Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

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  There are non-withdrawn objections on the record to the patch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