Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #12238 > unrolled thread

Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board]

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2021-04-06 22:50 +0200
    Diversity in an international project Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2021-04-07 19:00 +0200
      Re: Diversity in an international project Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2021-04-07 20:00 +0200
      This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-04-07 20:00 +0200
        Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other] Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-04-09 17:40 +0200
          Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other] Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2021-04-09 18:10 +0200
            Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other] Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> - 2021-04-09 19:20 +0200
          Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other] Gilles Filippini <pini@debian.org> - 2021-04-09 18:10 +0200
          Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other] Roger Shimizu <rogershimizu@gmail.com> - 2021-04-09 18:50 +0200
          When is a political view too strong to be compatible with Debian Participation Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-04-09 19:00 +0200
          Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other] Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2021-04-09 19:30 +0200
          Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other] Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2021-04-09 19:40 +0200
          Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other] Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <tiago@debian.org> - 2021-04-09 20:20 +0200
            Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other] Iustin Pop <iustin@debian.org> - 2021-04-09 21:20 +0200
            Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other] Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2021-04-10 00:00 +0200
              Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other] Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2021-04-10 00:20 +0200
                Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other] Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2021-04-10 00:30 +0200
                  Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-04-10 10:00 +0200
              Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other] Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-04-10 18:20 +0200
          Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other] Iustin Pop <iustin@debian.org> - 2021-04-09 21:20 +0200
    Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2021-04-07 21:50 +0200
      Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> - 2021-04-11 02:20 +0200
        Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> - 2021-04-11 03:20 +0200
          Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Geert Stappers <stappers@debian.org> - 2021-04-11 09:20 +0200
          Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-04-11 13:10 +0200
          Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> - 2021-04-11 15:20 +0200
        Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2021-04-12 15:20 +0200
          Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2021-04-12 15:30 +0200
          Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2021-04-12 16:00 +0200
            Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2021-04-12 17:10 +0200
              Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2021-04-12 18:50 +0200
                Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2021-04-12 20:30 +0200
          Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] "Thaddeus H. Black" <thb@debian.org> - 2021-04-12 17:50 +0200
            Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2021-04-12 18:30 +0200
              Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Andreas Metzler <ametzler@bebt.de> - 2021-04-12 19:20 +0200
              Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-04-12 19:20 +0200
                Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2021-04-13 22:30 +0200
                  Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> - 2021-04-14 09:30 +0200
                  Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-04-15 15:40 +0200
            Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board] Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2021-04-12 20:20 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#12238 — Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

[Apologies, this is all off-topic for debian-devel and I should have set an
appropriate MFT from the beginning.  Corrected now.]

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 09:59:55AM +0200, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote:

> Firstly, I was notidied via mail that the message was initially private (but
> it was not, if I understand what you say, and since I read it). I am sorry
> for this as your thread should have been private and would not have created
> such situation. I would not have had any feedback if it had been private,
> sure.

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that because someone has
taken my private messages, without my consent, and posted them to a public
mailing list, *I* am worthy of reprimand with respect to conduct on public
mailing lists?

You asked "both sides" to de-escalate in the context of the Debian mailing
lists, when only one party had escalated anything on Debian mailing lists.

I am not defending my particular private messages as appropriate to post on
a Debian mailing list.  I also did not post them to a Debian mailing list.
They would have been off-topic and noise and there is no reason to subject
the rest of the Debian community to such a distraction.

> Secondly, and I let others CT members confirm or not, the author of this
> message is now under attention, so that such facts do not happen again.  I
> am not sure anymore (so much things happent last week about mailing
> lists), but the person may be under a possible ban or ban by listmasters. 
> If he is not, the mail I sent requested him to stop, and if he does not,
> actions needs to be taken categorically.

Banning this person, who is not a member of the Debian community in any way,
from our mailing lists, seems like a perfectly appropriate course of action;
and if this has been done, I appreciate the listmasters' action in this
regard.  But it would have been perfectly applicable for the Community Team
to engage directly with the listmasters to achieve this effect, *instead of*
publicly calling for de-escalation from "both sides".

> Anyway, even if we struggle against transphobia, and that is a central
> point of our CoC and our general action as a CT, when the public mails
> become insulting, with words such as "shit" or others personal injures,
> are not acceptable anyway.  Even if such a tone defends a minority, it
> does not help Debian to be a welcoming community.  The good thing is to
> report such mails, in particular when becoming public, and ban the person
> who is author of such attacks against transphobic or any other form of
> diversity.

Debian's diversity statement commits us to be welcoming to all people
regardless of who they *are*.

It does *not* commit us to welcome all people into our community regardless
of the *idealogies they express*.

Nazis can fuck off.

I will reserve the right to tell nazis to fuck off, in private or in public
according to what I deem most appropriate and effective, up until the point
that the Debian Project kicks me out, or until it becomes clear to me that
the Debian Project is no longer worth defending against nazis.

If the Community Team thinks there is a list of words that are unacceptable
under any circumstances on Debian mailing lists, then they should publish
the list of those words for transparency.  And they ought to work with the
listmasters to implement this as an automatic filter instead of a post-hoc
persecution of Debian project members based on content they have sent.

I do hope that it includes the phrase "freedom of speech", which has been
used to do much more harm to our community than "shit".

> > Hi all,
> > 
> > After some long thought, I believe this message warrants a public response
> > (and discussion).
> > 
> > The facts are these:
> > 
> >   - an individual who is not part of the Debian community sent me (and other
> >     people) a private, unsolicited email sharing his views on the current
> >     topic of the day.
> >   - I responded, privately, telling him exactly what I thought of him and his
> >     views.
> >   - He in turn forwarded my private responses to a public mailing list
> >     without my consent.
> > 
> > The response by Jean-Philippe, a member of the Debian Community Team, was a
> > call for de-escalation and civility "by both sides"; i.e., tone policing.
> > 
> > While I am no oppressed minority who is going to be turned away from Debian
> > as a result of such tone policing, a member of the Community Team tone
> > policing an ally who is categorically rejecting transphobia sends a very bad
> > message to trans members of our community.  It shows that responding to
> > transphobes by communicating using strong language that the Debian community
> > rejects their views leaves one potentially subject to censure from the
> > Community Team.
> > 
> > I think the Community Team should do better.
> > 
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 09:21:32PM +0100, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Please descalate, it is an emergency. The RMS debate is very difficult for
> > > many people I guess, painful or, at least, energy consumer. It often results
> > > to ghoughts about the compliance of some mails with the code of conduct. But
> > > those 2 mails are clearly not acceptable from the formal point of view. You
> > > cannot let yourself dominate by your badest feelings, injuring each other
> > > etc. I am sure that is completely out of the code of conduct. Be respectful,
> > > avoiding to say words such as "shit" "fuck" "fascist", and please try
> > > staying moderated. Debian will be a welcoming community if anyone can
> > > express his opinons politely and others reply politely, with respect, even
> > > if he disagrees. So really, descalte! If the thread is so abrasive, just
> > > don't reply, ignore, I am sure it will not change your daily life in your
> > > team or in the project. Or wait some hours before doing it. But again, such
> > > wordings are unacceptable, regardless the topic itself and the ideas. Keep
> > > in mind you speak publicly and your mails stay in archives forever.
> > > 
> > > Thanks in advance
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Jean-Philippe MENGUAL
> > > Debian Developer non uploading
> > > Community team member
> > > Accessibility team member
> > > debian-l10n-french team member
> > > President of Debian France non-profit organization
> > > Le 26/03/2021 à 20:22, Michael Shigorin a écrit :
> > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:23:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 09:14:16PM +0300, Michael Shigorin wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 09:18:19AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > > > > > You absolutely have NO right to speak for all of the community
> > > > > > ..so do go and apologize for the attempt in public.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > And I tell you that you're humanophobic by claiming someone
> > > > > > > > is "transphobic".
> > > > > > > Fuck off, nobody asked you for your shitty fascist opinion.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > It's *you* who's a fascist here.
> > > > > > Go read the definition and look at what *you* do.
> > > > 
> > > > ...e.g., http://dictionary.com/browse/fascism
> > > > 
> > > > > > Both of my grandfathers actually fought Nazi and Japanese
> > > > > > invaders.  Looks like none of yours ever confronted them --
> > > > > > they would have raised you a human, not a fascist.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > But you will learn the hard way.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Good luck.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Not very good at fucking off, are you?
> > > > 
> > > > Yep.
> > > > 
> > > > Jonathan, I hereby demand that the Debian Project gets rid
> > > > of this manipulative, insultive, divisive and libelous member.
> > > > He (them? it?) can't even stand by the rules (pro|im)posed.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm considering providing financial support to Chris Punches
> > > > and asking him to not omit suing Steve Langasek by chance:
> > > > http://web.archive.org/web/20210326090023/https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/issues/2250
> > > > (of course the issue was deleted, mindless as it could be).
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                   https://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#12239 — Diversity in an international project

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 01:23:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>...
> Debian's diversity statement commits us to be welcoming to all people
> regardless of who they *are*.
> 
> It does *not* commit us to welcome all people into our community regardless
> of the *idealogies they express*.
> 
> Nazis can fuck off.
>...

Our diversity statement says:

  No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you:
  we welcome you.

We welcome you, no matter whether you identify yourself as Nazi or 
whether others perceive you as Nazi.


Our diversity statement says:

  We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they interact 
  constructively with our community.

It does not matter what one personally thinks about Nazis, or what one 
personally thinks about people who supported Drone Murder Obama, or what 
one personally thinks about people who call him Drone Murder Obama, we 
have committed to accept contributions from them.


And this is important:

Do we want Debian to be a project representing the affluent IT elite in 
the US and their political opinions, or do we want Debian to be a diverse 
international project with contributors everywhere in the world?


As far as I know one of the largest users of our work in Debian is the 
Russian military, and we might have contributors from Russia with quite
diverging views on domestic issues of their country.

We do have developers in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

There are many other places in the world where we either have members
or would like to have members.


When you use the word "Nazi", I have to think of current events in the 
real world where words like "concentration camps" and "genocide" are 
frequently used.

If membership in Debian would imply anything about political opinions,
this could get some of our members into untenable positions where
I would be worried about their safety.


cu
Adrian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12240 — Re: Diversity in an international project

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 07:44:01PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 01:23:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>...
>> Debian's diversity statement commits us to be welcoming to all people
>> regardless of who they *are*.
>> 
>> It does *not* commit us to welcome all people into our community regardless
>> of the *idealogies they express*.
>> 
>> Nazis can fuck off.
>>...
>
>Our diversity statement says:
>
>  No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you:
>  we welcome you.
>
>We welcome you, no matter whether you identify yourself as Nazi or 
>whether others perceive you as Nazi.
>
>
>Our diversity statement says:
>
>  We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they interact 
>  constructively with our community.

Almost by definition, Nazis are known not to interact constructively
with communities. We value and support our diverse community; Nazism
is well understood to be just about the polar opposite from that
position. What's hard to understand here?

*Please* stop now, this is not a helpful discussion for anybody
involved. :-(

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"Because heaters aren't purple!" -- Catherine Pitt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12241 — This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other

I wasn't thrilled with Steve's message; I sent him what I hope are some
constructive comments privately.
Bringing up nazis is rarely going to  calm things down or promote
constructive discussion.
And yes, he did that.

But Adrian!  You really doubled down on the tension.
I appreciate that you are frustrated and disagree strongly with some of
what Steve is saying.

I hear that you would like to have a discussion on how our diversity
statement interacts with organizations people affiliatef with.

Doubling down on the nazi thing isn't going to give us a constructive or
healthy discussion.
There are ways to have the discussion you are looking for that will be
more constructive and that will not promote quite so much of aflame war.


It sounds like you aren't feeling heard.
The particular example you picked is only likely to escalate things so
that none of us are hearing each other.

Please let us find a way to step back, listen to your concerns, but also
respect the other people involved.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12244 — Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other]

On 4/7/21 7:27 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
> I wasn't thrilled with Steve's message; I sent him what I hope are some
> constructive comments privately.
> Bringing up nazis is rarely going to  calm things down or promote
> constructive discussion.
> And yes, he did that.
> 
> But Adrian!  You really doubled down on the tension.
> I appreciate that you are frustrated and disagree strongly with some of
> what Steve is saying.
> 
> I hear that you would like to have a discussion on how our diversity
> statement interacts with organizations people affiliatef with.
> 
> Doubling down on the nazi thing isn't going to give us a constructive or
> healthy discussion.
> There are ways to have the discussion you are looking for that will be
> more constructive and that will not promote quite so much of aflame war.
> 
> 
> It sounds like you aren't feeling heard.
> The particular example you picked is only likely to escalate things so
> that none of us are hearing each other.
> 
> Please let us find a way to step back, listen to your concerns, but also
> respect the other people involved.
> 

To the contrary, I haven't found anything in Adrian's post aggressive,
and very much, he is pointing at a topic we may want to address.

It's been said that RMS current issue is his *personal* view on some
topics, which aren't related to his work at FSF. One may agree with him
or not, or find what he wrote unacceptable or not, disgusting or not.
This isn't what I would like to discuss.

The point is: is there some restrictions on political views that the
Debian community/project would like to enforce? I've heard someone
complaining that the Debian project hasn't made a statement about black
live maters and George Floyd. Is it ok if I believe in Communist and
strongly support the Chinese government, including the social
engineering part? Am I allowed to be a Trump supporter, denying the
climate change is man made?

More disturbing things now... What if I'm working for NSA, and
contribute to Debian so that the US government can spy even better on
everyone? What if I'm working in Russia, and contribute to Debian for
improving the army missile guidance system? Or if I'm contracted by the
Chinese government so that they can use Debian to better track their
citizens? Is all of that OK as a contribution to Debian?

What if I were fighting against same sex marriage? Or if I was at the
head of a company hiring people $1 per day to make shoes in Indonesia?

My own view on this is *very* liberal. In my view, we should allow
absolutely all of the above, without any restriction. Why? Simply
because otherwise, it's impossible to draw the line and set reasonable
limits, without having infinite flame wars in our lists, which distract
us from our very important missing: being the best free operating
system. BTW, what's the RC bugs count for Bullseye? :)

I've joined Debian because of its technical excellence, and I'm staying
because I believe in software freedom. I am trying to force myself to
not have too many interference on the interactions I have with other DDs
because of political topics (and that, even though it itches a lot as I
really love to share my ideas). I very much would like other DDs to try
to do the same if possible. It would be great if we all agree that
Debian is *not* the place to have this kind of political debates. There
are other places to do that. Engage yourself in politics, if you want,
but outside of Debian. I will deeply respect it, and will enjoy talking
politics with you (I very much enjoy any political talks, and I do have
very strong opinions on some topics), but simply, outside of Debian is
better.

The DFSG and social contract are there so that there's one thing we must
agree on. I haven't signed up for one side of the political spectrum.
Please respect this.

Though as time passes, I'm seeing all of these lines increasingly
blurred. I hope for Debian to not become too engaged (promoting views I
share or not).

And there's what Adrian wrote:

> If membership in Debian would imply anything about political opinions,
> this could get some of our members into untenable positions where
> I would be worried about their safety.

which I very much agree with. We also don't want Debian to become banned
from some countries because the project is too much engaged into
political debates (no need to name a particular country here I suppose...).

I'm sure I'm not the only person with this opinion. Please let me know
I'm not alone.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12245 — Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Le vendredi 09 avril 2021 à 17:27:30+0200, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
> On 4/7/21 7:27 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > I wasn't thrilled with Steve's message; I sent him what I hope are some
> > constructive comments privately.
> > Bringing up nazis is rarely going to  calm things down or promote
> > constructive discussion.
> > And yes, he did that.
> > 
> > But Adrian!  You really doubled down on the tension.
> > I appreciate that you are frustrated and disagree strongly with some of
> > what Steve is saying.
> > 
> > I hear that you would like to have a discussion on how our diversity
> > statement interacts with organizations people affiliatef with.
> > 
> > Doubling down on the nazi thing isn't going to give us a constructive or
> > healthy discussion.
> > There are ways to have the discussion you are looking for that will be
> > more constructive and that will not promote quite so much of aflame war.
> > 
> > 
> > It sounds like you aren't feeling heard.
> > The particular example you picked is only likely to escalate things so
> > that none of us are hearing each other.
> > 
> > Please let us find a way to step back, listen to your concerns, but also
> > respect the other people involved.
> > 
> 
> To the contrary, I haven't found anything in Adrian's post aggressive,
> and very much, he is pointing at a topic we may want to address.
> 
> It's been said that RMS current issue is his *personal* view on some
> topics, which aren't related to his work at FSF. One may agree with him
> or not, or find what he wrote unacceptable or not, disgusting or not.
> This isn't what I would like to discuss.
> 
> The point is: is there some restrictions on political views that the
> Debian community/project would like to enforce? I've heard someone
> complaining that the Debian project hasn't made a statement about black
> live maters and George Floyd. Is it ok if I believe in Communist and
> strongly support the Chinese government, including the social
> engineering part? Am I allowed to be a Trump supporter, denying the
> climate change is man made?
> 
> More disturbing things now... What if I'm working for NSA, and
> contribute to Debian so that the US government can spy even better on
> everyone? What if I'm working in Russia, and contribute to Debian for
> improving the army missile guidance system? Or if I'm contracted by the
> Chinese government so that they can use Debian to better track their
> citizens? Is all of that OK as a contribution to Debian?
> 
> What if I were fighting against same sex marriage? Or if I was at the
> head of a company hiring people $1 per day to make shoes in Indonesia?
> 
> My own view on this is *very* liberal. In my view, we should allow
> absolutely all of the above, without any restriction. Why? Simply
> because otherwise, it's impossible to draw the line and set reasonable
> limits, without having infinite flame wars in our lists, which distract
> us from our very important missing: being the best free operating
> system. BTW, what's the RC bugs count for Bullseye? :)
> 
> I've joined Debian because of its technical excellence, and I'm staying
> because I believe in software freedom. I am trying to force myself to
> not have too many interference on the interactions I have with other DDs
> because of political topics (and that, even though it itches a lot as I
> really love to share my ideas). I very much would like other DDs to try
> to do the same if possible. It would be great if we all agree that
> Debian is *not* the place to have this kind of political debates. There
> are other places to do that. Engage yourself in politics, if you want,
> but outside of Debian. I will deeply respect it, and will enjoy talking
> politics with you (I very much enjoy any political talks, and I do have
> very strong opinions on some topics), but simply, outside of Debian is
> better.
> 
> The DFSG and social contract are there so that there's one thing we must
> agree on. I haven't signed up for one side of the political spectrum.
> Please respect this.
> 
> Though as time passes, I'm seeing all of these lines increasingly
> blurred. I hope for Debian to not become too engaged (promoting views I
> share or not).
> 
> And there's what Adrian wrote:
> 
> > If membership in Debian would imply anything about political opinions,
> > this could get some of our members into untenable positions where
> > I would be worried about their safety.
> 
> which I very much agree with. We also don't want Debian to become banned
> from some countries because the project is too much engaged into
> political debates (no need to name a particular country here I suppose...).
> 
> I'm sure I'm not the only person with this opinion. Please let me know
> I'm not alone.
> 
> Cheers,

There seem to be for me some confusion here.

It is not the same at all to accept people with different views and to
let them express these if they go against the Code of Conduct we voted.
(and even having stated that, I'd probably feel like asking for the
expulsion of any nazi if there was one here)

Apart from that, Debian is political by its mere existence, and
expressing some opinion on who does or does not help us to achieve our
goals is quite relevant.

The fact that you are not alone having this opinion doesn't mean it is
the most shared one.

You are free by maintaining the status quo by not paying attention to
other's political opinion.

Regards,

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12249 — Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Quoting Pierre-Elliott Bécue (2021-04-09 18:05:57)
> Le vendredi 09 avril 2021 � 17:27:30+0200, Thomas Goirand a �crit�:
> > The point is: is there some restrictions on political views that the 
> > Debian community/project would like to enforce? I've heard someone 
> > complaining that the Debian project hasn't made a statement about 
> > black live maters and George Floyd. Is it ok if I believe in 
> > Communist and strongly support the Chinese government, including the 
> > social engineering part? Am I allowed to be a Trump supporter, 
> > denying the climate change is man made?

> > And there's what Adrian wrote:
> > 
> > > If membership in Debian would imply anything about political 
> > > opinions, this could get some of our members into untenable 
> > > positions where I would be worried about their safety.
> > 
> > which I very much agree with. We also don't want Debian to become 
> > banned from some countries because the project is too much engaged 
> > into political debates (no need to name a particular country here I 
> > suppose...).

[...]

> There seem to be for me some confusion here.

Could your confusion perhaps stem from your reading "politics" as 
meaning "any societal topic" where Thomas and Adrian seemingly talks 
about "topics not directly tied to making a free software distribution"?


> It is not the same at all to accept people with different views and to 
> let them express these if they go against the Code of Conduct we 
> voted.

What does our Code of Conduct have to do with Black Lives Matter or 
Communism or Trump or the topic of our current (non-DPL) vote?

[ irrelevant distracting personal opinion snipped ]


> Apart from that, Debian is political by its mere existence, and 
> expressing some opinion on who does or does not help us to achieve our 
> goals is quite relevant.

Seems Thomas and Adrian are not talking about everything being 
political, but about whether or not Debian should *widen* the scope of 
*which* political topics to care for.


> The fact that you are not alone having this opinion doesn't mean it is 
> the most shared one.

Sorry, what is your point here? Do only majority viewpoints matter?


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12246 — Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other]

Thomas Goirand a écrit le 09/04/2021 à 17:27 :
> Please let me know
> I'm not alone.

You're not.
Thx,

_g.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12247 — Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other]

Dear Thomas,

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 12:38 AM Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>
> I'm sure I'm not the only person with this opinion. Please let me know
> I'm not alone.

I stand with your side.
If you have a chance to come to Tokyo, let's have sake and umeshu together.

Cheers,
-- 
Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo
PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12248 — When is a political view too strong to be compatible with Debian Participation

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:

    Thomas> The point is: is there some restrictions on political views
    Thomas> that the Debian community/project would like to enforce?

Yes, I think this is  a topic worth discussing.

There has been a motion in the free software community to focus more on
the ethics of our software.
I.E. not working on defense systems and the like.
I've seen more focus on this at free software conferences.
Interestingly, such restrictions fairly clearly fail both the DFSG and
the OSD.
And so I think that while that's a live issue in the community and worth
discussing,
you'll find that most Debian contributors (because of the DFSG) like you
do not favor such restrictions in Debian.
There are doubtless exceptions.

BUT one of those things went further than that, and I think is a lot
more interesting to discuss in the Debian context.

    Thomas> What if I were fighting against same sex marriage?

The issue here is that we as a project have adopted a Code of Conduct
and a Diversity Statement and we want to be welcoming to people,
regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and a number of
other characteristics.

I think it is well settled that you cannot fight against same-sex
marriage in your Debian work.
Doing so is inconsistent with our diversity statement.

The interesting question is what happens when you fight against same-sex
marriage outside your Debian work.

Queer members of our community have told us they don't feel very welcome
when they are working alongside people who are working to deny them what
they view as basic rights like marriage.
I'll certainly tell you that's true for myself.
It's really hard to be welcomed when you're standing with people who
don't acknowledge your humanity.
and for basic stuff like the right to marry, being treated as your
gender, using the bathroom, and a whole bunch of other stuff,
disagreements do come across as denying your humanity.

But there's a question about how far activities outside of Debian should
interact with activities inside of Debian.

Some people have argued that positions like fighting against same-sex
marriage are so strong that even if you keep them outside of Debian, we 
inherently create a community that is not welcoming to queers  by
welcoming people who take those positions (even outside of their Debian
work).

Others have   taken the position that we should only judge what people
do within  their Debian work.


My suspicion is there is not a project consensus on this point.
I don't even know if there is a consensus within the community team, or
within the union of the community team and delegated members of the
account managers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12250 — Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other]

Hi Thomas,

On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 8:38 AM Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>
> I'm sure I'm not the only person with this opinion. Please let me know
> I'm not alone.

You are not alone. I am intimidated by the crude treatment of fellow
project members, and by the wanton disregard for the values of
tolerance so falsely espoused on these lists.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12251 — Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other]

Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:

> The point is: is there some restrictions on political views that the
> Debian community/project would like to enforce?

I could be wrong, but I think you're making an implicit assumption here
that I would disagree with, namely that having the project issue a
political statement is equivalent to enforcing a restriction on what
political views a member of the project can hold.  I don't think these are
at all the same thing.

First, as a general principle, I don't believe it is permissible for any
person, organization, or institution to ever dictate or restrict the
thoughts inside your head.  This might seem like a hair-splitting
distinction and probably isn't what you meant by views, but for various
reasons it's important to me personally.  Your thoughts are your own, and
absolutely no one else gets a say in what you think.  People are entitled
to draw conclusions about how you act or what you say, to choose not to
want to associate with you, etc., but no one is entitled to try to read
your mind or to try to police your thoughts.

The question to me, therefore, would at most be about restrictions on
people's actions or speech, on something that happens outside of their
head, not on their views, which are private and deserve the highest level
of privacy protection.

Here, I believe it's common for organizations to take political positions
or participate in poltiical arguments where they believe those politics
are relevant to their mission, and with the understanding that not
everyone who supports the organization will agree with all of their
political positions.  I am a member of many organizations that sometimes
take stances with which I disagree, sometimes vigorously.  I make an
ongoing decision whether to support that organization anyway or whether to
withdraw my support based on a balance of many factors.  Agreement with my
political views is only one factor.

Similarly, on the organization side, it's entirely routine for
organizations to have members who are in active disagreement with the
larger organization about some policy or stance or position.  Provided
that disagreement isn't over a core value, it can be healthy.  It's also
routine for people to choose where and when to express that disagreement.

Let me use an obviously absurd but hopefully not politically fraught
example.  I might support and volunteer for the local art museum but truly
hate pointillism.  I can still continue to volunteer and support the
museum even though they have a large pointillism exhibit.  That exhibit
may make me rather unhappy, but I might think the other work the museum
does is worth it anyway.  The museum may think that my opinion is absurd,
but they have some process for deciding what exhibits to host and I can
participate in that process and get outvoted.  Or maybe I'll convince
people; who knows.  Either way, obviously I am not going to start every
volunteer meeting with a rant about how disgusting pointillism is (that
*would* get me uninvited from the organization), and the museum will
probably avoid asking me to work on the pointillist exhibit.  We can reach
an accomodation that respects the disagreement without either of us
changing our beliefs.

This sort of practical compromise is just part of being in a community.

Now, that position might be disqualifying for a *leadership* role.  If the
majority of the museum's supporters love the pointillism exhibit and want
it to continue, but I wanted to become the museum curator, obviously I
would need to compromise my stance against pointillism and respect that I
was in the minority, or I would need to give up my hope of being the
person in charge of all of the exhibits.  That's part of the
responsibility that goes with having a leadership position; sometimes you
have to advocate the values of the organization even when they're in
conflict with your own personal values, or, if the conflict is too severe,
resign and return to being an individual member where it's appropriate for
you to vigorously express your opposition.

What does all that mean for Debian?  I think it means that there has
always been a tension in the project over people who want Debian to take a
more overtly political stance and people who want Debian to take as few
political stances as possible.  This happens *all the time* over free
software politics; for example, some people think the project's stance on
firmware is absurd and vigorously oppose it.  They are in the minority and
Debian hasn't changed its policies, and they haven't all resigned or been
driven out, so clearly we are already capable of tolerating political
differences in both directions.

None of this resolves the question of what topics Debian should take a
political stance on and what topics Debian should leave alone.  I think we
all have different viewpoints on that, and we have a governance process
that lets us work out that disagreement and make project decisions in the
face of a disagreement, and we're going through that process now.  This is
all healthy and normal.

But I think it's important to emphasize that even if Debian as a project
takes a political position on something, that does not imply that every
individual in Debian agrees with that position, or that one has to leave
the project if one does not agree with that position.  That's a separate
and much more serious additional step.

In some cases, we may wish to take that step.  For example, if someone
wishes to advocate within the project that free software is an evil plot
to steal the intellectual property of the world's great software
companies, Debian is probably not the place for them and there's probably
no benefit to either them or the project to try to make that work.  And
there will be arguments over when to take that step, and vigorous debate,
and then we have a governance process to use to make those decisions.

But we should not confuse the two.  Taking a political position as a
project is not the same thing as setting rules for what type of advocacy
we are willing to let people do with project resources, and that is not
the same thing as setting minimum standards of behavior for project
members, and none of those things are the same thing as trying to restrict
people's *thoughts* (which is something we absolutely should not ever do).

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12252 — Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other]

Hi Thomas, I'm avoiding this debate, still I'm writing this one because (1) I
know you listen :-) and (2) one of your statements has been repeated many times
already and it kind of bothers me:

On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 05:27:30PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]

> It's been said that RMS current issue is his *personal* view on some
> topics, which aren't related to his work at FSF. One may agree with him
> or not, or find what he wrote unacceptable or not, disgusting or not.
> This isn't what I would like to discuss.

Please, let's first agree that it's not (only) about his 'personal view on some
topics'. Most people defending RMS on this list seem to have suddenly
s/actions/views/g in their spell checker. So, just to put words back to their
place: it's about his incessant *actions* over the years, which may or may not
been directly connected with his (publicly stated) views. And his *actions*,
and not his views alone, have hurt the community in many many ways. And this
community is about software freedom, the thing you said you believe on, and the
thing that keeps you motivated to contribute to Debian. This community is
somewhat leaded by the FSF, which has close links to Debian and a huge
influence to the future of free/libre software. How can one compare that to
'Debian taking position climate change'?

Yes, you may find that the letter makes unfair accusations. Fine, then you do
not sign it, and you vote against it. And you make your point as you're doing
in this list (thanks for always being gentle in such heated situations). And
if by any chance Debian signs that letter as a project, you feel frustrated as
I'll also feel in case another given option wins.

But please, please: even if Debian is not the place you chose to exercise
human values such as solidarity and care; even being Debian only about
'software freedom' and technical excellence, you can still realize that taking
a position on this particular issue isn't at all disconnected to your
'apolitical' and pragmatic motivations. I really see the point you're trying to
bring, but the reality is so distinct from the hypothetical situations you're
drawing here :\

> The point is: is there some restrictions on political views that the
> Debian community/project would like to enforce? I've heard someone
> complaining that the Debian project hasn't made a statement about black
> live maters and George Floyd. Is it ok if I believe in Communist and
> strongly support the Chinese government, including the social
> engineering part? Am I allowed to be a Trump supporter, denying the
> climate change is man made?

Well, I do think some people would like to push their political views on
Debian, yes. And this, in every possible political spectrum. But this is not
really happening, for reasons we can try to infer: maybe they feel that some
issues as climate change and defeating communism aren't connected enough to
Debian as a project in order to justify a public statement or a GR. It'd be
probably hard to get support for those, I suppose. On the other hand, it seems
there is a reason for all the seconds on the current GR, and despite some
aggressive opposition, the reason is not that Debian is infested of SJW willing
to take over the power to push their oppressive agenda (I'm sorry for those who
still believe on this, you're just too wrong).

> More disturbing things now... What if I'm working for NSA, and
> contribute to Debian so that the US government can spy even better on
> everyone?

I don't think NSA will spy better if you worked for them. I believe you'd end
up as our best whistleblower ever :-) Seriously, on such cases, my own view is
that software freedom comes first, and I find it a bit of a false dilemma
having to choose between software freedom vs. not being spied. This applies for
your other examples as well.

> What if I'm working in Russia, and contribute to Debian for
> improving the army missile guidance system? Or if I'm contracted by the
> Chinese government so that they can use Debian to better track their
> citizens? Is all of that OK as a contribution to Debian?
> 
> What if I were fighting against same sex marriage? Or if I was at the
> head of a company hiring people $1 per day to make shoes in Indonesia?
> 
> My own view on this is *very* liberal. In my view, we should allow
> absolutely all of the above, without any restriction. Why? Simply
> because otherwise, it's impossible to draw the line and set reasonable
> limits, without having infinite flame wars in our lists, which distract
> us from our very important missing: being the best free operating
> system. BTW, what's the RC bugs count for Bullseye? :)

Thomas, many of those people who're skilled enough to close these bugs also
care about Debian in a broader view. Probably not as broad as
Debian-and-the-climate-change, but for sure about the role of Debian as a
project, in keeping the free software ecosystem healthy, inclusive and
stronger. That's the point I'm trying to make here: some, including you, are
going too far on this, as this position (yet to be taken) on RMS/FSF were
similar to taking position on all kinds of random political views that have no
direct impact to our work. Again: those do not exist for a reason. 
 
> I've joined Debian because of its technical excellence, and I'm staying
> because I believe in software freedom. I am trying to force myself to
> not have too many interference on the interactions I have with other DDs
> because of political topics (and that, even though it itches a lot as I
> really love to share my ideas). I very much would like other DDs to try
> to do the same if possible. It would be great if we all agree that
> Debian is *not* the place to have this kind of political debates. There
> are other places to do that. Engage yourself in politics, if you want,
> but outside of Debian. I will deeply respect it, and will enjoy talking
> politics with you (I very much enjoy any political talks, and I do have
> very strong opinions on some topics), but simply, outside of Debian is
> better.
> 
> The DFSG and social contract are there so that there's one thing we must
> agree on. I haven't signed up for one side of the political spectrum.
> Please respect this.

I don't see how it's not being respected. This is not a provocation, and I can
be wrong. Where the project is forcing you to sign up for a political side? If
it's about the GR, you have many options, including not to vote, or making your
vote public to oppose the majority if your option doesn't win. Or signing as
individual a letter of support, posting your neutral position in your blog etc.
Or doing all that. Or doing nothing at all. I pretty much doubt that someone
will ever consider a GR result as a single position shared by all DDs.
 
> Though as time passes, I'm seeing all of these lines increasingly
> blurred. I hope for Debian to not become too engaged (promoting views I
> share or not).
> 
> And there's what Adrian wrote:
> 
> > If membership in Debian would imply anything about political opinions,
> > this could get some of our members into untenable positions where
> > I would be worried about their safety.
> 
> which I very much agree with. We also don't want Debian to become banned
> from some countries because the project is too much engaged into
> political debates (no need to name a particular country here I suppose...).
> 
> I'm sure I'm not the only person with this opinion. Please let me know
> I'm not alone.

I fear that too, although I think the more neutral we keep, stronger will be
those oppressive governments. There's no simple solution for this, indeed.

> Cheers,
> 
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
 
Bests,

--
Tiago

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12253 — Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other]

On 2021-04-09 14:11:11, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 05:27:30PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> [...]
> > I've joined Debian because of its technical excellence, and I'm staying
> > because I believe in software freedom. I am trying to force myself to
> > not have too many interference on the interactions I have with other DDs
> > because of political topics (and that, even though it itches a lot as I
> > really love to share my ideas). I very much would like other DDs to try
> > to do the same if possible. It would be great if we all agree that
> > Debian is *not* the place to have this kind of political debates. There
> > are other places to do that. Engage yourself in politics, if you want,
> > but outside of Debian. I will deeply respect it, and will enjoy talking
> > politics with you (I very much enjoy any political talks, and I do have
> > very strong opinions on some topics), but simply, outside of Debian is
> > better.

+1.

> > The DFSG and social contract are there so that there's one thing we must
> > agree on. I haven't signed up for one side of the political spectrum.
> > Please respect this.
> 
> I don't see how it's not being respected. This is not a provocation, and I can
> be wrong. Where the project is forcing you to sign up for a political side? If
> it's about the GR, you have many options, including not to vote, or making your
> vote public to oppose the majority if your option doesn't win. Or signing as
> individual a letter of support, posting your neutral position in your blog etc.
> Or doing all that. Or doing nothing at all. I pretty much doubt that someone
> will ever consider a GR result as a single position shared by all DDs.

But how it is to be interpreted otherwise? How will someone external to
Debian know to interpret this fine line, and how can individual DDs not
be associated with *whatever* the result is?

I am with Thomas on this side. It's not about choice X vs choice Y, but
to a project-wide choice at all, whatever it is. Other people won't know
if I voted at all, or voted FD, or voted against the final result, or
for it.

regards,
iustin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12256 — Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other]

On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 02:11:11PM -0400, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:
>...
> Please, let's first agree that it's not (only) about his 'personal view on some
> topics'. Most people defending RMS on this list seem to have suddenly
> s/actions/views/g in their spell checker. So, just to put words back to their
> place: it's about his incessant *actions* over the years, which may or may not
> been directly connected with his (publicly stated) views. And his *actions*,
> and not his views alone, have hurt the community in many many ways. And this
> community is about software freedom, the thing you said you believe on, and the
> thing that keeps you motivated to contribute to Debian.
>...

This community would not exist without the actions of RMS.

RMS founded the free software movement.
RMS created the GNU project.
RMS wrote emacs for the GNU project.
RMS wrote gcc for the GNU project.
RMS wrote gdb for the GNU project.
RMS wrote the GPL.
RMS founded the FSF.

Linus Torvalds originally used a non-free licence for Linux,
before switching to the GPL.
The core of Debian are the tools from the GNU project.
In the early days of Debian, RMS through the FSF employed
the DPL full-time for his work on Debian.

An open letter stating there would be "no place in the free software 
community" for RMS is hugely offensive for many people who are aware
that the free software community would not exist without RMS.

RMS has always been a polarizing figure in the 38 years since he founded 
the free software movement, but the same traits that make him difficult
are the reason why he stubbornly created this community against all
obstacles.

cu
Adrian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12257 — Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 12:48:30AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 02:11:11PM -0400, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:

> > Please, let's first agree that it's not (only) about his 'personal view on some
> > topics'. Most people defending RMS on this list seem to have suddenly
> > s/actions/views/g in their spell checker. So, just to put words back to their
> > place: it's about his incessant *actions* over the years, which may or may not
> > been directly connected with his (publicly stated) views. And his *actions*,
> > and not his views alone, have hurt the community in many many ways. And this
> > community is about software freedom, the thing you said you believe on, and the
> > thing that keeps you motivated to contribute to Debian.
> >...

> This community would not exist without the actions of RMS.

> RMS founded the free software movement.
> RMS created the GNU project.
> RMS wrote emacs for the GNU project.
> RMS wrote gcc for the GNU project.
> RMS wrote gdb for the GNU project.
> RMS wrote the GPL.
> RMS founded the FSF.

> Linus Torvalds originally used a non-free licence for Linux,
> before switching to the GPL.
> The core of Debian are the tools from the GNU project.
> In the early days of Debian, RMS through the FSF employed
> the DPL full-time for his work on Debian.

> An open letter stating there would be "no place in the free software 
> community" for RMS is hugely offensive for many people who are aware
> that the free software community would not exist without RMS.

> RMS has always been a polarizing figure in the 38 years since he founded 
> the free software movement, but the same traits that make him difficult
> are the reason why he stubbornly created this community against all
> obstacles.

Microsoft catalyzed the democratization of the Internet by contributing to
the boom of low-cost commodity PCs; and without the rise of the Internet,
the Free Software movement would not have taken off.

Should we therefore put Bill Gates on a pedestal due to his historic
contributions to the rise of Free Software, ignoring all negatives?

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                   https://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12258 — Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other]

We just had a week of this on debian-vote.  Can we please not have another
week of it on debian-project?

It's one thing to debate larger issues about the project's stance on
politics more generally, but at this point we're just rearguing the GR in
progress, which has already gone through a discussion period.  Everyone's
repeating the same things they already said, and the chances of anyone
changing their mind are slim.  You can now go vote your opinion rather
than having to write more mail about it.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12262 — Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 03:14:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> We just had a week of this on debian-vote.  Can we please not have another
> week of it on debian-project?

[...]

Thanks, Russ.

A couple of folks shouting their strong opinions and not listening
isn't going anywhere constructive.

Cheers
 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12264 — Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other]

On 4/9/21 11:48 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 02:11:11PM -0400, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:
>> [...]
> 
> [...]
> 
> cu
> Adrian

I was about to reply, but Adrian and Iustin more or less wrote what I
would have (and I don't want to repeat in a different manner).

On 4/10/21 12:02 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Microsoft catalyzed the democratization of the Internet by
> contributing to the boom of low-cost commodity PCs; and without
> the rise of the Internet, the Free Software movement would not
> have taken off.

The first computer I used to connect to Internet was an Atari Falcon
using MiNT (Mint Is Not/Now Tos, not the Linux distro), which was also
my first Unix computer. Without Microsoft, I probably would still be
running an Atari compatible machine.

At the time I had:
- CAB as a web browser
- Virtual tty (ALT - F1 to F9, F10 being the AES desktop)
- a nice mail client (was it named OMail ?)
- GCC 2.x running on minixfs

:)

For my own case, I have been driven to Linux because Windows was so much
a bad product, and hated it compared to my previous Atari running MiNT,
which was already running a big chunk of its OS with free software.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12254 — Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other]

On 2021-04-09 17:27:30, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> The DFSG and social contract are there so that there's one thing we must
> agree on. I haven't signed up for one side of the political spectrum.
> Please respect this.
> 
> Though as time passes, I'm seeing all of these lines increasingly
> blurred. I hope for Debian to not become too engaged (promoting views I
> share or not).
> 
> And there's what Adrian wrote:
> 
> > If membership in Debian would imply anything about political opinions,
> > this could get some of our members into untenable positions where
> > I would be worried about their safety.
> 
> which I very much agree with. We also don't want Debian to become banned
> from some countries because the project is too much engaged into
> political debates (no need to name a particular country here I suppose...).
> 
> I'm sure I'm not the only person with this opinion. Please let me know
> I'm not alone.

I, too, strongly support this point of view.

regards,
iustin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web