From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1D553858D33 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2023 06:10:18 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org F1D553858D33 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gnu.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gnu.org Received: from linux-libre.fsfla.org ([2001:470:142:5::54] helo=free.home) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qd2mu-0005O0-Ry; Mon, 04 Sep 2023 02:10:17 -0400 Received: from livre (livre.home [172.31.160.2]) by free.home (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 38469Xoq124795 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 4 Sep 2023 03:09:34 -0300 From: Alexandre Oliva To: Florian Weimer Cc: Alexandre Oliva via Libc-alpha , "Carlos O'Donell" , Jakub Jelinek , Andreas Schwab , Joseph Myers , Maxim Kuvyrkov Subject: Re: [Action Required] glibc decision to use CTI services. Organization: Free thinker, not speaking for the GNU Project References: <87edjjcxg5.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Errors-To: aoliva@lxoliva.fsfla.org Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2023 03:09:33 -0300 In-Reply-To: <87edjjcxg5.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> (Florian Weimer's message of "Thu, 31 Aug 2023 12:34:18 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Aug 31, 2023, Florian Weimer wrote: > I'm not sure why =E2=80=9CGNU=E2=80=9D should have a say in this GNU libc is part of the GNU Project. GNU libc appointed maintainers have formally accepted responsibilities to operate in line with the project in our capacity as GNU maintainers. We're being called to make a decision, as GNU maintainers, that pretty much alienates from GNU the package entrusted to us. Any legitimate decision-making powers we maintainers have over GNU libc, it was delegated to us by GNU, conditioned on our observance of these responsibilities. We're expected to make sure that contributions that are accepted advance the project's goals, and to ask for guidance when there's uncertainty. How could one possibly imagine that GNU should *not* have a say on it? > How would that even work? Ask some GNU-appointed maintainer you trust who hasn't gone rogue, they should be able to convey that answer to you in a way you wouldn't doubt as much as if it came from me. > I think we don't have consensus what GNU's current decision-making > structure looks like. I realize there are people who'd like the GNU leadership structure to be different from what it is, but that's at the peril of delegitimizing their own roles appointed through the existing structure. Anyhow, GNU mission and structure are not matters for consensus among whoever wishes to share their opinions: those who agree to volunteer to a cause don't get to redefine the cause, and making it so that they did would make the cause too vulnerable to dilution and occupation. Even majority votes among the general population are a poor choice for promoting social change: it captures where most of the population *is*, which is by definition the opposite of social *change*. GNU mission and structure are what they have been since long before any of us started contributing to it. They were designed to be reasonably robust against hostile takeover, power grabs and attempts to dilute GNU's goals or otherwise turn GNU into something else, while enabling GNU to accept contributions from people and organizations who don't share its values and goals. Historically, most contributors haven't shared our values or goals, and enabling them to reset our course would have been the surest way to get none of the social change we hope to achieve. Instead of striving for an overall average likely influenced by extraneous interests, we're better served by the strongest commitment to the cause, to the goals, to the values, and the deepest understanding of the challenges we face. That diversity of values, alignments, motivations and opinions among potentially-misaligned contributors also makes room for some tension when people and organizations attempt to project or even impose by force onto GNU their own extraneous stances, without regard for the decision-making structure, for why it is as it is, or for what we're up for, up against, or up to. These tensions are sometimes hard to navigate, but they strike an IMHO ideal balance between accepting contributions from anyone willing to contribute to the cause, and rejecting changes that would be detrimental to the cause. --=20 Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lx= o/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice b= ut very few check the facts. Think Assange & Stallman. The empires strike ba= ck