Re: delete abortion joke

[DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>]

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.