Re: delete abortion joke

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>]

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.