Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

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