard himself will nominate the
successor, if he's retiring, and that he's left a will nominating one
should he be hit by a bus.  Failing that, we'll probably have to get GNU
maintainers together and choose a new leader or a new power structure.
It's not without risk, indeed.

> does not abuse their power to do exactly what you propose could
> happen?

The freedom to fork has kept Richard's power in check, and that won't go
away with whatever succeeds him.

What's to everyone's advantage (including our enemies) is that Richard,
warts and all, is so predictable and consistent.  We can count on him to
remain loyal to the Free Software principles, and to step even on
allies' shoes occasionally.  That loyalty can't be counted on of many
others.  I don't envy his future successors: it will be very very hard
for them to be in his shoes.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/10/2018 05:20 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  9, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Ok, I guess I should have elaborated on that point before, since you've
> stated that misunderstanding before and I chose not to pursue it.
> 
> The FSF is exclusively about freedoms and rights related with software,
> including human rights that are affected by software.
> 
> GNU is about developing software for the ethical reasons behind the Free
> Software movement, reasons that make essential the four freedoms that
> apply equally to software, documentation, and any other kind of
> information for practical use.
> 
> So, you see, the GNU agenda is broader, not narrower, than the FSF's, in
> spite of the *means* to advance that agenda being narrower, namely,
> developing and publishing software and its corresponding documentation,
> rather than all sorts of political and social activism.
> 
> For this reason, GNU might advance agendas that are slightly out of
> scope for the FSF.  This is one such case: opposition to censorship laws
> about information for practical use is in scope for GNU, but if the
> information is not in some way related with software or its
> documentation, and their users in their uses thereof, it is probably out
> of scope for the FSF.

Do you not see how this relates with what I'm trying to say?

> What's to everyone's advantage (including our enemies) is that Richard,
> warts and all, is so predictable and consistent.  We can count on him to

I don't assume that because I am not a friend and I don't see him as 
infallible in the context of Free software messaging.  In my perception 
he is currently compromising on messaging for Free Software principles 
because of his insistence to include content on censorship (that is 
vaguely worded and touches a subject that many have expressed to be an 
emotional trigger) that is not at all related to software.

Siddhesh

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  9, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> On 05/10/2018 05:20 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On May  9, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Ok, I guess I should have elaborated on that point before, since you've
>> stated that misunderstanding before and I chose not to pursue it.
>> 
>> The FSF is exclusively about freedoms and rights related with software,
>> including human rights that are affected by software.
>> 
>> GNU is about developing software for the ethical reasons behind the Free
>> Software movement, reasons that make essential the four freedoms that
>> apply equally to software, documentation, and any other kind of
>> information for practical use.
>> 
>> So, you see, the GNU agenda is broader, not narrower, than the FSF's, in
>> spite of the *means* to advance that agenda being narrower, namely,
>> developing and publishing software and its corresponding documentation,
>> rather than all sorts of political and social activism.
>> 
>> For this reason, GNU might advance agendas that are slightly out of
>> scope for the FSF.  This is one such case: opposition to censorship laws
>> about information for practical use is in scope for GNU, but if the
>> information is not in some way related with software or its
>> documentation, and their users in their uses thereof, it is probably out
>> of scope for the FSF.

> Do you not see how this relates with what I'm trying to say?

Yeah, exactly, but you got it backwards.  You suggested that the stance
taken by the joke would be in scope for the FSF, but not for GNU, but
it's exactly the other way round.

>> What's to everyone's advantage (including our enemies) is that Richard,
>> warts and all, is so predictable and consistent.  We can count on him to

> I don't assume that because I am not a friend

Friend or not, he's a human being that deserves respect as such.  He
didn't get that from this community to begin with.

> and I don't see him as infallible in the context of Free software
> messaging.

I don't think anyone is.

> In my perception he is currently compromising on messaging for Free
> Software principles because of his insistence to include content on
> censorship (that is vaguely worded and touches a subject that many
> have expressed to be an emotional trigger) that is not at all related
> to software.

I respect your opinion, although I disagree, but nevertheless I stand
for your right to express it.

As for the emotional trigger, there's plenty of speculation, but is
there any other actual report about the emotions it actually brings to
someone who has been traumatized by a miscarriage or an intentional
abortion, other than mine?  Or is that not longer relevant because it
supports the opposite of the majority opinion?

And then, since we're among a technical community, shouldn't we even
ponder whether there's any science behind the majority opinion?  Maybe
it is all speculation, anecdotes, and negative reactions induced by the
initial framing, and the joke actually brings about an outcome in line
with GNU goals among the target audience (which is not us)?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Andreas Schwab]

On Mai 07 2018, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:

> The standard of consensus used by this project is not "if you do not
> speak up very very quickly, then your opinion does not matter".

Exactly.  That's why the initial commit was a grave mistake.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/08/2018 03:40 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mai 07 2018, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> The standard of consensus used by this project is not "if you do not
>> speak up very very quickly, then your opinion does not matter".
> 
> Exactly.  That's why the initial commit was a grave mistake.

No.  The intial commit got approvals from no less than 4 developers, had 
10 emails in that thread, was committed after about 48 hours of the 
patch being submitted and then saw an opposing email the next day. 
That's not really 'very quickly'.

The revert patch was basically a unilateral decision given that there 
was no consensus on it.  It's not wrong given that Alex is an FSF 
steward and is probably within his right to do that but it is in bad 
faith given the sustained objections to the patch.

Siddhesh

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> No.  The intial commit got approvals from no less than 4 developers,

and opposition by one developer and the ultimate maintainer, and who
knows how many other silent opposers like myself who decided not to post
right away because there were other oppositions on the record already.

How can you argue it should have gone in anyway, without further
discussions?  How can you argue it was not rushed in despite the absence
of consensus?

> The revert patch was basically a unilateral decision given that there
> was no consensus on it.

Absence of opposition, per the rules, is consensus.

There were oppositions to the notion of keeping the patch, as part of
the larger discussion on whether or not the patch should be removed.
But there was no opposition whatsoever to my proposal to restore the
initial state, by reverting the patch that shouldn't have gone in in the
first place.

> It's not wrong given that Alex is an FSF steward and is probably
> within his right to do that but it is in bad faith given the sustained
> objections to the patch.

Even if we take as true your claim that there was sustained objection to
the temporary reversal proposal, there was also objection, sustained to
this date, to the initial patch, and it was there before the patch went
in.

What kind of specious argument could defend that one can go in ignoring
the objections, but the other that makes things the way they were
supposed to be can't?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/08/2018 09:57 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
> 
>> No.  The intial commit got approvals from no less than 4 developers,
> 
> and opposition by one developer and the ultimate maintainer, and who
> knows how many other silent opposers like myself who decided not to post
> right away because there were other oppositions on the record already.

Wait, what other oppositions on the record?

> How can you argue it should have gone in anyway, without further
> discussions?  How can you argue it was not rushed in despite the absence
> of consensus?

I conceded this point to Andreas further down in the thread based on the 
comment in the snippet.  There is a case to be made for cc'ing RMS on 
that removal, although like I said earlier, we will probably end up in 
the same place as right now, maybe with the exception of you not being 
in the firing line because of reverting the commit.

Siddhesh

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> On 05/08/2018 09:57 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On May  8, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> No.  The intial commit got approvals from no less than 4 developers,
>> 
>> and opposition by one developer and the ultimate maintainer, and who
>> knows how many other silent opposers like myself who decided not to post
>> right away because there were other oppositions on the record already.

> Wait, what other oppositions on the record?

Answered elsewhere and acked by you.  I'm just stating this here to try
to reduce redundancy in the thread.

> maybe with the exception of you not being in the firing line because
> of reverting the commit.

(-: look, ma, wee haz firing squads too! :-)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Torvald Riegel]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 13:27 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
> 
> > No.  The intial commit got approvals from no less than 4 developers,
> 
> and opposition by one developer and the ultimate maintainer,

There is no notion of an "ultimate maintainer" in glibc's consensus
process.  I see that this may not be your reality, but I believe a
majority of the developers would agree to that.
4 to 1 is still consensus.

> and who
> knows how many other silent opposers like myself who decided not to post
> right away because there were other oppositions on the record already.
> 
> How can you argue it should have gone in anyway, without further
> discussions?  How can you argue it was not rushed in despite the absence
> of consensus?

Look at what happened afterwards.  Many more developers spoke out in
favor of removal, and I think no developers spoke in favor of keeping
the content (eg, the new opinion I see by Andreas seems to be more about
the way it was removed in instead of the fact that it was removed).

> > The revert patch was basically a unilateral decision given that there
> > was no consensus on it.
> 
> Absence of opposition, per the rules, is consensus.

You keep ignoring that Carlos clearly said that he objected to any
replacement, which does include reinstating the same text.

> > It's not wrong given that Alex is an FSF steward and is probably
> > within his right to do that but it is in bad faith given the sustained
> > objections to the patch.
> 
> Even if we take as true your claim that there was sustained objection to
> the temporary reversal proposal, there was also objection, sustained to
> this date, to the initial patch, and it was there before the patch went
> in.

12 developers (my rough count) have spoken in favor of removal of the
"joke".
How many developers want to really keep it?  Can you compare the
numbers, please?

You'll notice that it doesn't make a difference whether you have 1 or 3
people in favor of keeping it, the majority is against it.  Please
accept that.

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Jeff Law]

On 05/08/2018 10:27 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
> 
>> No.  The intial commit got approvals from no less than 4 developers,
> 
> and opposition by one developer and the ultimate maintainer, and who
> knows how many other silent opposers like myself who decided not to post
> right away because there were other oppositions on the record already.
I've purposefully tried to keep my comments on this discussion to a
minimum -- I'm not a glibc steward or glibc maintainer.  Furthermore, I
have professional and personal relationships with many of the folks in
this discussion.  I don't want there to be any concerns of backlash if
the views of others on this thread do or do not line up with my own.

Having said that I do think I have some contribution to the discussion.

Simply I think the "joke" is inappropriate *for the glibc manual in this
day and age* and I see no fault in Zack's approval of the patch that
removed the joke.  Might it have been better had he reached out to RMS
prior to removal?  Sure.   Hindsight is 20-20.

How one views Alex's subsequent actions probably depends largely on how
one sees the governance model for glibc.

If you see RMS as the "ultimate maintainer", the putting the "joke" back
is carrying out the wishes of the ultimate maintainer and absolutely the
right thing to do.

If you don't see RMS in that role, then Alex's actions seem like they're
violating the consensus rules of the project.

And so I don't see malice or bad faith on either side.  Just a
fundamental difference of opinion on the underlying project governance
question.


I can't answer the governance question for glibc.    I might even argue
that now isn't the time to try and answer it -- tensions are relatively
high and based on prior experience tacking that question for GCC the
discussion could well bring more tension.

Getting everyone to take a deep breath, potentially tabling the
discussion of the joke, and returning to discuss project governance may
be the better way forward and guide the project for what to do about the
joke.  Those discussions can be hard.  If my input based on prior
experience is desired, I'm happy to try and help.



Jeff

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/09/2018 11:52 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> Getting everyone to take a deep breath, potentially tabling the
> discussion of the joke, and returning to discuss project governance may
> be the better way forward and guide the project for what to do about the
> joke.  Those discussions can be hard.  If my input based on prior
> experience is desired, I'm happy to try and help.

Thank you.  I have stepped back from the thread and am open to a 
separate discussion.  If the discussion needs to be among FSF stewards 
only, I'm happy to step further back and wait.

Siddhesh

RE: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Chester Gregg]

Jeff Law wrote:
> If you see RMS as the "ultimate maintainer", the putting the "joke" back is carrying out the wishes of the ultimate maintainer and absolutely the right thing to do.

> If you don't see RMS in that role, then Alex's actions seem like they're violating the consensus rules of the project.

Perhaps, if Alex had made the argument that he reverted the patch because RMS
decided for it to be installed over the objections of the community consensus.
He alludes to that here and there, but his major argument has been that there
wasn't consensus in the first place, and that he was simply restoring the
status quo.

That argument has been unconvincing.

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Torvald Riegel]

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 20:45 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  7, 2018, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
> >> I don't care if they objected to something else in the larger debate.
> 
> > Perhaps you should.
> 
> It's irrelevant WRT my proposal.  It was obvious to me that consensus
> wouldn't be reached in the larger debate any time soon.

There was consensus to remove it, and there still is.  At least 11
active or recently active developers (based on a quick count) have
stated that they want the thing removed.  Some have argued strongly.
How is that not consensus to remove it?

And that absolutely affects your proposal to revert.  Carlos is right
that you ignored the consensus position.

> Be honest, did you even read my proposal?
> 
> If you felt so strongly about it, why did you not respond there?

Personally, I wouldn't have thought that you would actually ignore the
consensus and revert the removal.

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/07/2018 05:07 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> It will be hard to make progress with multiple issues at the same time.
> 
> It's not multiple issues.
> 
>> However, you go against the objections of at least 3 of your fellow
>> GNU project maintainers.
> 
> Show me where they objected to MY proposal.

https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00055.html

"I also object to ANY replacement of the original joke."

The problem is that you didn't care to reach consensus, so you didn't
summarize the opposing points, did not tally who was for or against,
and just did whatever you wanted to do.

> I don't care if they objected to something else in the larger debate.
> The larger debate isn't over yet, so whatever their opinion is matters
> once consensus is reached for the larger debate.  People's opinions
> regarding a debate are supposed to affect the state *after* the debate,
> not *during* it.  Right?  Or are you suggesting we should change the
> rules so as to say that, if enough people shout loud enough or sneak the
> patch in early enough, they get to change the initial conditions of the
> debated issue in their favor?

There was no sneaking of any patch.

The patch was accepted by 2 GNU package maintainers (Paul and myself),
appointed by Richard, and you just undid that, because you wanted to.

That's fine. You didn't break any GNU policy. But you did willfully
ignore the objections of other GNU package maintainers and did what
you wanted.

The discussion is ongoing, and I will do my usual due diligence as arbiter
in complex discussions, and try to understand both sides of the debate,
and reach some consensus.

>>> This is also in line with the community-agreed procedures.
> 
>> No. Is not in line. You have ignored the community principles and checked
>> in the patch against the objections of fellow GNU package maintainers.
>  
> I have not.  Again, show me ANY objections to MY proposal, posted before
> I pushed the reversal, or before the email in which I said I was doing
> so.

I did. Above.

>>> It is obvious that we didn't have consensus on a decision to install
>>> that patch, since both sides are still arguing over it.
> 
>> No. At the time the patch had consensus.
> 
> No, it only seemed to have consensus, because of a regrettable mistake
> on the committer's part, and another of mine (I decided to ask RMS
> *before* raising my objection).  I objected, and RMS objected.  He
> hadn't been given a chance to speak yet.  That's not consensus, that's
> sneaking stuff in.

It is not sneaking stuff in.

I was appointed as a GNU package maintainer, and I used my judgement to 
agree with the removal of the joke.

We have other better venues to discuss these issues and to reach broader
audiences, without doing harm to those that come to read our manual. That
is my opinion though, and I will have to understand your own opinions,
and that of Richard to reach consensus.

>> The reversal does not.
> 
> The restoration of the initial status quo to unbias the discussion was
> not opposed by anyone, if it was even read.

Your read was incorrect. That's OK.

>> It's OK though as a GNU package maintainer you do not need to follow
>> any of these rules.
> 
> Thank you for that concession, but it's not necessary.  I'm perfectly in
> line with the consensus rules, regardless of how others might prefer to
> confess to cheating in the consensus rules than to admitting that they
> did not respond to my proposal.
 
The harder question I have to answer is:

What happens if two GNU package maintainers for glibc disagree?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 05/07/2018 05:07 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> It will be hard to make progress with multiple issues at the same time.
>> 
>> It's not multiple issues.
>> 
>>> However, you go against the objections of at least 3 of your fellow
>>> GNU project maintainers.
>> 
>> Show me where they objected to MY proposal.

> https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00055.html

> "I also object to ANY replacement of the original joke."

Again, that's part of the larger discussion, not a response to my
proposal to restore the initial conditions.

Even after you claim it to be an objection, I still fail to find
relationship between proposal and alleged objection.  Nothing replaced
the original joke.  It's still there.  Which is just as it should be in
the absence of consensus about the larger issue, both before and after
the removal patch was installed.

>> The restoration of the initial status quo to unbias the discussion was
>> not opposed by anyone, if it was even read.

> Your read was incorrect. That's OK.

Err..., in "if it was even read", it's not my read, I'm wondering if
anyone else actually read it.

> What happens if two GNU package maintainers for glibc disagree?

I've just posted a suggestion in another email.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Matt Turner]

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/07/2018 05:07 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It will be hard to make progress with multiple issues at the same time.
>>>
>>> It's not multiple issues.
>>>
>>>> However, you go against the objections of at least 3 of your fellow
>>>> GNU project maintainers.
>>>
>>> Show me where they objected to MY proposal.
>
>> https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00055.html
>
>> "I also object to ANY replacement of the original joke."
>
> Again, that's part of the larger discussion, not a response to my
> proposal to restore the initial conditions.
>
> Even after you claim it to be an objection, I still fail to find
> relationship between proposal and alleged objection.  Nothing replaced
> the original joke.  It's still there.  Which is just as it should be in
> the absence of consensus about the larger issue, both before and after
> the removal patch was installed.

Are you claiming that you weren't aware of Carlos' objection, or that
it wasn't valid since it wasn't directly in reply to your proposal? Or
did you ignore it because you decided a straight revert wasn't a
"replacement of the original joke"?

I find the suggestion that people should reply directly to your
proposal to be somewhat disingenuous given that you didn't submit the
patch to the mailing list before committing it.

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 05/07/2018 05:07 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>>> On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> It will be hard to make progress with multiple issues at the same time.
>>>> 
>>>> It's not multiple issues.
>>>> 
>>>>> However, you go against the objections of at least 3 of your fellow
>>>>> GNU project maintainers.
>>>> 
>>>> Show me where they objected to MY proposal.
>> 
>>> https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00055.html
>> 
>>> "I also object to ANY replacement of the original joke."
>> 
>> Again, that's part of the larger discussion, not a response to my
>> proposal to restore the initial conditions.
>> 
>> Even after you claim it to be an objection, I still fail to find
>> relationship between proposal and alleged objection.  Nothing replaced
>> the original joke.  It's still there.  Which is just as it should be in
>> the absence of consensus about the larger issue, both before and after
>> the removal patch was installed.

> Are you claiming that you weren't aware of Carlos' objection, or that
> it wasn't valid since it wasn't directly in reply to your proposal?

I was aware of his objection to put something else where the joke was.
I also understood that as support for the removal of the joke, which is
to larger and still ongoing discussion.  This has to do with what the
manual should look like after consensus in this larger issue is reached.

I do not see that it is related in any way with the issue of what the
initial conditions should be, *while* the larger discussion is ongoing.

> Or did you ignore it because you decided a straight revert wasn't a
> "replacement of the original joke"?

I did not ignore it, I just understood it in the context it was meant
for.  The initial conditions for the discussion did not involve
replacing the joke, but rather having it there, as it was initially, or
not having it there, as it was after the patch was mistakenly installed.

> I find the suggestion that people should reply directly to your
> proposal to be somewhat disingenuous given that you didn't submit the
> patch to the mailing list before committing it.

I did submit the proposal to revert, for at least the duration of the
debate.  Although that can be represented as a patch, a reversal is
hardly worthy of posting as a patch.  In my mind, it hardly qualifies as
a patch: it's a (temporary) reversal.

Replying directly to me is certainly not a strict requirement, as long
as the responses clearly specified that they referred to a separate
discussion subthread from that in which they appeared, although this
could certainly increase the risk of confusion.

I guess I could have started a separate thread, to draw more attention
to the unrelated proposal, but...  I didn't think of it.  Another
suggestion for the consensus-building rules?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Torvald Riegel]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 02:11 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 05/07/2018 05:07 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> It will be hard to make progress with multiple issues at the same time.
> >> 
> >> It's not multiple issues.
> >> 
> >>> However, you go against the objections of at least 3 of your fellow
> >>> GNU project maintainers.
> >> 
> >> Show me where they objected to MY proposal.
> 
> > https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00055.html
> 
> > "I also object to ANY replacement of the original joke."
> 
> Again, that's part of the larger discussion, not a response to my
> proposal to restore the initial conditions.

Sorry Alex, but you make distorting statements such as that, and then
you accuse DJ of trolling when he takes (extreme) counter-measures to
prevent that you ignore clearly stated objections?

Carlos and others judged that there was initial consensus to remove the
thing; it wasn't unanimous but that's fine, because it wouldn't have
changed consensus.  We had further discussions, but consensus to remove
it got only stronger over time when more developers stated their opinion
and were in favor of the removal.  That was the status quo.  Carlos
clearly objected to any replacement, which includes replacing it with
the same thing (ie, reverting the commit). 

> Even after you claim it to be an objection, I still fail to find
> relationship between proposal and alleged objection.  Nothing replaced
> the original joke.  It's still there.

It was gone, you replaced it with the same thing.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > We could have a note along these lines, sidestepping the humor, giving
  > more information and still clearly taking the anti-censorship stand:

I expect that readers who don't know about the gag rule mostly will not
relate the joke to abortion -- that they will be puzzled by the joke.

There are people in this discussion who did not know about the gag
rule but do know that the joke relates to abortion.  My theory is that
others told them it relates to abortion, and that's how they know.

Is that correct?

Did any of you figure out _on your own_ that the joke had to do with
abortion, despite not knowing about the gag rule?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Joseph Myers]

On Sun, 6 May 2018, Richard Stallman wrote:

> I expect that readers who don't know about the gag rule mostly will not
> relate the joke to abortion -- that they will be puzzled by the joke.
> 
> There are people in this discussion who did not know about the gag
> rule but do know that the joke relates to abortion.  My theory is that
> others told them it relates to abortion, and that's how they know.
> 
> Is that correct?
> 
> Did any of you figure out _on your own_ that the joke had to do with
> abortion, despite not knowing about the gag rule?

That would need to be asked of people who had read that part of the manual 
without first seeing this thread.

I think it's much more obvious from being in documentation for "abort" 
that it's about abortion, than that it's about a US-specific gag rule 
("Federal" is the only cue I see there to it being something US-specific, 
but is hardly unique to one country and certainly doesn't identify the 
particular rule, or that it's referring to a specific real rule at all).

I think being so US-specific - and, beyond that, relying on knowledge of a 
particular US rule - is by itself sufficient justification for not having 
this joke in the manual; that would apply equally to a joke that didn't 
involve a controversial topic such as abortion at all, but still depended 
on some very country-specific background not widely understood by people 
outside a particular country or group of countries.  Carlos has found 
evidence 
<https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48445031/why-would-it-be-illegal-to-inform-about-abort> 
<https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/d4783/federal_censorship_regulations_may_restrict/> 
that this joke does confuse readers in practice.

I do not have figures, but I think it very likely that the free software 
community is much more diverse than when this joke was added in 1992.  The 
manual should be written for the users we have now, not the users we had 
in 1992.  Even if in 1992 the expected readers of the manual were a small, 
culturally homogeneous group of free software hackers, with a common 
background that included an understanding of the gag rule, and a common 
understanding of what humour is appropriate in what contexts that 
indicated that joke to be appropriate in the manual, it is for today's 
readers that we must now maintain the manual.

*Even if we were all agreed* that the joke was appropriate, even if we all 
disagreed with the attitudes in certain communities disapproving of 
certain subjects of humour in certain contexts and considered the 1992 
sense of humour objectively better, it would *still* be our duty to our 
users to put aside our own personal preferences and judge what is best 
given the users we actually have and the background knowledge and 
attitudes to subjects and context of humour that they have.  This is just 
the same as the need to keep the technical content of the manual up to 
date with the context of today (for example, the correct emphasis for 
portability information and for information on where functions came from 
is very different for readers now than it is for readers in 1992; even if 
we think some part of the manual is clear with our backgrounds, if we find 
users misunderstanding it, that justifies changes to make it clearer for 
the people actually reading the manual).

As a development community we should judge a comment from 1992 saying some 
text should stay in the manual much the same as a comment from 1992 saying 
some code is needed - by considering the reasons behind it in today's 
context (if the code from 1992 was to do with K&R C, it isn't applicable 
any more).

Of course, as a part of a project with explicit goals for society, we 
cannot always give users what they want now - for example, we must not 
promote proprietary software even if sometimes users might find a 
recommendation to use some piece of proprietary software helpful; in such 
cases, we must work for the longer-term goals of building a free software 
world that ends up better for users even if less helpful to them now.  But 
I don't think that has any bearing on a culturally-specific joke about a 
non-software sensitive subject.  Similarly, when making technical 
decisions we need to use our technical expertise to judge what works best 
long term even if a user would prefer an interface specific to their 
problem right now - but again that has no bearing on this joke.

We as maintainers and developers have responsibilities to both the GNU 
Project and our users.  And the GNU Project has moral responsibilities to 
both the maintainers and developers and the users as well.  The 
responsibilities of all relevant people to the users include putting aside 
our own preferences when ensuring the content of the manual works best for 
the users we have now.

Now, if there are still serious doubts about the effects, interpretation 
and appropriateness of the joke in question, we could see if it's possible 
to survey an uninvolved, gender-balanced group of users to find their 
views (on the basis that the effects on users outweigh our personal 
preferences).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Rafal Luzynski]

8.05.2018 17:54 Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> [...]
> I think it's much more obvious from being in documentation for "abort"
> that it's about abortion, than that it's about a US-specific gag rule

True, I confirm this.

> ("Federal" is the only cue I see there to it being something US-specific,
> but is hardly unique to one country [...]

"Federal" may also apply to Germany and Russia, probably also to more
countries which I can't remember now.  It's easy to guess this is about
USA but there is always an uncertainty like "wait, maybe it's not about
USA?"

> I think being so US-specific - and, beyond that, relying on knowledge of a
> particular US rule - is by itself sufficient justification for not having
> this joke in the manual; [...]

This is similar to what I wrote previously.  Thank you for writing this
in a more comprehensible way.

Regards,

Rafal

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Paul Eggert]

Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Part of why I have repeatedly refused to back my patch out is to
> stand for the principle that the GNU Project Leader_shouldn't_  have
> ex officio power to override a consensus decision of the active
> maintainers of a specific piece of software.

RMS could un-appoint current maintainers, and appoint new maintainers who agree 
with him on this particular issue. So the principle you're standing for differs 
from what could in principle occur. I doubt whether it'll come to that, though.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 23:54 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > Part of why I have repeatedly refused to back my patch out is to
> > stand for the principle that the GNU Project Leader_shouldn't_  have
> > ex officio power to override a consensus decision of the active
> > maintainers of a specific piece of software.
> 
> RMS could un-appoint current maintainers, and appoint new maintainers who agree 
> with him on this particular issue.

Possible.  And, IMHO, it would be kind of funny when this would -- most
likely -- lead to a fork, with the new project thriving and the old one
becoming less important (just look at how much work the people do that
opposed adding the "joke" back in...).

What a joke...

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/07/2018 02:54 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> Part of why I have repeatedly refused to back my patch out is to 
>> stand for the principle that the GNU Project Leader_shouldn't_
>> have ex officio power to override a consensus decision of the
>> active maintainers of a specific piece of software.
> 
> RMS could un-appoint current maintainers, and appoint new maintainers
> who agree with him on this particular issue. So the principle you're
> standing for differs from what could in principle occur. I doubt
> whether it'll come to that, though.

... and if two GNU package maintainers, for the same package, disagree?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  >   I assumed that he would not care
  > any more, perhaps not even remember, and it did not seem important
  > enough to bother him about.  Again, I regret this incorrect assumption.

Everyone makes mistakes, and that's not a big deal.  But since you
know it was a mistake, please undo it.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Zack Weinberg]

On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 11:17 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>   >   I assumed that he would not care
>   > any more, perhaps not even remember, and it did not seem important
>   > enough to bother him about.  Again, I regret this incorrect assumption.
>
> Everyone makes mistakes, and that's not a big deal.  But since you
> know it was a mistake, please undo it.

I only said that not consulting you in advance was a mistake.

Removing the joke from the manual was not a mistake, and I will not
undo that change myself, nor will I commit any patch that introduces a
replacement.

zw

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 613 bytes --]

--- a/manual/startup.texi	2018-05-06 05:58:31.000000000 +0200
+++ b/manual/startup.texi	2018-05-06 06:02:43.000000000 +0200
@@ -1005,6 +1005,14 @@
 intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}.
 @end deftypefun
 
+@c Requested by rms.  Don't remove.
+@cartouche
+@strong{RMS Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations
+may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
+calling this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
+acceptable way of terminating a program.
+@end cartouche
+
 @node Termination Internals
 @subsection Termination Internals
 

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/06/2018 02:04 PM, Javiera Serrano Polo wrote:
> --- a/manual/startup.texi	2018-05-06 05:58:31.000000000 +0200
> +++ b/manual/startup.texi	2018-05-06 06:02:43.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1005,6 +1005,14 @@
>  intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}.
>  @end deftypefun
>  
> +@c Requested by rms.  Don't remove.
> +@cartouche
> +@strong{RMS Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations
> +may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
> +calling this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
> +acceptable way of terminating a program.
> +@end cartouche
> +
>  @node Termination Internals
>  @subsection Termination Internals
>  
> 

Thank you very much for the patch.

Please review the contribution checklist:
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 285 bytes --]

El dg 06 de 05 de 2018 a les 14:13 -0400, Carlos O'Donell va escriure:
> Please review the contribution checklist:
> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist

Feedback on the content would be appreciated first. There seems to be
consensus that consensus is nice.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Florian Weimer]

* Javiera Serrano Polo:

> --- a/manual/startup.texi	2018-05-06 05:58:31.000000000 +0200
> +++ b/manual/startup.texi	2018-05-06 06:02:43.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1005,6 +1005,14 @@
>  intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}.
>  @end deftypefun
>  
> +@c Requested by rms.  Don't remove.
> +@cartouche
> +@strong{RMS Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations

You should spell out the abbreviation.  It is ambiguous in a medical
context.

> +may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
> +calling this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
> +acceptable way of terminating a program.
> +@end cartouche

I still don't think this is appropriate, and I don't think it should
be added back.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

Adding a note attributing the warning to me is ok with me,
but I agree that it should be stated more clearly.
Perhaps "Warning from Richard Stallman."

Please use this as the comment:

  @c Richard Stallman says to preserve the following text.

It's not merely a request.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 685 bytes --]

El dg 06 de 05 de 2018 a les 22:03 -0400, Richard Stallman va escriure:
> Adding a note attributing the warning to me is ok with me,
> but I agree that it should be stated more clearly.
> Perhaps "Warning from Richard Stallman."
> 
> Please use this as the comment:
> 
>   @c Richard Stallman says to preserve the following text.

Too serious. How about this one?

@c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't remove.

@strong{Richard says:}

El dg 06 de 05 de 2018 a les 22:04 -0400, Richard Stallman va escriure:
> I would like to find out what Leslie Jones thinks of the gag rule
> joke,
> Any suggestions?

http://www.fanmail (dot) biz/112281.html

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  7, 2018, Javiera Serrano Polo <javier@jasp.net> wrote:

> El dg 06 de 05 de 2018 a les 22:03 -0400, Richard Stallman va escriure:
>> Adding a note attributing the warning to me is ok with me,
>> but I agree that it should be stated more clearly.
>> Perhaps "Warning from Richard Stallman."
>> 
>> Please use this as the comment:
>> 
>>   @c Richard Stallman says to preserve the following text.

> Too serious. How about this one?

> @c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't remove.

How about replacing the current joke with:

  there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
  Aborted (core dumped)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Zach van Rijn]

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 20:50 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  7, 2018, Javiera Serrano Polo <javier@jasp.net> wrote:
> 
> > El dg 06 de 05 de 2018 a les 22:03 -0400, Richard Stallman va
> > escriure:
> > > Adding a note attributing the warning to me is ok with me,
> > > but I agree that it should be stated more clearly.
> > > Perhaps "Warning from Richard Stallman."
> > > 
> > > Please use this as the comment:
> > > 
> > >   @c Richard Stallman says to preserve the following text.
> > Too serious. How about this one?
> > @c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't
> > remove.
> 
> How about replacing the current joke with:
> 
>   there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
>   Aborted (core dumped)
> 

By doing so ulimit -c library.

Lets add a joke to the manual

[Mark Wielaard]

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 08:50:55PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> How about replacing the current joke with:
> 
>   there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
>   Aborted (core dumped)

Haha! Thanks for that.

I was afraid the discussion had become poisonous, but this is
a great suggestion. Want to propose an actual patch?
We might actually be able to get consensus on it!

Cheers,

Mark

Re: Lets add a joke to the manual

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  7, 2018, Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> wrote:

> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 08:50:55PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> How about replacing the current joke with:
>> 
>> there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
>> Aborted (core dumped)

> Haha! Thanks for that.

> I was afraid the discussion had become poisonous, but this is
> a great suggestion. Want to propose an actual patch?

Nah, it's become too painful for me to contribute to glibc.  The
consensus rules are too bureaucratic, weakly defined, and not applied
uniformly for me to feel confident of being allowed to install patches
under the rules.  This is not about this year's episode, BTW.  It was
one of the primary reasons why I moved back to GCC, where the rules of
patch reviewing and acceptance make a lot more sense to me.

But anyone should feel free to turn the above into a patch for the
manual.  Or this:

  if rms rules: we fork()
  else: we knife him
  truth: there's no spoon

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: Lets add a joke to the manual

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/07/2018 09:27 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Nah, it's become too painful for me to contribute to glibc.

Just to clarify, are you stepping down as a GNU package maintainer 
for glibc?

https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Stepping-Down

I would be very sad to see you go, you have contributed, and continue 
to contribute much to the project. Even if we don't agree, I still
value your contributions to the community.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Lets add a joke to the manual

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 05/07/2018 09:27 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Nah, it's become too painful for me to contribute to glibc.

> Just to clarify, are you stepping down as a GNU package maintainer 
> for glibc?

No, if I were to do so, I'd have done that long ago.

But I figured I would stick around, in case that was useful for GNU.

> I would be very sad to see you go, you have contributed, and continue 
> to contribute much to the project. Even if we don't agree, I still
> value your contributions to the community.

Thanks

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: Lets add a joke to the manual

[Torvald Riegel]

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 22:27 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  7, 2018, Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 08:50:55PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> How about replacing the current joke with:
> >> 
> >> there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
> >> Aborted (core dumped)
> 
> > Haha! Thanks for that.
> 
> > I was afraid the discussion had become poisonous, but this is
> > a great suggestion. Want to propose an actual patch?
> 
> Nah, it's become too painful for me to contribute to glibc.

Yet you manage to ignore consensus, question that we are now a
community-driven, consensus-based project, and generally annoy other
developers (eg, see below)?

> The
> consensus rules are too bureaucratic, weakly defined, and not applied
> uniformly for me to feel confident of being allowed to install patches
> under the rules.  This is not about this year's episode, BTW.  It was
> one of the primary reasons why I moved back to GCC, where the rules of
> patch reviewing and acceptance make a lot more sense to me.
> 
> But anyone should feel free to turn the above into a patch for the
> manual.  Or this:
> 
>   if rms rules: we fork()
>   else: we knife him
>   truth: there's no spoon

This is a statement I'd classify as toxic behavior.  It was probably
meant as a joke, but it's inappropriate because it suggests that in
reality, the people you are arguing with are on a personal vendetta or
something like that against RMS.  That's not the case.

They are standing up for glibc being a consensus-based, community-driven
project.  Of course, that clashes when somebody shows up and claims to
be the actual leader of it all and can always override community
consensus.  That's what RMS did, but it's not because it was RMS who did
that.  Anybody doing that would have heard the same from the community.

Another reason why I'd classify it as that, instead of being just an
instance of a bad joke, is that in my impression, you have been
repeatedly making statements like that in discussions (eg, slightly
distorting what others said, some ridicule and "jokes", wide-ranging
accussations, etc.).  And when others start to do similar, you claim
that all hell broke loose.

How would you feel if we were to start making "jokes" as the one above
about you, RMS, or others?

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/08/2018 05:20 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> How about replacing the current joke with:
> 
>    there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
>    Aborted (core dumped)

That is actually quite witty and maybe an accurate description of the 
current situation.

Siddhesh

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 997 bytes --]

El dl 07 de 05 de 2018 a les 20:50 -0300, Alexandre Oliva va escriure:
> How about replacing the current joke with:
> 
>   there used to be a joke about censorship here, but
>   Aborted (core dumped)

Fine option. Both could be included.

El dl 07 de 05 de 2018 a les 21:55 -0400, Richard Stallman va escriure:
>   > @c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't remove.
> Ok with me.
>   > @strong{Richard says:}
> "Warning from Stallman" would do the trick.

So it would be:

---
@c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't remove.
@cartouche
@strong{Warning from Stallman:} [...]
@end cartouche

There used to be another joke about censorship here, but@enddots{}
@*@emph{Aborted (core dumped)}
---

To those opposing any replacement, I call upon your fun powers: do you
have any idea to improve the quality of these jokes?

Your answer does not invalidate your opposition. Also, committing this
does not mean the end of the issue.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

[PATCH] manual: Improve quality of comic content in abort [BZ #23168]

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1564 bytes --]

There are complaints about the joke in abort section being low-quality. 
2.28 will include this comic content, so improving quality is desired. 
Discussion about this solution starts at
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00136.html

Quote from relevant standard:
In business and in life, a sense of humor is an essential
characteristic.
http://www.standard.net/Success-Strategies/2015/03/26/10-reasons-a-sense-of-humor-is-no-laughing-matter

2018-05-11  Javier Serrano Polo  <javier@jasp.net>  (tiny change)

	[BZ #23168]
	* manual/startup.texi: Improve quality of comic content in abort.

diff --git a/manual/startup.texi b/manual/startup.texi
index 7395d32dd0..cdf677f9b4 100644
--- a/manual/startup.texi
+++ b/manual/startup.texi
@@ -1005,14 +1005,17 @@ This function actually terminates the process by raising a
 intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}.
 @end deftypefun
 
-@c Put in by rms.  Don't remove.
+@c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't remove.
 @cartouche
-@strong{Future Change Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations
+@strong{Warning from Stallman:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations
 may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
 calling this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
 acceptable way of terminating a program.
 @end cartouche
 
+There used to be another joke about censorship here, but@enddots{}
+@*@emph{Aborted (core dumped)}
+
 @node Termination Internals
 @subsection Termination Internals
 

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] manual: Improve quality of comic content in abort [BZ #23168]

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/11/2018 12:12 PM, Javiera Serrano Polo wrote:
> There are complaints about the joke in abort section being low-quality. 
> 2.28 will include this comic content, so improving quality is desired. 
> Discussion about this solution starts at
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00136.html
> 
> Quote from relevant standard:
> In business and in life, a sense of humor is an essential
> characteristic.
> http://www.standard.net/Success-Strategies/2015/03/26/10-reasons-a-sense-of-humor-is-no-laughing-matter
> 
> 2018-05-11  Javier Serrano Polo  <javier@jasp.net>  (tiny change)
> 
> 	[BZ #23168]
> 	* manual/startup.texi: Improve quality of comic content in abort.
> 

Please abide by the intent of the cool down period over this content.

Please repost in August after the 2.28 release.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH] manual: Improve quality of comic content in abort [BZ #23168]

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 731 bytes --]

El dv 11 de 05 de 2018 a les 13:20 -0400, Carlos O'Donell va escriure:
> Please abide by the intent of the cool down period over this content.

Please do not ignore objections again.[1] Please be coherent with your
statement about making 2.28 the best glibc release possible.

> Please repost in August after the 2.28 release.

Nay, sir. I am already following your directions.[2] I will ping on a
weekly basis until I deem my contribution ignored enough time.

In the meantime, you may wish to downvote opinions like this one:
https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/3509485

--
[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00491.html
[2] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00137.html

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] manual: Improve quality of comic content in abort [BZ #23168]

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 119 bytes --]

My point has been established.[3]

Thank you all.

--
[3] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23168#c1

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] manual: Improve quality of comic content in abort [BZ #23168]

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

I support the idea of a cooling-off period; please join me in
supporting it too.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Too serious. How about this one?

  > @c Some users like these jokes.  Endorsed by rms, don't remove.

Ok with me.

  > @strong{Richard says:}

I think it won't be clear who this refers to.
My last name is the crucial thing for that.
Also, "says" doesn't add to the humor.

"Warning from Stallman" would do the trick.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > I only said that not consulting you in advance was a mistake.

What do you think it means to "consult" someone?  Merely stating
your intentions is not consultation.  If you had consulted me,
I would have said no.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/06/2018 10:03 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
>   > I only said that not consulting you in advance was a mistake.
> 
> What do you think it means to "consult" someone?  Merely stating
> your intentions is not consultation.  If you had consulted me,
> I would have said no.
 
And we would have taken that into consideration.

Consensus need not imply unanimity.

If you asked the community to add technical feature X, you would also
need to clearly articulate the need for that feature or it would not
be accepted.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

I would like to find out what Leslie Jones thinks of the gag rule
joke, but I expect that asking her will be easier said than done.
People that famous generally make it hard for strangers to reach them.

Any suggestions?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/04/2018 01:41 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I'd have thought essential core values and the project leader's request
> would trample aesthetic reasons, personal preferences and even the
> discomfort of extending the coverage of a taboo topic.  But no, the

The reason for me is not aesthetic, nor are the topics taboo. Your 
extension of the definition of core values of the GNU project is a 
feature creep that risks diluting the original message that the GNU 
project holds up for the Free software movement, which is software 
freedom.  It is a message that gets continually eroded as corporations 
try and find ways to be compliant by giving away as less of the freedoms 
as they can or diluting them as much as they can.

 > project has been taken out of the hands of its founder, and most of
 > the
 > appointed stewards seem to think it's reasonable to disregard it, to
 > betray the core values, to practice the opposite of what we should
 > stand
 > for, so that we can have bland, pasteurized, neutral purely technical
 > documentation that won't bring anyone any moral discomfort.  Way to go

The point is not to make the manual bland and neutral, it is to avoid 
giving an excuse to take focus away from the core idea of software 
freedom.  It is not the opposite of what we stand for, it is a clear 
separation so that we don't end up confusing all of the things we stand for.

> to open sores hell: losing the moral backbone, standing for nothing,
> giving up and betraying the essential freedoms.  What a shame!

Alex please think about what you're working so hard to defend and 
reinstate here.

It is a joke.
That is not even that funny.
That is not even that effective in communicating its purpose clearly.
That is barely read by anyone given its place in the manual.
That not relevant to the manual
That risks diluting our core message of the GNU project

Please think about whether this is worth accusing well meaning friends 
of losing their moral compass.

Siddhesh

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Rich Felker]

On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 08:25:58AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 05/04/2018 01:41 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >I'd have thought essential core values and the project leader's request
> >would trample aesthetic reasons, personal preferences and even the
> >discomfort of extending the coverage of a taboo topic.  But no, the
> 
> The reason for me is not aesthetic, nor are the topics taboo. Your
> extension of the definition of core values of the GNU project is a
> feature creep that risks diluting the original message that the GNU
> project holds up for the Free software movement, which is software
> freedom.  It is a message that gets continually eroded as
> corporations try and find ways to be compliant by giving away as
> less of the freedoms as they can or diluting them as much as they
> can.
> 
> > project has been taken out of the hands of its founder, and most of
> > the
> > appointed stewards seem to think it's reasonable to disregard it, to
> > betray the core values, to practice the opposite of what we should
> > stand
> > for, so that we can have bland, pasteurized, neutral purely technical
> > documentation that won't bring anyone any moral discomfort.  Way to go
> 
> The point is not to make the manual bland and neutral, it is to
> avoid giving an excuse to take focus away from the core idea of
> software freedom.  It is not the opposite of what we stand for, it
> is a clear separation so that we don't end up confusing all of the
> things we stand for.
> 
> >to open sores hell: losing the moral backbone, standing for nothing,
> >giving up and betraying the essential freedoms.  What a shame!
> 
> Alex please think about what you're working so hard to defend and
> reinstate here.
> 
> It is a joke.
> That is not even that funny.
> That is not even that effective in communicating its purpose clearly.
> That is barely read by anyone given its place in the manual.
> That not relevant to the manual
> That risks diluting our core message of the GNU project
> 
> Please think about whether this is worth accusing well meaning
> friends of losing their moral compass.

This. It's not funny. It's not effective. As someone who supports the
intended message behind it, it's distasteful to me.

Perhaps a useful way forward would be for RMS to contact several
prominent groups doing pro-choice advocacy and specifically advocacy
against gag rules, and ask for relevant expert opinions on whether
this kind of "joke" is beneficial to their work or hostile and
offensive, rather than relying on a bunch of guys with opinions on the
internet...

Rich

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 655 bytes --]

--- a/stdlib/stdlib.h	2018-05-04 04:41:52.000000000 +0200
+++ b/stdlib/stdlib.h	2018-05-04 04:49:06.000000000 +0200
@@ -584,8 +584,14 @@
      __THROW __attribute_malloc__ __attribute_alloc_size__ ((2)) __wur;
 #endif
 
+#if !defined ENABLE_FUN || defined I_OPPOSE_CENSORSHIP
 /* Abort execution and generate a core-dump.  */
 extern void abort (void) __THROW __attribute__ ((__noreturn__));
+#else
+extern void abort (void) __THROW __attribute__ ((__noreturn__))
+     __attribute__ ((error (
+          "Political regulations prohibit calling this function")));
+#endif
 
 
 /* Register a function to be called when `exit' is called.  */

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Perhaps a useful way forward would be for RMS to contact several
  > prominent groups doing pro-choice advocacy

I don't entirely agree with their stated views, so I wouldn't want
to follow all of their advice.

Anyway, what they do (campaigning) is very different from
what I've done in the GNU Libc manual.  Experience about the former
is not particularly pertinent to the latter.

					       and specifically advocacy
  > against gag rules, and ask for relevant expert opinions on whether

If you find a couple of people who want to talk with me about this, I
will write to them and C what they say.  I don't promise to do what
they say, but I will think about what they say.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  3, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> Your extension of the definition of core values of the GNU project is
> a feature creep that risks diluting the original message that the GNU
> project holds up for the Free software movement, which is software
> freedom.

I spoke of core values of the Free Software movement, of which GNU is a
very significant part.  I did not extend them: the same ethical
imperatives that require software to respect users' four essential
freedoms apply equally to documentation and all other sorts of
information for practical use, and the Free Software movement has very
long stood for them applied to all sorts of information for practical
use, despite the more widely known focus on software.


>> to open sores hell: losing the moral backbone, standing for nothing,
>> giving up and betraying the essential freedoms.  What a shame!

> Alex please think about what you're working so hard to defend and
> reinstate here.

> It is a joke.
> That is not even that funny.
> That is not even that effective in communicating its purpose clearly.
> That is barely read by anyone given its place in the manual.
> That not relevant to the manual
> That risks diluting our core message of the GNU project

I agree it's not that funny.  I agree it might not be that effective, if
it triggers such fierce emotional reactions on GNU libc developers.  I
agree it is probably hardly ever read, considering it only goes in
printed versions of the manual.  I don't agree it dilutes our core
message, in that it opposes censorship of information for practical use;
if anything, it reinforces or informs that our goal is not as narrow as
you purport it to be.  That, in turn, makes it relevant to the manual.
I don't think it needs to be a great joke for it to be effective in
bypassing learned mind paths.  Perhaps that's exactly what makes it so
disturbing?

All of these arguments can be easily turned around: why do people care
so much about removing it, and claiming the joke is about abortion, or
that the issue is about taking a stance about abortion, in spite of the
self-evident fact that it's just taking a stand about censorship?  Such
fierce reaction cannot be explained by rational thought alone.  It's so
loaded of emotion, of passion, that there is something else going on
behind the scenes, even if individuals that value rationality so highly
won't admit to it, and might not even be aware of it.

I acknowledge that my reaction to what I'm seeing is visceral.  I
respond very passionately to what smells and tastes and walks and quacks
like censorship to me.

Why are others responding with such passion for the removal of a passage
that is as unimportant as you describe it?  I struggle to understand it.
Can you offer any theory to explain it?

I do know that a few ill-intentioned individuals are occasionally enough
to induce a flash mob and get otherwise well-meaning people to behave in
very disturbing ways.  I don't know that we have that, and I don't want
to assume that we do.  The taboo theory suggested by my wife was not
just the one that made the most sense to me, but also that did not
require assuming bad faith on any of the participants, just a
not-entirely-unusual too-strong emotional reaction to a stimulus that is
in some way related with some taboo or an otherwise very emotionally
loaded subject.

The fierce emotional reactions displayed here might suggest that the
presence of the snippet is harmful, if the target audience could be
assumed to react in the same way the developers have.  But there is a
non-negligible possibility that developers just fear certain undesirable
reactions from the target audience, and pursue the removal out of that
fear.  Some might even advise that certain topics are better left out
from humor, based on such fears.

I ask you all to contrast that, however, with RMS's display of masterful
use of humor to promote Free Software values, while performing Saint
Ignucius and joking about religion, probably the one topic that would be
most strongly advised against in manuals on politically correct humor,
and even humor in general.


> Please think about whether this is worth accusing well meaning friends
> of losing their moral compass.

I hope I didn't get that far; temporary disorientation might be a better
description of the theory that's in my mind, which is supported by the
cognitive dissonance between the fact that nobody claimed to support
censorship (several claimed to oppose it), and the contradictory fact
that this is precisely what's going on with the attempt to mob-impose
the removal of a snippet that the project leader wishes to keep
exclusively in manuals to be printed by the foundation he presides.

If I did get that far, I apologize for not expressing my thoughts and
theories clearly enough, and for the distress my failure to do so may
have caused on any of you.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 787 bytes --]

El ds 05 de 05 de 2018 a les 01:06 -0300, Alexandre Oliva va escriure:
> it is probably hardly ever read, considering it only goes in
> printed versions of the manual.

http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Aborting-a-Program.html
https://packages.debian.org/sid/glibc-doc-reference

> Why are others responding with such passion for the removal of a
> passage
> that is as unimportant as you describe it?  I struggle to understand
> it.
> Can you offer any theory to explain it?

Humor issues in collaborative projects are nothing new. Some users do
not understand jokes, no matter how intelligent they are. Other people
are significantly happier with funny environments. Both groups deserve
respect; when you realize this, you are able to find solutions.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/05/2018 09:36 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I spoke of core values of the Free Software movement, of which GNU is a
> very significant part.  I did not extend them: the same ethical
> imperatives that require software to respect users' four essential
> freedoms apply equally to documentation and all other sorts of
> information for practical use, and the Free Software movement has very
> long stood for them applied to all sorts of information for practical
> use, despite the more widely known focus on software.

I know you spoke of the core values of the FSF, I'm making a case for 
making a distinction because they're not the same thing, which makes the 
case for a dodgy joke even weaker.

> I agree it's not that funny.  I agree it might not be that effective, if
> it triggers such fierce emotional reactions on GNU libc developers.  I
> agree it is probably hardly ever read, considering it only goes in
> printed versions of the manual.  I don't agree it dilutes our core
> message, in that it opposes censorship of information for practical use;
> if anything, it reinforces or informs that our goal is not as narrow as
> you purport it to be.  That, in turn, makes it relevant to the manual.
> I don't think it needs to be a great joke for it to be effective in
> bypassing learned mind paths.  Perhaps that's exactly what makes it so
> disturbing?

My argument is that the joke is vague enough that it can be interpreted 
by reasonable people in different enough ways to cause more confusion 
than information.  The fact that we are having this conversation should 
be sufficient evidence.  In fact I'm sure that even after all of these 
emails there would be many still left with the wrong idea of what that 
snippet meant.

> All of these arguments can be easily turned around: why do people care
> so much about removing it, and claiming the joke is about abortion, or
> that the issue is about taking a stance about abortion, in spite of the
> self-evident fact that it's just taking a stand about censorship?  Such
> fierce reaction cannot be explained by rational thought alone.  It's so
> loaded of emotion, of passion, that there is something else going on
> behind the scenes, even if individuals that value rationality so highly
> won't admit to it, and might not even be aware of it.

I wasn't one of those offended so I can't explain what they're going 
through, but I definitely am one of those confused; it took me a couple 
of readings and some US history/current affairs lessons to actually 
understand what is being talked about.

> I acknowledge that my reaction to what I'm seeing is visceral.  I
> respond very passionately to what smells and tastes and walks and quacks
> like censorship to me.
 >
> Why are others responding with such passion for the removal of a passage
> that is as unimportant as you describe it?  I struggle to understand it.
> Can you offer any theory to explain it?
> 
> I do know that a few ill-intentioned individuals are occasionally enough
> to induce a flash mob and get otherwise well-meaning people to behave in
> very disturbing ways.  I don't know that we have that, and I don't want
> to assume that we do.  The taboo theory suggested by my wife was not
> just the one that made the most sense to me, but also that did not
> require assuming bad faith on any of the participants, just a
> not-entirely-unusual too-strong emotional reaction to a stimulus that is
> in some way related with some taboo or an otherwise very emotionally
> loaded subject.
> 
> The fierce emotional reactions displayed here might suggest that the
> presence of the snippet is harmful, if the target audience could be
> assumed to react in the same way the developers have.  But there is a
> non-negligible possibility that developers just fear certain undesirable
> reactions from the target audience, and pursue the removal out of that
> fear.  Some might even advise that certain topics are better left out
> from humor, based on such fears.

Maybe the fear stems from the fact that the joke is vague and needs very 
specific information to get its intended meaning.  Most people in this 
thread who read it the first time got the meaning wrong from the looks 
of it and that should be reason enough to realize that it has potential 
to do more harm than good.  The case against that snippet becomes even 
weaker if you don't perceive a direct connection with the intended 
message and the GNU projects core values and I know we differ there.

> I ask you all to contrast that, however, with RMS's display of masterful
> use of humor to promote Free Software values, while performing Saint
> Ignucius and joking about religion, probably the one topic that would be
> most strongly advised against in manuals on politically correct humor,
> and even humor in general.

I have seen videos of it and they're kinda funny in an 80's sense but I 
wouldn't really call them masterful :)  In any case, that bit seems to 
come off more as self-deprecating than joking about religion since that 
sounds more like he is making fun of himself and his position in the 
FSF, more so because he is not that masterful at delivering those lines, 
which is fine since he is not a standup comedian.

> I hope I didn't get that far; temporary disorientation might be a better
> description of the theory that's in my mind, which is supported by the
> cognitive dissonance between the fact that nobody claimed to support
> censorship (several claimed to oppose it), and the contradictory fact
> that this is precisely what's going on with the attempt to mob-impose
> the removal of a snippet that the project leader wishes to keep
> exclusively in manuals to be printed by the foundation he presides.
> 
> If I did get that far, I apologize for not expressing my thoughts and
> theories clearly enough, and for the distress my failure to do so may
> have caused on any of you.

Having met you in person many times, I know how passionate you can be in 
your arguments and also know that there's no malice in there.  However 
we are currently talking over email (which often loses so much of that 
context) so I want to be sure you realize that we are on the same side :)

Siddhesh

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > My argument is that the joke is vague enough that it can be interpreted 
  > by reasonable people in different enough ways to cause more confusion 
  > than information.

That argument is rather strained and flimsy -- it can't demonstrate
much.

However, I would not mind adding a brief footnote to explain the joke.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  5, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> On 05/05/2018 09:36 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I spoke of core values of the Free Software movement, of which GNU is a
>> very significant part.  I did not extend them: the same ethical
>> imperatives that require software to respect users' four essential
>> freedoms apply equally to documentation and all other sorts of
>> information for practical use, and the Free Software movement has very
>> long stood for them applied to all sorts of information for practical
>> use, despite the more widely known focus on software.

> I know you spoke of the core values of the FSF

Again, I spoke of the core values of the Free Software movement, not
quite the same thing as the organization founded at first to support,
legal and financially, the development of GNU.


> I have seen videos of it and they're kinda funny in an 80's sense but
> I wouldn't really call them masterful :)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I've been present at many
of RMS's speeches, and when Saint Ignucius speaks, it's almost like
those shows on TV that have recorded laughter at punchlines.  Except
that there's no recording there, the audience really does explode in
laugther several times.

I had the occasion to be unable to get into the classroom in which
Richard was speaking recently.  From outside, I couldn't hear what he
said, but I could hear the laughter explosions several times throughout
the speech, and more so close to the end, during what was evidently
Saint Ignucius's speech.

But this just tells us it's funny, not that it's an effective use of
humor as a tool to convey deeper messages.  I don't know how to assess
the latter; what I do know is that nobody walked out of the classroom at
that time, which would have to be expected if one assumed that a lot of
people would feel offended, disgusted or even outraged by such humor.


> Having met you in person many times, I know how passionate you can be
> in your arguments and also know that there's no malice in there.

Thanks

> However we are currently talking over email (which often loses so much
> of that context) so I want to be sure you realize that we are on the
> same side :)

:-)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > The reason for me is not aesthetic, nor are the topics taboo. Your 
  > extension of the definition of core values of the GNU project is a 
  > feature creep that risks diluting the original message that the GNU 
  > project holds up for the Free software movement, which is software 
  > freedom.

The FSF defends basic human rights on the internet, and has said
so for decades.

  > The point is not to make the manual bland and neutral, it is to avoid 
  > giving an excuse to take focus away from the core idea of software 
  > freedom.

In theory, I agree with you, but in practice it is not a significant
problem in this case.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/06/2018 08:47 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>    > The point is not to make the manual bland and neutral, it is to avoid
>    > giving an excuse to take focus away from the core idea of software
>    > freedom.
> 
> In theory, I agree with you, but in practice it is not a significant
> problem in this case.

Well this thread ought to be sufficient evidence that it is perceived as 
a significant problem.

Siddhesh

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Well this thread ought to be sufficient evidence that it is perceived as 
  > a significant problem.

That doesn't mean it really is a significant problem.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 17:11 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I'd have thought essential core values and the project leader's request
> would trample aesthetic reasons, personal preferences and even the
> discomfort of extending the coverage of a taboo topic.  But no, the
> project has been taken out of the hands of its founder, and most of the
> appointed stewards seem to think it's reasonable to disregard it, [...]

How did we end up in a place where you consider follow-the-leader to
simply override strong community consensus?  There is no (successful)
glibc without the community.

(Yes, we could argue what the community is considered to be; IMO, the
glibc community is the obvious choice here, not the FSF as a whole.
Nobody in this thread has suggested that the FSF should not publish
something elsewhere.)

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Torvald Riegel, 07/05/2018 23:55:
> Yes, we could argue what the community is considered to be; IMO, the
> glibc community is the obvious choice here, not the FSF as a whole.

There's also the community which the existing contributors want to 
include. I understand there is a willingness to be more inclusive 
towards women, for instance. I suppose more people from all countries 
and cultures are also welcome, although I don't know how diverse the 
current contributors are.

So in this discussion we should watch for any bias. How many women have 
spoken up? When the actual experience of a woman has been brought up, 
have we paid all due attention? Etc.

Federico

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  7, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 17:11 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I'd have thought essential core values and the project leader's request
>> would trample aesthetic reasons, personal preferences and even the
>> discomfort of extending the coverage of a taboo topic.  But no, the
>> project has been taken out of the hands of its founder, and most of the
>> appointed stewards seem to think it's reasonable to disregard it, [...]

> How did we end up in a place where you consider follow-the-leader to
> simply override strong community consensus?

I don't.  I just restored the initial conditions until the debate about
whether or not to remove the snippet reached consensus, otherwise it
would have been distorted.

If there's such a strong consensus as those berating me wish to imply,
it shouldn't be a problem to reach it and have the change reinstated,
all within the community rules.

Now, I suspect some will argue for changing the consensus rules or even
fork if the current community-adopted rules get in the way of what they
want.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 20:25 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  7, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 17:11 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> I'd have thought essential core values and the project leader's request
> >> would trample aesthetic reasons, personal preferences and even the
> >> discomfort of extending the coverage of a taboo topic.  But no, the
> >> project has been taken out of the hands of its founder, and most of the
> >> appointed stewards seem to think it's reasonable to disregard it, [...]
> 
> > How did we end up in a place where you consider follow-the-leader to
> > simply override strong community consensus?
> 
> I don't.  I just restored the initial conditions until the debate about
> whether or not to remove the snippet reached consensus, otherwise it
> would have been distorted.

It had consensus (not unanimous though) all the time.  Do you actually
think there's no consensus now?  I've said elsewhere in this thread that
quickly counting, I end up at 11 active or recently active developers
being in favor of the removal, many of them strongly in favor.

And look at what you wrote above: "the project has been taken out of the
hands of its founder, and most of the appointed stewards seem to think
it's reasonable to disregard it".  How is that not about valuing
follow-the-leader higher than community consensus?
You're essentially saying that 11 is less than 1 here.

> If there's such a strong consensus as those berating me wish to imply,
> it shouldn't be a problem to reach it and have the change reinstated,
> all within the community rules.

It had consensus initially.  You then ignored that (see Carlos
comments), and reverted the removal.

> Now, I suspect some will argue for changing the consensus rules or even
> fork if the current community-adopted rules get in the way of what they
> want.

Elsewhere in the thread, I stated my opinion that your behavior in
discussions can be toxic.  This statement here is another fresh example
of that.  You imply that there is reason to believe that others would do
certain things, but there's actually no reason for any of that:
* Nobody (but you) actually argued for changing the consensus rules.
Instead, RMS and you argued that the consensus rules don't really apply
because they can always be overriden by RMS.
* I suggested a fork as a last resolve, but only if it is ignored that
glibc is a consensus-based, community-driven project -- IOW, if the
community-adopted rules are tried to be ignored.  That's the opposite of
"get[ting] in the way of what they want".

IOW, you suggest that others made different statements than they
actually did, and you add some "perhaps" and "maybe" to avoid a direct
accusation.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:

> It had consensus (not unanimous though) all the time.  Do you actually
> think there's no consensus now?

Per the consensus rules spelled out in the wiki, there isn't, for the
simple reason that there is "sustained opposition to substantial issues
by an important part of the concerned interests."

As for unanimity...  That's applied quite unevenly.

Consider the initial patch.

There was Richard's initial objection to removal present in the patch
itself.

There was Ondřej's objection posted the day before the patch went in.

There was my objection, that I hadn't posted because, well, there were
other objections already, so there was going to be a debate and
consensus-building process, so I might as well wait for RMS's feedback
before chiming in.  Maybe he would say he didn't care any more, that the
issue was no longer relevant, and then why would I?

Except that there was't.  The patch went in anyway, completely
disregarding even the visible objections.


Now let's look at what happened when I reverted the patch that should
never have been rushed/sneaked in.

One person claimed he had objected to the temporary reversal proposal by
responding to a different subthread about a different issue without any
mention of the reversal and without even responding questions about
whether he even read the proposal.

Three others jumped on the bandwagon and claimed they hadn't further
voiced their objections because they saw his.

Now, let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that I had
misunderstood his unrelated response as an objection to my proposal, and
had decided to proceed anyway, because his opinion was that of a valued
contributor, but there were opinion in favor of the temporary reversal
by an officially-appointed maintainer and by the ultimate maintainer.

Would it be wrong to disregard his objection in this hypothetical
situation, because consensus needs not be unanimous and other objections
hadn't been voiced, or are we supposed to assume that there might be
other unvoiced objections hiding behind a voiced one?

How about unvoiced support?  Should that even be relevant, considering
the wording of the definition?  Does it matter how many voices are in
support, if the only written criterion for consensus is the absence of
sustained opposition?

See?, this is road to madness.  It might seem to work just fine as long
as there aren't significantly controversial issues, but the moment there
are...  We've all just seen how it plays out.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/08/2018 09:46 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> There was Ondřej's objection posted the day before the patch went in.

I will admit that I thought Ondrej was joking with his objection.

Siddhesh

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> On 05/08/2018 09:46 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> There was Ondřej's objection posted the day before the patch went in.

> I will admit that I thought Ondrej was joking with his objection.

He could be, but in the absence of clarification on the record, could
one just proceed and run him over?  Or is arbitrary interpretation of
objectors' intentions part of the rules too?

How does that compare with my allegedly breaking the rules for
interpreting others' objections in narrower ways they claim they meant
them?


In the presence of one unwithdrawn apparent objection (let's dismiss
RMS's in-comments objection for the sake of the argument), raised over
a period of 48 hours, what do the rules state?  Do we have consensus, or
do we not?

In my understanding of the rules, there should have been continued
conversation to at least attempt to converge the result into consensus
so that pending objections were withdrawn.  I don't see any evidence
of that in the records.

Could it have still taken place, with or without visible evidence
elsewhere?  Sure.  I hope it did.

But still, given the common community behavior of not raising or
supporting objections when one is already in effect, other objections,
like mind, might exist that found no need to be voiced right away.  The
existence of an apparent objection on the record, even if withdrawn
elsewhere, hid other objections.

So even if one admitted to dismissing it as a single objection, under
the non-unanimity motto, I don't think we can conclude that there was
consensus.  At best there may have seemed to be consensus.

Now, given your apparent surprise, and that of others, when facing the
statement that there were objections on the record, how could there be
such adamant statements that there was consensus?  I wouldn't assume the
earlier statements were meant as lies, because they'd be too easy to
catch, nor as evidence of off-the-record withdrawing of the objections,
for there'd be no surprise then, but they're now looking very much like
uninformed statements.

I guess now would be good opportunity to correct them and apologize, no?

Or do you still sustain that there was consensus for the removal at the
time the patch went in?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/09/2018 12:24 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> He could be, but in the absence of clarification on the record, could
> one just proceed and run him over?  Or is arbitrary interpretation of
> objectors' intentions part of the rules too?
> 
> How does that compare with my allegedly breaking the rules for
> interpreting others' objections in narrower ways they claim they meant
> them?
> 
> In the presence of one unwithdrawn apparent objection (let's dismiss
> RMS's in-comments objection for the sake of the argument), raised over
> a period of 48 hours, what do the rules state?  Do we have consensus, or
> do we not?

No you cannot compare DJ's unambiguous objection to the joke to Ondrej's 
most likely tongue in cheek remark (Trump == joke, etc.).  In any case I 
already agreed that in hindsight RMS should have been looped into the 
conversation before pushing the change.

Siddhesh

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  9, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> On 05/09/2018 12:24 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

>> In the presence of one unwithdrawn apparent objection (let's dismiss
>> RMS's in-comments objection for the sake of the argument), raised over
>> a period of 48 hours, what do the rules state?  Do we have consensus, or
>> do we not?

> No you cannot compare DJ's unambiguous objection to the joke to
> Ondrej's most likely tongue in cheek remark (Trump == joke, etc.).  In
> any case I already agreed that in hindsight RMS should have been
> looped into the conversation before pushing the change.

I'll just note you didn't answer the questions, so I'll restate them:
per the rules, would a standing objection suggest we don't have
consensus and should at least check whether the objection was serious,
or is there any justification for outright dismissing it as if it wasn't
even there?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/09/2018 09:57 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I'll just note you didn't answer the questions, so I'll restate them:
> per the rules, would a standing objection suggest we don't have
> consensus and should at least check whether the objection was serious,
> or is there any justification for outright dismissing it as if it wasn't
> even there?

It is a judgment call and absent Ondrej's insistence, I still see no 
reason to revisit it especially since the commit has been reverted for 
now.  If Ondrej responds saying that his objection was a sustained one, 
I'll be happy to change my opinion on it.

Siddhesh

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  9, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> On 05/09/2018 09:57 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I'll just note you didn't answer the questions, so I'll restate them:
>> per the rules, would a standing objection suggest we don't have
>> consensus and should at least check whether the objection was serious,
>> or is there any justification for outright dismissing it as if it wasn't
>> even there?

> It is a judgment call and absent Ondrej's insistence, I still see no
> reason to revisit it especially since the commit has been reverted for
> now.  If Ondrej responds saying that his objection was a sustained
> one, I'll be happy to change my opinion on it.

So let me see if I understand correctly.

DJ's objection to the joke counts as objection to the proposal restoring
the initial conditions because, after the fact, he says it meant it to
be despite not having confirmed even reading the proposal.

Other's claims, also after the fact, that they just refrained from
voicing their positions because DJ's had already stated his also count.

Ondrej's objection to removing the joke, however, doesn't count unless
he restates it, because it might have been meant just as a joke, and
nobody thought of asking him to confirm *before* going ahead and running
over it.

RMS's objection to removing the joke, written down next to the joke,
doesn't count, because, well <insert hand-wavy note> and, yeah, we
it should have, but, but, we didn't, and sorry, it's too late now.

My and anyone else's unstated objection to removing the joke, that was
not posted in a hurry because Ondrej's objection already was in effect,
no, sorry, that doesn't count, because...  we don't want it to either.

Are you not even just a little bit ashamed of displaying such a blatant
bias?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[DJ Delorie]

Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
> So let me see if I understand correctly.

I see it this way:

A strong vocal objection in a current discussion is not the same as a
few words of unadorned text written 26 years ago.

A strong vocal objection is not the same as as a joke-like comment which
may or may not be actual objection.

Each of these situations is different, and needs to be handled
differently.  Sometimes the difference is subtle, sometimes it isn't,
but you can't equate different situations and complain if they're not
handled the same.

This is called "communication" and is a difficult skill to master
(certainly, this topic has shown how difficult ;).  You must consider
not only what is said, but what might have been heard.  Jeff et al took
a risk in relying on my comment, you took a risk in relying on Ondrej's
comment.  The comments were not the same, and were not heard the same,
so the risks were not the same.

Perhaps the silver lining here is that we've all learned not to assume
that others see each situation or interpret each comment the same way we
do.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  9, 2018, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:

> you took a risk in relying on Ondrej's comment.

FTR, I did not rely on it.  Indeed, I only noticed it after I restored
the initial conditions for the reasons stated in the commit message (and
the corresponding email).  I and others could have relied on it, and
Carlos and Zack couldn't possibly know there weren't other objections
relying on that one.  I was nevertheless surprised the patch was put in
so quickly, and I regretted not having raised the objection before
contacting Richard.  So I had an unvoiced objection, it just didn't rely
on the standing objection.  A much higher risk indeed, but I'm told the
community does not wish to follow a development model in which people
are encouraged to post objections very very quickly, especially for
controversial changes.  I can imagine that some might mistakenly assume
the change was not controversial, but I can also imagine that some
wanted to be through with it quickly to avoid the controversy that would
likely arise once RMS knew about it.

> Perhaps the silver lining here is that we've all learned not to assume
> that others see each situation or interpret each comment the same way
> we do.

+1

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/10/2018 04:39 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> So let me see if I understand correctly.

You haven't understood it correctly and I am now convinced that it is 
because you don't want to.

> Other's claims, also after the fact, that they just refrained from
> voicing their positions because DJ's had already stated his also count.
> 
> Ondrej's objection to removing the joke, however, doesn't count unless
> he restates it, because it might have been meant just as a joke, and
> nobody thought of asking him to confirm *before* going ahead and running
> over it.

There is a significant difference in the tones of DJ's email and Ondrej's.

> RMS's objection to removing the joke, written down next to the joke,
> doesn't count, because, well <insert hand-wavy note> and, yeah, we
> it should have, but, but, we didn't, and sorry, it's too late now.

I (and others) already agreed that in hindsight RMS should have been 
brought into the loop but you're bringing it up repeatedly giving the 
impression that this is still an open issue.

> My and anyone else's unstated objection to removing the joke, that was
> not posted in a hurry because Ondrej's objection already was in effect,
> no, sorry, that doesn't count, because...  we don't want it to either.
> 
> Are you not even just a little bit ashamed of displaying such a blatant
> bias?

It does count for a discussion and we can reasonably differ on 
interpreting Ondrej's response but it does not give an excuse for that 
personal attack.

I have had enough of your repeated slurs.  This is the end of discussion 
with you for me.

Siddhesh

RE: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Chester Gregg]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> DJ's objection to the joke counts as objection to the proposal restoring the initial conditions because, after the fact, he says it meant it to be despite not having confirmed even reading the proposal.
> Other's claims, also after the fact, that they just refrained from voicing their positions because DJ's had already stated his also count.
> Ondrej's objection to removing the joke, however, doesn't count unless he restates it, because it might have been meant just as a joke, and nobody thought of asking him to confirm *before* going ahead and running over it.
> RMS's objection to removing the joke, written down next to the joke, doesn't count, because, well <insert hand-wavy note> and, yeah, we it should have, but, but, we didn't, and sorry, it's too late now.
> My and anyone else's unstated objection to removing the joke, that was not posted in a hurry because Ondrej's objection already was in effect, no, sorry, that doesn't count, because...  we don't want it to either.
> Are you not even just a little bit ashamed of displaying such a blatant bias?

The initial patch had a consensus. You're the only person I've seen propose
that Ondřej's remark may have actually been serious. It read as a joke to
everyone at the time of the patch, and nearly everyone since. I admit, based on
my life experiences and culture, I don't understand why you would think that it
was a serious objection. I'm trying, but your view of this as a serious comment
and RMS's joke as funny is not shared with the community at large. That's fine,
but does serve to underline the central point being made by many others: humor
is usually not an effective means of communicating seriously. Especially on the
internet, devoid of body language and vocal tone, with people from many diffent
life experiences and cultures.

I don't want to stifle humor in every context; it's generally fine in a small
community such as this mailing list, where people get to know each other, and
where dialogue can commence when there's confusion. It's just not appropriate
in a user-facing technical manual. Not everyone is going to parse it the same
way. Even with the added benefit of knowing it was supposed to be a joke, being
an American, and having heard of the rule being criticized, it still took time
to dissect the joke and understand what it was haphazardly trying to say. As
E.B. White famously observed, this kills the joke.

If Ondřej's remark was serious, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, and I hope
he corrects the record. It doesn't change the community understanding at the
time of the patch.

RMS's objection, in comment form, predates the Pentium. His last commit to
glibc is nearly as old (1996). His last involvement on this mailing list is
over 2 years old. He's simply not involved in the project's development, as far
as I can see. It would have been a courtesy to seek his opinion, but so was the
perceived courtesy of not wasting his time asking him about it. It's also not a
requirement, wouldn't have changed the consensus, and that's why he's on the
mailing list.

If objections aren't on the record, they don't exist. Given that consensus does
not require unanimity, every objection needs to be stated. Even if it was just
a notice that you were reaching out to RMS for his opinion, and requesting that
the community wait. If objections are raised later, a patch should be submitted
and the consensus process will bear it out if that's actually the consensus.

---

In regards to your previous description of the patch as being "sneaky", that's
uncalled-for. This was the removal of a few lines of a non-technical, outdated
joke comment that hasn't been touched in 26 years. It hasn't even been
discussed in 19 years, as far as I can tell [1]. 2 days passed between when the
patch was submitted and when it was installed, with no serious objections. That
was plenty of time for a change of this narrow magnitude to reach a reasonable
consensus. There was no reason for Zach to believe that this seemingly
innocuous removal would cause such a schism.

On the contrary, when the patch was reverted, that violated the community
principles. You should have understood that it would be controversial, as
lively debate was still ongoing. Every change should follow the same procedure.
According to those community principles:

    Cases likely to need more review and a longer period before pushing a
    commit include: changes that have previously been controversial.

[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/glibc-linux/1999-q3/msg00012.html

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 13:16 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > It had consensus (not unanimous though) all the time.  Do you actually
> > think there's no consensus now?
> 
> Per the consensus rules spelled out in the wiki, there isn't, for the
> simple reason that there is "sustained opposition to substantial issues
> by an important part of the concerned interests."

Look at the numbers we have at the moment.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:

> Look at the numbers we have at the moment.

Those "numbers" have very little to do with the advertised
"consensus-building community".

That attitude is even more authoritarian than Richard's.

For an individual abusive authority, there's often the possibility of
defense in numbers.

But when the abusive authority is also a majority, it's absolute power.

Democracies usually have fundamental rights and contra-majoritarian
powers to keep even the power of majorities in check.

There doesn't seem to be anything like that in our rules, is there?

Like, when objections are unreasonably dismissed by a majority, what
recourse is there?

The purpose/goal of the project is not set in stone, so if it could be
changed by a simple majority, or deviated from by a simple majority,
what recourse would GNU and the original project participants have?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 23:37 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Look at the numbers we have at the moment.
> 
> Those "numbers" have very little to do with the advertised
> "consensus-building community".

For example, they show that many of our developers spoke out.  This
isn't a 2 vs. 1 argument or anything like that.  People have voiced
their opinion.

We had plenty of discussion, see the number of messages in the thread.
People tried to find common ground, offered compromises (eg, see Carlos'
suggestion of a more thorough discussion of censorship elsewhere in the
manual).

Among the opinions voiced, we have something like 12 to 3 in favor of
removing the "joke" (and I'm counting optimistically on the side of the
3).

So, together, (1) everyone was able to voice their opinion, (2) there
was plenty of debate and looking for consensus, and (3) we have a very
clear majority for one of the options.
That's very much a consensus-based decision process.

> That attitude is even more authoritarian than Richard's.

No, it's not.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/authoritarian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

You did have your say, people listened to your arguments, but they
didn't end up being convinced by your arguments.  You had the same
opportunities to try to convince others as everyone else.  There is no
single person that starts with more power than others.

It's not authoritarian if the majority simply disagrees with you and
doesn't follow your will instead of theirs.  They also don't have power
over you: You're free to participate or not, and you can fork the code
and go build the glibc variant you want together with all those that
were convinced by your arguments.  And so can the majority.

Contrast that with the super powers you have associated with RMS: that's
about a specific person having more power than others.  As described by
him, he would reserve the right to overrule any majority if he thinks
it's important.

> For an individual abusive authority, there's often the possibility of
> defense in numbers.

Please, don't imply there's any abuse unless you have proof.

> But when the abusive authority is also a majority, it's absolute power.
> 
> Democracies usually have fundamental rights and contra-majoritarian
> powers to keep even the power of majorities in check.
> 
> There doesn't seem to be anything like that in our rules, is there?

Do you remember this copyleft thing?

The community is not forcing you to do anything.  And you can't compare
this to government structures BTW, given that that's a completely
different setting (eg, people live in a country and can't just beam
themselves to Mars).

(I hope we don't need to discuss power over trademarks, the official git
repo, etc., here.)

> Like, when objections are unreasonably dismissed by a majority, what
> recourse is there?

Your assumption of what is "unreasonable" differs wildly from what the
majority thinks is unreasonable.  Please see that this is your opinion,
not some objective fact we all agree to.

The problem you have is that the majority does not agree with you.  It's
not forcing you to do anything, and you can't force it to do anything
either.  The question that remains is whether you and the majority can
keep working together.

Working together requires the ability to make progress, even when
opinions are not unanimous.  Otherwise, there is "deadlock", and there's
no community effectivly because it stops producing outcomes.

In our consensus-based process, the majority is used as a "deadlock"
breaker, after we tried our best to build consensus (see (1)-(3) above).
In this case, it's even a vast majority.  If you don't accept that, this
community may not be a good fit for you.

You can of course always propose different deadlock breakers, and see
whether you can convince others.

> The purpose/goal of the project is not set in stone, so if it could be
> changed by a simple majority, or deviated from by a simple majority,
> what recourse would GNU and the original project participants have?

12 to 3 (or sth like that) is not a simple majority, BTW.

So, you do want to give more power to the "original project
participants" than to everyone else?  You're of course free to propose
that, but I wouldn't bet that you can convince enough people to follow
that scheme.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  9, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 23:37 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On May  8, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Look at the numbers we have at the moment.
>> 
>> Those "numbers" have very little to do with the advertised
>> "consensus-building community".

> For example, they show that many of our developers spoke out.  This
> isn't a 2 vs. 1 argument or anything like that.

Well, you counted 12 for removal, I count 6 against, so maybe it is?

But, really, this makes it sound as if this entire process was just a
vote, rather than the consensus building our community values so much.
Do you disagree with this assessment?

I appreciate that Carlos tried to do that and ran into walls, some of
which I built myself.  Perhaps he gave up, perhaps he just realized
there was too much heat at the moment for attempts at consensus building
to stand a chance to work and lead to some positive outcome.  I hope
it's the latter, and that, after some cooling off, the consensus
building attempt can be restarted, by him or by any other proponents of
the change.

Now that the initial conditions are restored, which was one of the
triggers for me to perceive the entire process as stacked and unjust,
I'm probably going to be able to look more a lot more cooly into
alternatives and accept compromises myself.  Earlier, I was fighting
(collective) intransigence (despite Carlos' efforts) with intransigence.
Once I perceive flexibility, I will likely respond in kind as well.  I
believe that's the way to build consensus.


>> The purpose/goal of the project is not set in stone, so if it could be
>> changed by a simple majority, or deviated from by a simple majority,
>> what recourse would GNU and the original project participants have?

> So, you do want to give more power to the "original project
> participants" than to everyone else?

Not quite.  I just wish it was clear that this is already the case, in a
way, so that people aren't so surprised and react so negatively in the
rare cases in which GNU libc is asked to take a certain step by the GNU
project.

See, throughout the discussion, you and others have often made
statements to the effect that, in the project, some are more equal than
others, to borrow Orwell's phrase.  Arguments were presented to weaken
Richard's opinions on the grounds that he's not an active developer,
that he's not a maintainer, etc.  Mine, too.  Other arguments along the
same lines were made to distinguish the weight of opinions from
occasional contributors from that of active developers and that of
official maintainers.  That's fine, but we shouldn't pretend or give
anyone the illusion that we're a community of equals.

Particularly more equal than others are GNU-appointed maintainers.  I'm
not just talking about the power to "do anything", that I've been
accused of wielding despite having strived to abide by the community
rules, but also about the commitment to represent and carry out the
interests of the GNU project.

Had Richard asked me, on behalf of the GNU project, to install a change,
I am bound by that commitment to do so, and I would have done so.

However, there's more than one way to go about it.

One is to bring the change in through the community process, seek
consensus, get it, and it's there.  It's the best possible outcome.

Another is to state "GNU demands this change, we must all obey" and put
it in.  That backfires, as we all know, and it's not the first time it
has, so this is best avoided.

Yet another is for the collective influence of the official maintainers
to softly lead the community towards the consensus desired by the GNU
project.  That's how companies control "community" projects they support
without seeming oppressive (I think that's the word I wanted when I
wrote authoritarian in my previous message in this thread), and that's a
model that works reasonably well.

The exception is when the community is so unhappy with a move that even
the collective, coordinated soft influence of the maintainers cannot
achieve the consensus desired by the project as a whole.  Uprise ensues,
and pretty much everyone loses, some more than others.

Another aspect that I feel I have to bring to the table is the fact that
GNU specifically, and the Free Software movement at large, have enemies,
and Richard's behavior is so coherent and consistent as to be easily
predictable.  It's not entirely unreasonable or far-fetched to imagine a
scenario in which one of these enemies, with perfect foresight of how
each of the players is likely to behave, proposes a change that will
lead to just the sort of tension we're going through now.

The best defense to that, IMHO, is not for us to part ways, but rather
to have a lot more clarity about the power structures that are in
effect.  It's not that they've ever been intentionally hidden, but that
they haven't been explicit in the project governance documentation may
have given people distorted ideas that are now playing against us all.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[William Pitcock]

Hello,

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On May  3, 2018, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>
>> In most cultures, government restrictions on access to information
>> which is specifically designed to enable people to commit illegal acts
>> are not considered censorship.  I don't think you can list abortion in
>> this context without taking sides.
>
> There's law in the US that makes it a crime to publish information on
> how to circumvent digital handcuffs, you know.  Even if you rationalize
> it and frame it with another term to make it more palatable, it's still
> censorship of information for practical use.
>
> GNU is the software development branch of the Free Software social and
> political movement.  We don't mind taking sides; in fact, if we didn't,
> it wouldn't be a social and political movement.  Our raison d'être are
> the essential freedoms over information for practical use.

Yes, and we should fight the DMCA, the Berne convention and all the rest.

> The law criticized in the snippet under dispute is one that denies
> people the essential freedom to share information for practical use.  It
> is fundamentally at odds with the most essential core value of our
> movement.

Technically, there is no such law that is being criticized.  It is an
executive order.  Either way, actual organization and activism is
necessary to defeat this executive order: Congress must implement
legislation that counteracts the executive order.  A joke in a
technical manual will not serve as the catalyst to organize the
activism required to secure that legislation.

> I'm very disappointed and baffled that an allusion to a taboo topic
> that's two-levels removed, in a context in which the taboo topic is
> already established and unavoidable, is enough for people to gang up
> against not only the founder and leader of the movement, but also its
> most fundamental value, and to take the opposite side, practicing
> censorship and, by removing the criticism, taking the side of the
> censors that established the denounced censorship law.

I am not taking the side of the censors who established the executive
order that RMS is denouncing.  I am taking the side of people who feel
that the specific content and it's defense are inappropriate.  I am
taking the side of women who say that stuff like this is the reason
why they do not take the software freedom movement seriously.  I don't
have problems with women contributing to my projects, almost all of
them say that working with me is really nice and pleasant -- I suspect
my lack of using jokes like these to highlight issues critical to
women has a lot to do with that.

You all can say you want more women to contribute to free software,
but to do it, you have to walk the walk, not only talk the talk.  For
every step forward that we make with initiatives such as Outreachy, at
least one step is erased with stuff like this.  Which is more
important?  The joke or fixing the actual diversity gap?

> I'd have thought essential core values and the project leader's request
> would trample aesthetic reasons, personal preferences and even the
> discomfort of extending the coverage of a taboo topic.

Making the free software social movement more friendly towards all
helps to advance the movement.  By unnecessarily using discussion
concerning policy around a controversial subject (abortion), the
content can be interpreted as misogynistic.  Content which can be
interpreted as misogynistic, from somebody who has had a rocky, at
best, relationship with women in general (the St. Ignutius routine,
the EMACS virgins incident, the "pleasure cards", the claim that
"voluntary pedophilia doesn't harm children", etc) appearing in
official documentation, is something that is actually extremely
harmful to the mission of advancing software freedom.

> But no, the project has been taken out of the hands of its founder, and most of the
> appointed stewards seem to think it's reasonable to disregard it, to
> betray the core values, to practice the opposite of what we should stand
> for,

We should, as stewards of the free software movement stand for
advancing software freedom and open access to information.  This joke
accomplishes neither and is, instead, actively harmful toward those
goals.

And, if dear Leader cannot accept that he is wrong, then he should be
thrown out too: the FSF is a non-profit 501(c)3 organization, such
organizations by definition do not have owners but do have a board.
Therefore the FSF and GNU projects are not the exclusive property of
RMS.

> so that we can have bland, pasteurized, neutral purely technical
> documentation that won't bring anyone any moral discomfort.  Way to go
> to open sores hell: losing the moral backbone, standing for nothing,
> giving up and betraying the essential freedoms.  What a shame!

I have seen the BSD community stand up for plenty of things, including
the right for people to use their software and the right for women,
LGBT spectrum people and other minorities to be comfortable in their
projects.  This is something where the FSF should be showing
leadership.  Instead, on this side, we not only fail to deliver, but
proceed to defend the asinine behavior of it's present leader.  It is
time for the free software movement to do soul searching.  Otherwise
the diversity effort is for nothing.

William

gag rule joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > We should, as stewards of the free software movement stand for
  > advancing software freedom and open access to information.  This joke
  > accomplishes neither and is, instead, actively harmful toward those
  > goals.

I don't believe women will tend to take offense at this joke.  I don't
believe this joke will offend anyone, except for those who approach it
with a predisposition to take offense, and that predisposition is not
the jokes fault.

However, there is something in GNU libc development that is likely to
drive women away: a climate of verbal aggression.

Women are as capable of appreciating humor as men.  However, I've read
plenty of articles where women talk about receiving verbal aggression
from a mob of men.  I am sure many women will stay away from a place
where such a mob is to be seen.  Today the mob's target is me;
tomorrow, it could be anyone.

It is supremely ironic that people are criticizing me for --
supposedly -- offending people with an impersonal joke, while pouring
out gross personal insults and attacks.

I ask the GNU libc maintainers to throw water on these flames.  Let's
make libc development a safe space, a space where verbal aggression is
not deployed against those that many disagree with.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: gag rule joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/08/2018 07:26 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I don't believe women will tend to take offense at this joke.  I don't
> believe this joke will offend anyone, except for those who approach it
> with a predisposition to take offense, and that predisposition is not
> the jokes fault.

You're not in a position to claim that, being a not-woman.  Besides, 
it's possible for abortions to be traumatic for non-women too, they're 
are not as manly as they make themselves out to be.

The point in the end is not about *how many* people get offended by the 
joke or find it in bad taste; the point is that the joke is vague and 
doesn't really serve any purpose than possibly offending someone.

All this for a topic that is not directly relevant to the GNU project. 
This is so irrelevant that we shouldn't even be having this 
conversation, let alone arguments over governance.

> However, there is something in GNU libc development that is likely to
> drive women away: a climate of verbal aggression.
> 
> Women are as capable of appreciating humor as men.  However, I've read
> plenty of articles where women talk about receiving verbal aggression
> from a mob of men.  I am sure many women will stay away from a place
> where such a mob is to be seen.  Today the mob's target is me;
> tomorrow, it could be anyone.

Please show me a libc-alpha thread other than this one that demonstrates 
your point.  This is the most aggressive (by far!) I have seen most of 
the maintainers become in an email discussion and most of it has been 
reactions to doubts on our good faith or to your assertion of ultimate 
authority regardless of our near-unanimous opinion.

I would argue that you and Alex have managed something really special 
here; I haven't managed to get Carlos this annoyed despite working with 
him for so many years!

> It is supremely ironic that people are criticizing me for --
> supposedly -- offending people with an impersonal joke, while pouring
> out gross personal insults and attacks.

You're being disingenuous by framing us as aggressive when you've only 
been invoking personal authority all through the thread.

Siddhesh

Re: gag rule joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

  > You're not in a position to claim that, being a not-woman.

Just as women are entitled to make statements about what men
often do and think, men are likewise entitled to make statements
about what women often do and think.  We all do know something
about various kinds of other people.

Based on the name "Siddhesh", and your way of writing, I have the
impression you are male.  But you too make claims about what
women will think.

Everyone who has posted here is male, it seems.  I have started asking
some women their impressions about the joke.

  > The point in the end is not about *how many* people get offended by the 
  > joke or find it in bad taste; the point is that the joke is vague and 
  > doesn't really serve any purpose than possibly offending someone.

It serves the purpose of humor, and the purpose of reminding people
about an censorship law which attacks the rights of women (especially
poor women) in many countries.

I don't expect the joke to offend people, so if my purpose had been to
offend, I would have written something else.

  >   This is the most aggressive (by far!) I have seen most of 
  > the maintainers become in an email discussion and most of it has been 
  > reactions to...

I think that validates my point about aggression.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: gag rule joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

[I am pleasantly surprised that you've chosen to continue the 
conversation, so I want to apologize for assuming that you'll walk away 
now that the commit is reverted.]

On 05/09/2018 09:09 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Just as women are entitled to make statements about what men
> often do and think, men are likewise entitled to make statements
> about what women often do and think.  We all do know something
> about various kinds of other people.

No, the gender power imbalance means that we are not entitled enough to 
do that.

> Based on the name "Siddhesh", and your way of writing, I have the
> impression you are male.  But you too make claims about what
> women will think.
> 
> Everyone who has posted here is male, it seems.  I have started asking
> some women their impressions about the joke.

Nowhere have I referred to women or argued of what women specifically 
might make of the joke, although if you do a quick search on twitter 
(and a few women who cared to respond on libc-alpha) on various opinions 
women have written about you'll see that none find abortion to be a 
suitable subject for a joke.

While the possibility of someone hurt by jokes about abortion being a 
woman is higher, it is by no means a gender-specific thing.  My argument 
is not gender-specific either, I have reiterated/re-explained it below.

>    > The point in the end is not about *how many* people get offended by the
>    > joke or find it in bad taste; the point is that the joke is vague and
>    > doesn't really serve any purpose than possibly offending someone.
> 
> It serves the purpose of humor, and the purpose of reminding people
> about an censorship law which attacks the rights of women (especially
> poor women) in many countries.

The message does not translate correctly to anyone other than American, 
politically aware individuals and is very likely to be misunderstood, as 
is evident.  Just look at the reactions all over, there's very little 
understanding outside of the American people about what the joke 
actually means.

> I don't expect the joke to offend people, so if my purpose had been to
> offend, I would have written something else.

You wrote that 26 years ago, almost two generations ago and 
sensitivities and social norms have changed greatly since then.  The 
audience of the manual has also changed greatly from the initial 
predominantly North American white male one.

I don't believe you wish to offend and I never even gave that impression 
in any of my responses.  However you may be, because of the fact that 
the joke you wrote 26 years ago has not aged very well.

Siddhesh

Re: gag rule joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 23:39 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Everyone who has posted here is male, it seems.

No.  Consider Patsy's opinion, for example.

RE: gag rule joke

[Chester Gregg]

> > Everyone who has posted here is male, it seems.
> No.  Consider Patsy's opinion, for example.

Rey Tucker's opinion as well.

https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00291.html

Re: gag rule joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Rey Tucker's opinion as well.

I have not received any mail from Rey Tucker.
Perhaps person sent mail to the list and not to me.

I take it that Rey Tucker is a woman.  If I had seen that message, I
would necessarily have known that -- at least, not from the name.

I did see a receive message from Patsy.  It stated agreement with
another message, but it didn't say how she herself felt.

One message from a woman doesn't invalidate the point that this is
mainly a matter of some people (mostly men) saying what they think
other people (nmostly women) will feel.

I am starting to talk with women I know.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: gag rule joke

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 170 bytes --]

El dc 09 de 05 de 2018 a les 10:42 +0200, Torvald Riegel va escriure:
> No.  Consider Patsy's opinion, for example.

I thought Patsy made a joke, like "apt-get moo".

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: gag rule joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/09/2018 04:36 PM, Javiera Serrano Polo wrote:
> El dc 09 de 05 de 2018 a les 10:42 +0200, Torvald Riegel va escriure:
>> No.  Consider Patsy's opinion, for example.
> 
> I thought Patsy made a joke, like "apt-get moo".

That's mockery and it's really not funny.  Please stop.

Siddhesh

Re: gag rule joke

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 209 bytes --]

El dc 09 de 05 de 2018 a les 17:39 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar va
escriure:
> That's mockery

Whatever you say.

Also, please stop trying to defend PGF, I'm sure she is capable of
doing that for herself.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: gag rule joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 15:55 +0200, Javiera Serrano Polo wrote:
> El dc 09 de 05 de 2018 a les 17:39 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar va
> escriure:
> > That's mockery
> 
> Whatever you say.

Come on, it's not that hard to discuss in a professional manner, or is
it?

If you think it wasn't mockery, do you care to explain how your comment
was supposed to help make progress with the topic of the current
discussion?

> Also, please stop trying to defend PGF, I'm sure she is capable of
> doing that for herself.

Siddhesh is not defending her specifically, he is ensuring that glibc
can stay a healthy community by speaking out against behavior we
consider toxic -- behavior such as yours in this and your previous
message.

Re: gag rule joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  9, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 15:55 +0200, Javiera Serrano Polo wrote:
>> El dc 09 de 05 de 2018 a les 17:39 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar va
>> escriure:
>> > That's mockery

> Come on, it's not that hard to discuss in a professional manner, or is
> it?

>> Also, please stop trying to defend PGF, I'm sure she is capable of
>> doing that for herself.

> he is ensuring that glibc can stay a healthy community by speaking out
> against behavior we consider toxic -- behavior such as yours in this
> and your previous message.


Is it ok when e.g. Siddhesh uses that argument, but unprofessional and
toxic when others use them against the position he and you share?

Both arguments had just been used by Siddhesh elsewhere in the debate.

Your toxicity and professionalism detectors seem to be in need of
adjustment.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: gag rule joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 20:57 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  9, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 15:55 +0200, Javiera Serrano Polo wrote:
> >> El dc 09 de 05 de 2018 a les 17:39 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar va
> >> escriure:
> >> > That's mockery
> 
> > Come on, it's not that hard to discuss in a professional manner, or is
> > it?
> 
> >> Also, please stop trying to defend PGF, I'm sure she is capable of
> >> doing that for herself.
> 
> > he is ensuring that glibc can stay a healthy community by speaking out
> > against behavior we consider toxic -- behavior such as yours in this
> > and your previous message.
> 
> 
> Is it ok when e.g. Siddhesh uses that argument,

The two comments he made to you and to Javiera were not the same.  He
suggested that your comments about what RMS might think or feel and why
he might have decided in a certain way may not have been helpful from
RMS' position.
In contrast, he told Javiera to please stop what Siddhesh though was
mockery.
Thus, your comments where specific to a person, but Siddhesh's remarks
to Javeria were about the style of communication on this list.

> but unprofessional and
> toxic when others use them against the position he and you share?

You're mixing things up here.

Siddhesh made a suggestion to you, which I think was in line because his
intent was positive towards RMS; he didn't want to silence you, but said
that maybe you wouldn't perfectly represent RMS.  (I've seen your
comment that you think it was about silencing.)

In contrast, Javiera's second to last comment (the apt-get thing) was
clearly inappropriate.  His last comment just tried to distort Siddhesh'
statements and derail the discussion.  I didn't contribute to any of the
topics we're discussing. 

Re: gag rule joke

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 333 bytes --]

El dj 10 de 05 de 2018 a les 13:33 +0200, Torvald Riegel va escriure:
> You're mixing things up here.

I was worried you forgot Siddhesh's comment; I am glad you do not
suffer from memory issues.

El dc 09 de 05 de 2018 a les 16:48 +0200, Torvald Riegel va escriure:
> toxic -- behavior such as yours

Whatever you say, doc.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: gag rule joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

[After spending an hour to write this, I saw a proposal for
an 11-week cooling off period.  That might be a good idea.
However, I think this message is important and shouldn't wait 11 weeks.]

  >   This is the most aggressive (by far!) I have seen most of 
  > the maintainers become in an email discussion and most of it has been 
  > reactions to doubts on our good faith or to your assertion of ultimate 
  > authority regardless of our near-unanimous opinion.

I think you are saying that all of you were taken aback that I did not
recognize your complete authority, which you considered indisputable.
Some of you were incensed that I didn't accept that.

I think I can understand what that felt like, because I felt something
along the same lines.  I was taken aback that you claimed total
authority over GNU libc, since I never agreed to that.  I was not
incensed, but I was shocked and alarmed.

The specific joke was the immediate practical disagreement that made
us aware of the deeper disagreement.  But that joke was not terribly
important in itself.  At least, not to me.  Arguments might convince
me it is better to delete one particular joke, if I think they are
valid.

However, some went far beyond criticizing one joke.  Some advocated a
radical opposition to any and all jokes, citing a principle they call
"professionalism" (which seems to mean, "be humorless and
businesslike, certainly not a hacker").  One person even expressed
disgust for my humorous title, the Chief GNUisance.  I think he would
prefer that I called myself something with no playfulness in it, such
as "Boss of the GNU Project".  Would that be better?

Humor pervades the GNU Project, because I am in favor of humor.  The
name "GNU" is itself a joke -- a recursive acronym.  If you want to
work on the GNU Project, you'll have to tolerate various kinds of
humor.

That we have a serious purpose is not a reason to aim for
humorlessness: "Ha Ha Only Serious" is a hacker tradition.  See
https://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html.

To advocate a ban on jokes is to oppose a principle I hold dear.  I
hesitate to delete any joke, if that would be appear to be an advance
for a campaign to delete all jokes.

However, if is clear that the matter at hand is only one specific
joke, arguments based on the specifics of the joke could convince me.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: gag rule joke

[Jonathan Nieder]

Hi,

Richard Stallman wrote:

> [After spending an hour to write this, I saw a proposal for
> an 11-week cooling off period.  That might be a good idea.
> However, I think this message is important and shouldn't wait 11 weeks.]

In the spirit of that cooling off period, I won't respond to the
substance of your email.  But:

[...]
> I think you are saying that all of you were taken aback that I did not
> recognize your complete authority, which you considered indisputable.
> Some of you were incensed that I didn't accept that.
>
> I think I can understand what that felt like, because I felt something
> along the same lines.  I was taken aback that you claimed total
> authority over GNU libc, since I never agreed to that.  I was not
> incensed, but I was shocked and alarmed.
>
> The specific joke was the immediate practical disagreement that made
> us aware of the deeper disagreement.  But that joke was not terribly
> important in itself.  At least, not to me.

Thanks much for this context.  Providing context for one's reactions,
after reflecting on them, is a powerful tool for deescalating a
conflict.  I hope others on this list can learn from this experience
and keep the example in mind the next time they're in an argument
where the other side doesn't seem to be listening.

[...]
> To advocate a ban on jokes is to oppose a principle I hold dear.  I
> hesitate to delete any joke, if that would be appear to be an advance
> for a campaign to delete all jokes.
>
> However, if is clear that the matter at hand is only one specific
> joke, arguments based on the specifics of the joke could convince me.

Thanks as well for providing this basis for moving toward agreement,
once the time comes to resume the discussion.

Sincerely,
Jonathan

Re: gag rule joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/11/2018 07:02 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I think you are saying that all of you were taken aback that I did not
> recognize your complete authority, which you considered indisputable.
> Some of you were incensed that I didn't accept that.
> 
> I think I can understand what that felt like, because I felt something
> along the same lines.  I was taken aback that you claimed total
> authority over GNU libc, since I never agreed to that.  I was not
> incensed, but I was shocked and alarmed.
> 
> The specific joke was the immediate practical disagreement that made
> us aware of the deeper disagreement.  But that joke was not terribly
> important in itself.  At least, not to me.  Arguments might convince
> me it is better to delete one particular joke, if I think they are
> valid.

Thank you, I think this is a good summary and basis to start off from 
when we resume discussions after the release.

> Humor pervades the GNU Project, because I am in favor of humor.  The
> name "GNU" is itself a joke -- a recursive acronym.  If you want to
> work on the GNU Project, you'll have to tolerate various kinds of
> humor.
> 
> That we have a serious purpose is not a reason to aim for
> humorlessness: "Ha Ha Only Serious" is a hacker tradition.  See
> https://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html.
> 
> To advocate a ban on jokes is to oppose a principle I hold dear.  I
> hesitate to delete any joke, if that would be appear to be an advance
> for a campaign to delete all jokes.
> 
> However, if is clear that the matter at hand is only one specific
> joke, arguments based on the specifics of the joke could convince me.

Without elaborating on this too much (since we are in a cooling off 
period) this is good to hear too and a very good basis to resume 
discussion after the release.

I think I'll have coffee for breakfast today instead of the mojito ;)

Thanks,
Siddhesh

Re: gag rule joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 21:56 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Today the mob's target is me;
> tomorrow, it could be anyone.

Where's "the mob" please?  A large group of glibc developers has been
disagreeing with you in a professional manner -- does that justify it
for you to call them "the mob"?  Really?

> It is supremely ironic that people are criticizing me for --
> supposedly -- offending people with an impersonal joke, while pouring
> out gross personal insults and attacks.

I've seen no "gross personal insults" by anyone disagreeing with your
opinion in this thread.  Where's the proof for your accusations?

> I ask the GNU libc maintainers to throw water on these flames.  Let's
> make libc development a safe space, a space where verbal aggression is
> not deployed against those that many disagree with.

Please stop trying to frame this as you being the victim, and the glibc
community being the offender.  All that the glibc developer community
did was to remove one of your "jokes", using the community's consensus
process, and insist that glibc is a consensus-based, community-driven
project.  There was no verbal aggression or anything like that.

Some argued that your opinion counts as much as any other opinion in the
consensus process, and that you don't (or shouldn't) have a special role
with more weight in the consensus process.  Do you characterize that as
"verbal aggression" and "the mob"?

Re: gag rule joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

When you summarize the discussion based on the substantial points, you
filter out the verbal aggressions.  But there are plenty of them there
in messages sent to me.

Not everyone engaged in aggression, but it is an important part of the
nature of this situation.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: gag rule joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 23:33 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
> When you summarize the discussion based on the substantial points, you
> filter out the verbal aggressions.  But there are plenty of them there
> in messages sent to me.

Where have there been "verbal aggressions" or "gross personal insults
and attacks" (quoting your earlier email) *on this list*?  Conversations
on this lists were the context for your earlier claims, so the
libc-alpha archive should be sufficient for you to refer to the
instances you thought were "verbal aggression".

I don't know what emails were sent off-list, in private to you, but it
obviously doesn't relate to your earlier claim that there would be
publicly visible verbal aggression that would scare of others from being
a part of the community.
And unless those emails have been from people deeply involved in the
glibc community, you can't blame the community for what people outside
of the community do.  People in the community also didn't tell others to
send you email or stuff like that, all they did was disagree with you,
and in a professional manner.

> Not everyone engaged in aggression, but it is an important part of the
> nature of this situation.

Please be specific.  What's the situation, what's the context?  In the
absence of examples of "verbal aggression" on this list, you can't be
talking about the "situation" in the meaning of the actual discussion
we're having on this list.
If the "situation" is your personal situation (eg, including mail sent
by others not in the glibc community), then I think you need to resolve
it in some other way; the glibc community didn't ask others outside of
the community to become engaged, so it seems unlikely it would have
success asking them to not be engaged.

FWIW, to everyone reading this: This is a glibc-community discussion.
Please do your best to focus on the glibc-related points, and keep it
civilized.

Re: gag rule joke

[Javiera Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 321 bytes --]

El dc 09 de 05 de 2018 a les 10:34 +0200, Torvald Riegel va escriure:
> Where have there been "verbal aggressions" or "gross personal insults
> and attacks" (quoting your earlier email) *on this list*?

El dl 07 de 05 de 2018 a les 17:08 -0500, William Pitcock va escriure:
> asinine behavior of it's present leader.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: gag rule joke

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 05/09/2018 04:29 PM, Javiera Serrano Polo wrote:
> El dc 09 de 05 de 2018 a les 10:34 +0200, Torvald Riegel va escriure:
>> Where have there been "verbal aggressions" or "gross personal insults
>> and attacks" (quoting your earlier email) *on this list*?
> 
> El dl 07 de 05 de 2018 a les 17:08 -0500, William Pitcock va escriure:
>> asinine behavior of it's present leader.

He is not a glibc contributor.

Siddhesh

Re: gag rule joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 12:59 +0200, Javiera Serrano Polo wrote:
> El dc 09 de 05 de 2018 a les 10:34 +0200, Torvald Riegel va escriure:
> > Where have there been "verbal aggressions" or "gross personal insults
> > and attacks" (quoting your earlier email) *on this list*?
> 
> El dl 07 de 05 de 2018 a les 17:08 -0500, William Pitcock va escriure:
> > asinine behavior of it's present leader.

I suppose you assume this is verbal aggression (and I'd agree it's
inappropriate).  But that's one example, and not by a glibc contributor,
as Siddhesh already said.  Let's ignoring whether it's a "gross personal
insult" or not.
But where are the other examples?  The quote claimed that there was more
than one.  Where's the claimed mob attack?

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > In most cultures, government restrictions on access to information
  > which is specifically designed to enable people to commit illegal acts
  > are not considered censorship.

Abortion is not illegal in the US.  It is also not illegal where women's health
organizations give information about it (and thus lose US aid funds).

However, I don't think that the reasons for including the joke
depend on that point.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Florian Weimer]

* Richard Stallman:

>   > In most cultures, government restrictions on access to information
>   > which is specifically designed to enable people to commit illegal acts
>   > are not considered censorship.
>
> Abortion is not illegal in the US.

This wasn't my point.  And I really do not want to discuss the
semantics associated with the word here.

I would be very disappointed if the GNU project promotes extreme views
on censorship (that is, only governments can do it, and that any
restriction on free speech is harmful) because I believe that
censorship is always a possibility when there is a power differential,
that you need a regulated environment to have truly open debate, and
that some speech is directly harmful and governments can legitimately
choose to ban it.

Furthermore, views on censorship (or abortion) should not matter at
all to users and contributors of the GNU C Library.  We want to be
open to all kinds of people who support the free software movement, or
maybe are just interested in maintaining a C library.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > I would be very disappointed if the GNU project promotes extreme views
  > on censorship (that is, only governments can do it, and that any
  > restriction on free speech is harmful)

The GNU Project doesn't state any views about those specific questions.

The joke in the libc manual doesn't, either.  It mocks a specific US
government censorship program -- it doesn't present a philosophical
treatise on censorship.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Christian Brauner]

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 12:36:42AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 05/01/2018 11:11 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> > 
> >   >   However, the GNU C Library Manual is an actively
> >   > inappropriate place to discuss it,
> > 
> > A serious discussion of an unrelated political issue would be a
> > strange digression.  The joke is appropriate precisely because it is a
> > joke, and very short.
> > 
> > Since you understand it wasn't right to delete this without my
> > approval, would you please undo that mistake?
>  
> As a GNU Developer for the community I OK'd the patch.
> 
> As a GNU Developer I answer to the GNU Project.
> 
> I also apologize for not contacting you directly.
> 
> This does not change my position on the joke and it's relation to
> abortion and censorship.
> 
> A large group of developers, serious senior developers, at least 3
> project stewards (GNU Developers for the project), are indicating
> that they do not share your same view on the joke. Please consider
> their input and work with me to reach a consensus position.

After having read the LVM article and following the thread here I feel
the need to voice my opinion: I'm in favor of removing this joke and
reverting the revert.
The comments on the LWN article and the wider discussion seem to
indicate that some question whether there is sufficient consensus among
maintainers. Even though I'm neither a senior developer nor steward, but
a simple maintainer I feel it's important to explicitly voice my opinion
to help build consensus.

Christian

> 
> The underlying notions that the joke tries to express are important
> and I am more than willing to engage with you and Alex to write
> new text and put it back into the manual to meet our needs to
> express a viewpoint on censorship.
> 
> Let me propose another the following patch for discussion. It is
> *not* a @cartouche, and will therefore be visible in all of our
> info and html files (which is better IMO).
> 
> 2018-05-03  Carlos O'Donell  <carlos@systemhalted.org>
> 
> 	* manual/intro.texi (Government Censorship): New node.
> 
> diff --git a/manual/intro.texi b/manual/intro.texi
> index cc9c99f543..b413652194 100644
> --- a/manual/intro.texi
> +++ b/manual/intro.texi
> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ portability.
>  
>  @menu
>  * Getting Started::             What this manual is for and how to use it.
> +* Government Censorship::       Government censorship.
>  * Standards and Portability::   Standards and sources upon which the GNU
>                                   C library is based.
>  * Using the Library::           Some practical uses for the library.
> @@ -29,7 +30,7 @@ portability.
>                                   this manual.
>  @end menu
>  
> -@node Getting Started, Standards and Portability,  , Introduction
> +@node Getting Started, Government Censorship,  , Introduction
>  @section Getting Started
>  
>  This manual is written with the assumption that you are at least
> @@ -56,6 +57,21 @@ are writing your programs you can recognize @emph{when} to make use of
>  library functions, and @emph{where} in this manual you can find more
>  specific information about them.
>  
> +@node Government Censorship, Standards and Portability, Getting Started, Introduction
> +@section Government Censorship
> +@cindex censorship
> +
> +@string{Trigger warning: Talk of abortion.}
> +
> +The GNU project takes the position that government censorship should
> +not be supported.  Censorship threatens the distribution of information
> +in ways that restricts the freedoms of our users and harms the creativity
> +of the project.
> +
> +Censorship of technical information, cultural information, and even
> +information related to human abortion (regardless of your position on
> +the topic), should not be supported. Such censorship restricts the
> +freedoms of all users.
>  
>  @node Standards and Portability, Using the Library, Getting Started, Introduction
>  @section Standards and Portability
> ---
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Carlos.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[DJ Delorie]

Wow, I check my email once while on vacation, and this is what I find...

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> The point of this joke is even more important now than it was when I
> first wrote it.

I know many people who have been through various pregnancy-related
traumas, including abortion, and on their behalf, I strongly object to
having this text - or any similar text - in the manual.  My own
daughter's birth was problematic, and I can't imaging thinking "gee, I'd
like to read about this in a programming manual some day".  It's never a
case of "some day you'll laugh about it" because I never have.

Loss of a child, for any reason, is NEVER a joking matter, directly or
indirectly.

> Please do not remove it.

Censorship from RMS?  Ironic.

> GNU is not a purely technical project, so the fact that this is
> not strictly and grimly technical is not a reason to remove this.

The fact that it's utterly tasteless and irrelevent, is.

As for the argument that certain words might be triggers, well, words
have multiple meanings and *any* word could be a trigger.  There's
little we can do about that, other than to be respectful and tactful
when considering our documentation needs.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Javier Serrano Polo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 243 bytes --]

--- a/stdlib/abort.c	2018-05-03 13:01:48.000000000 +0200
+++ b/stdlib/abort.c	2018-05-03 13:04:23.000000000 +0200
@@ -121,3 +121,4 @@
     ABORT_INSTRUCTION;
 }
 libc_hidden_def (abort)
+weak_alias (abort, murder_innocent_process)

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3386 bytes --]

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > +weak_alias (abort, murder_innocent_process)

This would be funny if given a suitable conditional

#ifdef REPUBLICAN
...
#endif

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > > Please do not remove it.

  > Censorship from RMS?  Ironic.

It's just the opposite.  You are trying to censor the FSF's manual.

The real irony is that you feel entitled to do this -- to the point
that if the FSF doesn't obey, you believe it is censoring you.

  > > GNU is not a purely technical project, so the fact that this is
  > > not strictly and grimly technical is not a reason to remove this.

  > The fact that it's utterly tasteless and irrelevent, is.

That's an opinion.  I have a different opinion and I generally
follow my opinions rather than others' opinions.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See https://stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Sat, 2018-05-05 at 00:02 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
>   > > Please do not remove it.
> 
>   > Censorship from RMS?  Ironic.
> 
> It's just the opposite.  You are trying to censor the FSF's manual.
> 
> The real irony is that you feel entitled to do this -- to the point
> that if the FSF doesn't obey, you believe it is censoring you.

DJ didn't say that the FSF censors him.

>   > > GNU is not a purely technical project, so the fact that this is
>   > > not strictly and grimly technical is not a reason to remove this.
> 
>   > The fact that it's utterly tasteless and irrelevent, is.
> 
> That's an opinion.

Of course it is, but what about some empathy, perhaps?  I do care
whether a fellow, active developer feels unhappy because of personal
experiences, which are brought back up by a gratuitous attempt at a
joke.
We want to have a community-based decision process because that's what
makes us effective, and what invites contributors because it's an
inclusive environment.

On the other side, there's you invoking some leadership "rule" that has
no day-to-day importance for the work the glibc developer community
does, just to defend a joke that's pretty lame (IMO -- I know Alex has
praised it).

Do you think that choosing between those two sides is a hard decision to
make for people interested in the health of this project?

> I have a different opinion and I generally
> follow my opinions rather than others' opinions.

Good for you, and so will the developers that are doing the work to keep
glibc revelant for it's users, and do all they can to make this an
actual *community* project.

Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[William Pitcock]

Hello,

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
> The point of this joke is even more important now than it was when I
> first wrote it.  Please do not remove it.
>
> GNU is not a purely technical project, so the fact that this is
> not strictly and grimly technical is not a reason to remove this.

When I was much younger, I used to be an avid supporter of everything
the FSF and GNU project stood for.  In most cases, I like to believe I
still am.  But this joke is as stale as the St. Ignutius routine you
do, and to be clear, I do not support that either.

When you do things like this, you push people away from contributing
to GNU projects.  When you then later declare unilateral control of
the GNU project to keep a joke that is, frankly, not funny at all, and
trivially interpreted in a way that is offensive to those we care
about, all it does is motivate me to create new free software
replacements to GNU software, with a governance model that guarantees
that there is no dictator at the top.  I am not the only person
motivated that way: many GNU software have been replaced with
technically superior libre replacements.  Right now, I am considering
a coreutils replacement in much the same way as I replaced pkg-config,
because I cannot continue to support software that would be
dictatorially controlled against the wishes of those doing the actual
work.

By taking a dictatorial approach here, you move the FSF and GNU
project one step further towards irrelevance.  Is preserving the joke
worth moving in the direction of losing, arguably, the most important
legacy of software freedom?

I could care less about the joke, but I care a lot about the
usurpation of the actual glibc maintainers and the belief that they
can just be replaced if they disagree with you.  I care about the
unilateral defense of a joke that ultimately will not prevent the
policy you discuss from moving forward, real activism is needed there,
not jokes.

Finally, this way of thinking leads to the end (through increased
irrelevance) of the FSF and GNU projects.

William

Re: delete abortion joke

[Don Barry]

I support, 100%, Richard Stallman in this.  Let me explain why.

Those who insist on "consensus" and "democracy" may or may not be
well-intentioned, but the devil is very much in the details.

My guess is that none of those criticizing Richard here are actually
members of the FSF.  Yes, they are employed to work on FSF projects, but
their decision was made by corporate interests, not by solidarity with
the interests on the principles upon which the FSF was founded.

What does it mean to let "democracy" among this much broader layer of
people non-aligned with the FSF prevail?  It means effectively, a
rejection that FSF represents something more than simply the pragmatic
advantage of software with source code available.  It means,
realistically, dissolving the Free Software Movement into the "Open
Source" domain, which was, if we are to be honest, was a *reaction
against*, and not a friendly alliance with, the free software ethos.

If there is to be democracy, it should be within those who signed on to
the FSF for its mission, and who see there's a component to its work
beyond that of simply providing a base of software for corporations to
build upon and profit from.

The "threats", such as they are, to fork glibc are no different from
various other projects which have emerged that are hostile to the FSF,
and who see the body of work which emerged from its efforts of many
years as fruits they would love to take, but which are saddled,
unfortunately in their eyes, with such things as the GPL and its Golden
Rule base.  They cannot repudiate the GPL, of course, but they could,
with a sufficient independent period of stewardship, effectively neuter
it through assurances that no actual enforcement was likely, and in any
event divorce it from the larger body of advocacy which the FSF has
engaged in.

I have run GNU software since the early 1980s.  I was deeply moved by
the GNU Manifesto, and though I see the necessity, as a socialist, to go
even deeper into the structure of society to realize its aims, those
aims are ones in which I am in full agreement, as far as they go.  I
have seen others arrive to take and benefit from the GNU world over many
years, with a certain gleam of how they could profit from GNU software,
with little thought to the overall ethos that made it possible in an
earlier epoch that did not have broad industrial contribution.  And I've
seen industrial contributors, tied by profit and its thousands of
threads, enter as the majority contribution for some central GNU
projects, but without the slightest interest, and even some hostility
to, the GNU mission.

As to the language of "safe spaces" and "triggering" that have been used
to float the idea of an expropriation (or failing that, a neutering of
the role of RMS), that's plainly political cover, chaff to obscure the
hostility to RMS and the FSF.  Identity politics, in alliance with
postmodernism, has a long right-wing history, promoted deeply by the
Democratic party, to weaken actual "left" thought.  In reality, what is
being proposed is the compartmentalizing of people's prejudices as a
social good, including prejudices against the founding principles of the
GNU projects, by declaring any mention of those principles, or even
statements vaguely in line with them, "triggering" and thus to be
expunged.

What does it say when a certain layer declares unacceptable the
elementary and even rather banal defense of rights like abortion through
satire which is so trivial that it hardly requires a defense?  There
isn't the slightest progressive content in their criticisms.  It is
unashamedly and unabashedly right-wing.

Re: delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/07/2018 08:46 PM, Don Barry wrote:
> As to the language of "safe spaces" and "triggering" that have been used
> to float the idea of an expropriation (or failing that, a neutering of
> the role of RMS), that's plainly political cover, chaff to obscure the
> hostility to RMS and the FSF.  Identity politics, in alliance with
> postmodernism, has a long right-wing history, promoted deeply by the
> Democratic party, to weaken actual "left" thought.  In reality, what is
> being proposed is the compartmentalizing of people's prejudices as a
> social good, including prejudices against the founding principles of the
> GNU projects, by declaring any mention of those principles, or even
> statements vaguely in line with them, "triggering" and thus to be
> expunged.

Richard's role is not neutered. He is the GNU Project leader. The point
being made is that GNU package maintainers have independence to implement
what is required, and be trusted by Richard when their input is
overwhelmingly negative regarding the joke aspect of the text. He appointed
us after all, and trusted us with the project.

I am a GNU package maintainer for the GNU C Library, and I support the FSF,
but I do not agree that this text is the best way to support getting our
message across.

There have been 3 GNU package maintainers who publicly said they did not
like the joke, and only 1 (Alexandre Oliva) who wanted the joke kept.

If you want democracy with the FSF, that's:

3 - Yay (for removal)
1 - Nay
5 - Abstain 

There are 9 (10 if you count Roland) GNU package maintainers for glibc.

Do we remove the joke?

There is no GNU policy for conflict between GNU package maintainers.

The GNU package maintainers need to discuss issues among themselves.

As of today we are still discussing the issue.

> What does it say when a certain layer declares unacceptable the
> elementary and even rather banal defense of rights like abortion through
> satire which is so trivial that it hardly requires a defense?  There
> isn't the slightest progressive content in their criticisms.  It is
> unashamedly and unabashedly right-wing. 

You have grouped together all responses into one, because you had to,
because to respond to each of the authors on this thread would take too
long for you to do effectively. I understand that. However, each author
articulated a slightly different point.

However, what you miss is that there are serious patches, to turn the joke
into a whole info section talking about censorship, but Richard has stated
that the joke is better, despite the objections.

My position as a GNU package maintainer for glibc is that satire is too
complicated to use across all of the cultures that use GNU software, we
should speak plainly instead and talk clearly about the issues at hand.

Why is one abortion joke better than a whole chapter on censorship that
more people can understand?

That's what I don't understand.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> 3 - Yay (for removal)
> 1 - Nay
> 5 - Abstain 

> Do we remove the joke?

If we were voting rather than building consensus, I would say we would
remove it.

> There is no GNU policy for conflict between GNU package maintainers.

Maybe we don't need one.

When GNU requests appointed maintainers to make a certain change, we
should all be aligned in voting, consensus or whatever decision making
process.

When GNU doesn't, we are just bound by our general commitment to GNU and
should proceed in ways that we believe best serve its interests, and
those of the specific project.

IMHO :-)

> Why is one abortion joke better than a whole chapter on censorship that
> more people can understand?

Because we're humans.  Humor has a way of breaking mind barriers that a
whole chapter doesn't.  It requires forming connections in ways that
regular prose doesn't.  It's a very powerful tool to speak truth to
power.

(I'm not saying this specific joke displays these features, mind you,
just answering your question with a general notion that reflects my
understanding and personal experience as a writer and public speaker)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: delete abortion joke

[DJ Delorie]

I don't recognize your email, so perhaps you're new to this group.  If
so, welcome!  Please keep in mind that people's opinions are their own
(unless stated otherwise) and assume the best when interpreting what
they say.

Don Barry <don@sirtf.com> writes:
> My guess is that none of those criticizing Richard here are actually
> members of the FSF.

Most of us have been contributing to GNU projects for many years, if not
decades, both as part of our jobs and outside of them.  I've been
contributing to GNU projects for 30 years now, and have even contributed
to changes in the GPL itself.  Donating money to the FSF proper is not
required in order to be a loyal supporter.

> not by solidarity with the interests on the principles upon which the
> FSF was founded.

See https://www.fsf.org/about/ for documentation on the principles on
which the FSF was founded.  It's all about software freedom.  Other
topics, including but not limited to government censorship and abortion,
are not listed.

Also, be careful to not confuse the FSF's principles with RMS's
principles.  The FSF is run by a board of trustees, not by RMS alone.

> What does it mean to let "democracy" among this much broader layer of
> people non-aligned with the FSF prevail?

This is not about alignment with the FSF, and I object to your
implication that the GNU maintainers are not aligned with the FSF's
goals.  This is about one person (RMS) dictating changes that are
outside of the FSF's stated charter, not following the group's policies
for managing change, and against the will of those who are charged by
the FSF with maintaining the software.

It has turned into a heated discussion of HOW we manage change, not WHAT
the change is.  Are we a cathedral, or a bazaar?  Autocracy, or
democracy?  Are we strict, or flexible?  How much control do maintainers
and stewards really have?  Have the rules been followed?  Do the rules
need to change?

This isn't the first time, either.  GCC already went through this, and
forked (egcs), and has benefited greatly.  Glibc itself "forked" at
2.2.4, and underwent drastic change again when the new consensus-based
model was introduced, each time benefitting from it.  Perhaps it's
happening again, perhaps it isn't.  At least we have the freedom to
discuss it :-)

> If there is to be democracy, it should be within those who signed on to
> the FSF for its mission,

Ah, plutocracy - government by those with money.  I prefer to "sign on"
with the FSF in other ways, like by volunteering my time, or promoting
software freedom.

> and who see there's a component to its work beyond that of simply
> providing a base of software for corporations to build upon and profit
> from.

Well, that would be us, the maintainers, so... whew :-)

> Identity politics, in alliance with . . .

Such political discourse is definitely off-topic for this list.

> In reality, what is being proposed is

... the removal of an off-topic joke from a technical manual.  That's
all.  Please don't make it more than that, because it isn't.

Re: delete abortion joke

[Russ Allbery]

Don Barry <don@sirtf.com> writes:

> My guess is that none of those criticizing Richard here are actually
> members of the FSF.  Yes, they are employed to work on FSF projects, but
> their decision was made by corporate interests, not by solidarity with
> the interests on the principles upon which the FSF was founded.

Speaking as someone who is not a glibc maintainer or contributor (just a
user and an interested bystander), but who has been an FSF associate
member and financial supporter for fifteen years, I think Carlos is doing
an excellent job managing this conflict and completely agree with the
approach that he's taking.  He's trying to avoid binary choices, dig
deeper into the motivations of the conflicted parties, and look for
creative alternative solutions, and he's doing a much better job at it
than I would have managed.

For whatever it's worth (which I don't think is a ton, but since you
specifically called out FSF members such as myself), I have been delighted
with the community consensus model that has been used for glibc
development of late and think it serves the mission of the FSF extremely
well, including in steering the delicate path between empowering active
contributors and avoiding giving those funded to contribute as part of
their jobs too heavy a hand.

-- 
Russ Allbery (eagle@eyrie.org)              <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Re: delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel]

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 20:46 -0400, Don Barry wrote:
> The "threats", such as they are, to fork glibc are no different from
> various other projects which have emerged that are hostile to the FSF,
> and who see the body of work which emerged from its efforts of many
> years as fruits they would love to take, but which are saddled,
> unfortunately in their eyes, with such things as the GPL and its Golden
> Rule base.

You make several wide-ranging statements and accusations.  Let's be more
specific, and see whether your comments actually apply to the discussion
we're having in the glibc project right now.

AFAIR, I've been the person who suggested that we should fork iff
there's no acknowledgment that glibc is a community-driven,
consensus-based project.  You posted to this list, so the context of
your remarks is this list and this thread specifically.  Which means you
are saying that my statement about forking is a "threat", and that I'd
be hostile to the FSF, and dislike the GPL.  Do you actually have any
proof for that statement?

Let me explain what's going on here.

First of all, this isn't a "threat", because that would mean I'd care
whether glibc was under the GNU umbrella or not.  That's not the point.
My statement was directed at my fellow developers, because I think it's
a problem for the developer community if the there's an undermining of
the consensus-based process that we have established in recent years and
that is serving glibc very well.  Preventing this problem is what I care
about -- it just happened to come from RMS, but that's not essential.
Forking is an obvious way of working around the problem, but there are
others.  One that I explicitly called out is RMS (or the FSF)
acknowledging that glibc is indeed a community-driven, consensus-based
project.

Furthermore, you certainly know that forking wouldn't change the
license; so much about your claim that this is about avoiding the GPL.

Finally, regarding "efforts of many years as fruits they would love to
take": please understand who's doing the work to keep glibc going, and
who has argued in favor of removing the "joke".  You make it sounds as
this is some hostile takeover -- and accuse the very developers that
have done a large part of the work for many years.  That doesn't make
sense.

Delete abortion joke

[rain1]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 229 bytes --]

Hello

I propose the following patch, which deletes the abortion joke from the 
glibc manual. The joke does not provide any useful information about the 
abort() function so removing it will not hinder use of glibc.

Thank you.


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-manual-startup.texi-remove-abortion-joke-from-the-do.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff; name=0001-manual-startup.texi-remove-abortion-joke-from-the-do.patch, Size: 1020 bytes --]

From d8cae2653abb0c9b4c63649cac5861ca44b342e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Raymond Nicholson <rain1@airmail.cc>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:00:34 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] * manual/startup.texi: remove abortion joke from the
 documentation of abort().

---
 manual/startup.texi | 8 --------
 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/manual/startup.texi b/manual/startup.texi
index 7395d32dd0..21c48cd037 100644
--- a/manual/startup.texi
+++ b/manual/startup.texi
@@ -1005,14 +1005,6 @@ This function actually terminates the process by raising a
 intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}.
 @end deftypefun
 
-@c Put in by rms.  Don't remove.
-@cartouche
-@strong{Future Change Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations
-may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
-calling this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
-acceptable way of terminating a program.
-@end cartouche
-
 @node Termination Internals
 @subsection Termination Internals
 
-- 
2.17.0

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Zack Weinberg]

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 1:07 PM,  <rain1@airmail.cc> wrote:
>
> I propose the following patch, which deletes the abortion joke from the
> glibc manual. The joke does not provide any useful information about the
> abort() function so removing it will not hinder use of glibc.

Ugh, is that still there?   It wasn't funny twenty years ago and it's
only gotten less funny since.  I'm in favor of removing it.  Any
objections?

zw

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Ondřej Bílka]

On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:58:19PM -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 1:07 PM,  <rain1@airmail.cc> wrote:
> >
> > I propose the following patch, which deletes the abortion joke from the
> > glibc manual. The joke does not provide any useful information about the
> > abort() function so removing it will not hinder use of glibc.
> 
> Ugh, is that still there?   It wasn't funny twenty years ago and it's
> only gotten less funny since.  I'm in favor of removing it.  Any
> objections?
> 
Objection, it became funny again with Trump's administration. 

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Zack Weinberg]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Ondřej Bílka <neleai@seznam.cz> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:58:19PM -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 1:07 PM,  <rain1@airmail.cc> wrote:
>> >
>> > I propose the following patch, which deletes the abortion joke from the
>> > glibc manual. The joke does not provide any useful information about the
>> > abort() function so removing it will not hinder use of glibc.
>>
>> Ugh, is that still there?   It wasn't funny twenty years ago and it's
>> only gotten less funny since.  I'm in favor of removing it.  Any
>> objections?
>>
> Objection, it became funny again with Trump's administration.

Oddly enough, I think Trump's election made it even less funny.  But
also, whether or not you think it's a good joke - and I want to
reiterate that I don't think it was _ever_ a good joke - joking about
this particular topic is deeply inappropriate for The Gnu C Library
Manual, in my opinion.

zw

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Paul Eggert]

I agree with removing this joke. A bit of humor is fine - indeed, the manual 
could use a bit more than it has - but this attempt at humor does not work. The 
manual should be high-quality, and that includes high-quality jokes.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 04/28/2018 01:58 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 1:07 PM,  <rain1@airmail.cc> wrote:
>>
>> I propose the following patch, which deletes the abortion joke from the
>> glibc manual. The joke does not provide any useful information about the
>> abort() function so removing it will not hinder use of glibc.
> 
> Ugh, is that still there?   It wasn't funny twenty years ago and it's
> only gotten less funny since.  I'm in favor of removing it.  Any
> objections?

I'm with Florian and Paul, the joke is not in an invariant section (which
I would also like to remove, but that's another story), and is not appropriate
for a technical manual. I had never noticed the joke myself or I would have
proposed removal earlier.

Please remove the joke in a single commit and not mix the removal with
anything else.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Zack Weinberg]

I have pushed the following, with attribution to Raymond.

zw

---
 ChangeLog           | 4 ++++
 manual/startup.texi | 8 --------
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index 3ec5164008..881cd27eaf 100644
--- a/ChangeLog
+++ b/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2018-04-30  Raymond Nicholson <rain1@airmail.cc>
+
+	* manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove inappropriate joke.
+
 2018-04-27  Adhemerval Zanella  <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
 
 	* sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/readahead.c: Remove file.
diff --git a/manual/startup.texi b/manual/startup.texi
index 7395d32dd0..21c48cd037 100644
--- a/manual/startup.texi
+++ b/manual/startup.texi
@@ -1005,14 +1005,6 @@ This function actually terminates the process by raising a
 intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}.
 @end deftypefun
 
-@c Put in by rms.  Don't remove.
-@cartouche
-@strong{Future Change Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations
-may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of
-calling this function.  We would be required to say that this is not an
-acceptable way of terminating a program.
-@end cartouche
-
 @node Termination Internals
 @subsection Termination Internals
 
-- 
2.17.0

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Florian Weimer]

> I propose the following patch, which deletes the abortion joke from the 
> glibc manual.

I'm not sure if it was intended as a joke.  People quite literally
believe such things.

I think we can remove the note because it's not in one of the formally
Invariant Sections, so let's do it.

I believe you don't have commit access yourself.  Should I push this
along with a suitable ChangeLog entry?

We should also clean up the language regarding the risk of
distributing cryptography code.

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Zack Weinberg]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
...
> We should also clean up the language regarding the risk of
> distributing cryptography code.

I have a patch in hand that does that (just drops the entire section -
we can't practically keep it up to date so better not to get into it
at all).

zw

Re: Delete abortion joke

[Florian Weimer]

* Zack Weinberg:

> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> ...
>> We should also clean up the language regarding the risk of
>> distributing cryptography code.
>
> I have a patch in hand that does that (just drops the entire section -
> we can't practically keep it up to date so better not to get into it
> at all).

Sounds good.  Please also remove all references to FIPS, which are
outdated as well.