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

Groups > linux.debian.vote > #1942 > unrolled thread

General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io

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

Contents

  General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2021-03-24 22:00 +0100
    Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2021-03-24 22:10 +0100
    Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> - 2021-03-24 22:10 +0100
    Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> - 2021-03-24 22:10 +0100
    Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-03-24 22:10 +0100
    Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2021-03-24 22:10 +0100
    Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Colin Tuckley <colin@tuckley.org> - 2021-03-24 22:30 +0100
    Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Nicolas Dandrimont <olasd@debian.org> - 2021-03-24 22:30 +0100
      Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2021-03-24 22:40 +0100
        Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2021-03-24 22:40 +0100
        Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> - 2021-03-24 22:50 +0100
        Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> - 2021-03-24 22:50 +0100
        Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Colin Tuckley <colin@tuckley.org> - 2021-03-24 22:50 +0100
        Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> - 2021-03-24 23:10 +0100
    Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> - 2021-03-24 22:40 +0100
      Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> - 2021-03-25 20:20 +0100
        Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> - 2021-03-25 20:30 +0100
    Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org> - 2021-03-24 22:50 +0100
      Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> - 2021-03-25 20:20 +0100
    Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io "Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" <jcc@debian.org> - 2021-03-25 08:30 +0100
    Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Sruthi Chandran <srud@disroot.org> - 2021-03-25 18:50 +0100
      Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2021-03-25 19:20 +0100
        Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Gard Spreemann <gspr@nonempty.org> - 2021-03-25 19:30 +0100
        Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2021-03-25 20:30 +0100
          Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2021-03-26 12:20 +0100
      Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2021-03-25 20:20 +0100
        Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Sruthi Chandran <srud@disroot.org> - 2021-03-25 21:20 +0100
          Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Sruthi Chandran <srud@disroot.org> - 2021-03-25 21:40 +0100
          Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-03-25 21:40 +0100
        Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Hilko Bengen <bengen@debian.org> - 2021-03-27 01:40 +0100
      Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Gard Spreemann <gspr@nonempty.org> - 2021-03-25 20:30 +0100
    Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2021-03-27 01:10 +0100
      Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net> - 2021-03-28 05:20 +0200
        Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2021-03-28 12:20 +0200
          Re: General resolution: ratify  https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net> - 2021-03-28 16:50 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#1999 — Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io

On March 25, 2021 2:24:16 AM GMT+05:30, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
>Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the
>body
>who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
>
>https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md
>is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just
>individual
>Debian developers, should consider signing on to.
>
>This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by adopting
>the
>text from that open letter via GR.
>
I have an alternate suggestion. Instead of signing the said letter, Debian can issue a position statement similar to the one released by FSF Europe. [1]

Will share the amended text if this idea has supporters.

 [1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

#2002 — Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io

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

Quoting Sruthi Chandran (2021-03-25 18:29:32)
> 
> 
> On March 25, 2021 2:24:16 AM GMT+05:30, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> >Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the 
> >body who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
> >
> >https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md 
> >is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just 
> >individual Debian developers, should consider signing on to.
> >
> >This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by 
> >adopting the text from that open letter via GR.
> >
> I have an alternate suggestion. Instead of signing the said letter, 
> Debian can issue a position statement similar to the one released by 
> FSF Europe. [1]
> 
> Will share the amended text if this idea has supporters.
> 
>  [1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html

I would support a position letter similar to that of FSF Europe, and 
appreciate if you could draft that, Sruthi.

I dislike the conclusive judgemental framing of the previously 
referenced open letter, and consider it wrong for Debian as an 
organisation to make direct demands on how other organisations should 
conduct its business.  I certainly would find it inappropriate for FSF 
to make direct demands on how Debian operates.

I like the different tone of the letter by FSF Europe, not demanding but 
instead distancing itself and making clear why (without using specific 
labels as if some court ruling had already taken place, which is not the 
case).


 - 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]

#2005

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

Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> writes:

> Quoting Sruthi Chandran (2021-03-25 18:29:32)
>> 
>> 
>> On March 25, 2021 2:24:16 AM GMT+05:30, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
>> >Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the 
>> >body who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
>> >
>> >https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md 
>> >is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just 
>> >individual Debian developers, should consider signing on to.
>> >
>> >This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by 
>> >adopting the text from that open letter via GR.
>> >
>> I have an alternate suggestion. Instead of signing the said letter, 
>> Debian can issue a position statement similar to the one released by 
>> FSF Europe. [1]
>> 
>> Will share the amended text if this idea has supporters.
>> 
>>  [1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html
>
> I would support a position letter similar to that of FSF Europe, and 
> appreciate if you could draft that, Sruthi.

Seconded.

I have big reservations about the original letter, but find the FSF
Europe one much more appropriate.


 -- Gard
 

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

#2016 — Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io

On 2021-03-25 19:13:09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I dislike the conclusive judgemental framing of the previously 
> referenced open letter, and consider it wrong for Debian as an 
> organisation to make direct demands on how other organisations should 
> conduct its business.  I certainly would find it inappropriate for FSF 
> to make direct demands on how Debian operates.

Yeah, the FSF or RMS would *never* make direct demands onto how another
organization operates, right? </s>

A.

-- 
Je viens d'un pays où engagé veut dire que tu t'es trouvé une job.
                        - Patrice Desbiens

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

#2073 — Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io

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

Quoting Antoine Beaupré (2021-03-25 20:13:42)
> On 2021-03-25 19:13:09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > I dislike the conclusive judgemental framing of the previously 
> > referenced open letter, and consider it wrong for Debian as an 
> > organisation to make direct demands on how other organisations 
> > should conduct its business.  I certainly would find it 
> > inappropriate for FSF to make direct demands on how Debian operates.
> 
> Yeah, the FSF or RMS would *never* make direct demands onto how 
> another organization operates, right? </s>

Your point being what exactly?

My point is that (indeed FSF makes demands on Debian, and) FSF making 
direct demands on how Debian should operate is something I find 
inappropriate (and it triggers other emotions in me as well), and I 
don't want Debian to treat FSF in that same way.

Sorry if I was unclear earlier...


 - 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]

#2009

Sruthi Chandran <srud@disroot.org> writes:

> I have an alternate suggestion. Instead of signing the said letter,
> Debian can issue a position statement similar to the one released by FSF
> Europe. [1]

> Will share the amended text if this idea has supporters.

>  [1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html

I'm comfortable with Debian signing the original letter, but as an
organizational statement, I think I like this one somewhat better.  I
think an organization should try to express what that organization itself
is going to do, and this seems clearer on that point.  (Personal
statements are a bit different.)

The EFF statement is also worth reviewing:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-richard-stallman-fsf-board

but I think Debian's relationship with the FSF is closer to that of FSFE
than the EFF, so their statement feels a bit more on point for us.

Thank you for raising this, Sruthi!  I hadn't seen the FSFE's statement
before your message.

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

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

#2020

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 26/03/21 12:47 am, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sruthi Chandran <srud@disroot.org> writes:
>
>> I have an alternate suggestion. Instead of signing the said letter,
>> Debian can issue a position statement similar to the one released by FSF
>> Europe. [1]
>
>> Will share the amended text if this idea has supporters.
>
>>  [1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html
>
> I'm comfortable with Debian signing the original letter, but as an
> organizational statement, I think I like this one somewhat better.  I
> think an organization should try to express what that organization itself
> is going to do, and this seems clearer on that point.  (Personal
> statements are a bit different.)
>
> The EFF statement is also worth reviewing:
>
>
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-richard-stallman-fsf-board
>
> but I think Debian's relationship with the FSF is closer to that of FSFE
> than the EFF, so their statement feels a bit more on point for us.
>
> Thank you for raising this, Sruthi!  I hadn't seen the FSFE's statement
> before your message.
>
I propose that instead of signing the said letter, Debian issue a
position statement. The text of the statement is adapted from the
statements by FSFE and EFF.

==== Text of GR ====

Release a position statement with the following text.

*Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board*

We at Debian are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of
Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software
Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to
his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019. We are
also disappointed that this was done despite no discernible steps taken
by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past
actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also
disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was
belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters.

We believe this step and how it was communicated sends wrong and hurtful
message and harms the future of the Free Software movement. The goal of
the software freedom movement is to empower all people to control
technology and thereby create a better society for everyone. Free
Software is meant to serve everyone regardless of their age, ability or
disability, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion or
sexual orientation. This requires an inclusive and diverse environment
that welcomes all contributors equally. Debian realises that we
ourselves and the Free Software movement still have to work hard to be
in that place where everyone feels safe and respected to participate in
it in order to fulfil the movement's mission.

One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is to
recognise and reflect when other people are offended or harmed by our
own actions and consider this feedback in future actions. The way
Richard Stallman announced his return to the board unfortunately lacks
any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process, and we are deeply
disappointed that the FSF board did not address these concerns before
electing him a board member again. Overall, we feel the current step
sends the wrong signal to existing and future community members.

That is why, we call for his resignation from all FSF bodies. The FSF
needs to seriously reflect on this decision as well as their
decision-making process to prevent similar issues from happening again.
Therefore, in the current situation we see ourselves unable to
collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which
Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue to
work with groups and individuals who foster diversity and equality in
the Free Software movement in order to achieve our joint goal of
empowering all users to control technology.

[0] https://twitter.com/fsf/status/1374399897558917128

Based on:

[1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html

[2]
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-richard-stallman-fsf-board

==== End Text of GR ====
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQGzBAEBCAAdFiEEcd3Fxr6GmkZB13n+x+ob4VdN7V0FAmBc6nYACgkQx+ob4VdN
7V2DyQv9E5MtX9OIf+RN0a1jy6qk3pl4tvwWeaJQ4h7HiNsXeWT8oWK+REXBwPy/
GZJ5Q2ymmnRMOU70wCEF3a5KNVa0caVHl/5rHCD5+WR4lN8qbKoi4vDo6U9TkfGX
p9Mim30+VEvKHbOG2K0AHwUjGbgGY63S5q2isGcXf2CQIL3ylIPChV9gk65k9QPg
veENNfjac1xL5tkjIX/ekstgJDbpfHmixFJqieazkdFd0rzT7sK6P8zoAsJ1KIbs
mK4SlEA4WJ/3OOdPFHPjE5iVg8iBXixEq8XHtKZ2HY7Ljxw6yjksOpZlbUdrlVEm
mCgzRb6mnv8ZUWo3i7nxtzPpwDCw7LBjRxlpfs17VBdzRptQ9BQgxAN1sU5P9ebq
H/dTTfPhpbmJvwx2cD1UsJIj967pXx1TrOju31ZNBlc+bDx5lGcywljU6Sr/tpYS
ir2UIHyDdcLDeaPaXURww5J+/wIt81SR0lqO65h9ZEzGMgTNuDku9o/pGlazpOce
cKNEIfKL
=ZeE4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#2023

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

On 26/03/21 2:00 am, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Sruthi" == Sruthi Chandran <srud@disroot.org> writes:
>     Sruthi> I propose that instead of signing the said letter, Debian
>     Sruthi> issue a position statement. The text of the statement is
>     Sruthi> adapted from the statements by FSFE and EFF.
>
>     Sruthi> ==== Text of GR ====
>
>     Sruthi> Release a position statement with the following text.
>
> Can you please propose as an amendment to Steve's GR rather than as a
> separate GR?
> I'd rather have two ballot options than two separate votes.
>
> Also, we generally include the constitutional section (4.1.5) under
> which we're acting in a GR.
> See Sean's message as an example how to do this.
>
>     Sruthi> One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is
>     Sruthi> to recognise and reflect when other people are offended or
>     Sruthi> harmed by our own actions and consider this feedback in
>
> Would you be willing to drop the word offended from the above?
>
> I think that focusing on offense rather than harm detracts from the
> power of the progressive agenda and of moving for social justice.
> It's not about political correctness or a bunch of people running around
> with sensitive natures taking offense at whatever they can.
> It's about recognizing the pain others are feeling, developing empathy
> with them, and working to reduce that pain and foster respect.
>
> Making it about offense gives people who disagree with social justice
> work an easy way to trivialize what we're doing.
>
> --Sam

Sam,

Thanks for the pointers. Will update accordingly.

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

#2024

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

>>>>> "Sruthi" == Sruthi Chandran <srud@disroot.org> writes:

    Sruthi> I propose that instead of signing the said letter, Debian
    Sruthi> issue a position statement. The text of the statement is
    Sruthi> adapted from the statements by FSFE and EFF.

    Sruthi> ==== Text of GR ====

    Sruthi> Release a position statement with the following text.

Can you please propose as an amendment to Steve's GR rather than as a
separate GR?
I'd rather have two ballot options than two separate votes.

Also, we generally include the constitutional section (4.1.5) under
which we're acting in a GR.
See Sean's message as an example how to do this.

    Sruthi> One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is
    Sruthi> to recognise and reflect when other people are offended or
    Sruthi> harmed by our own actions and consider this feedback in

Would you be willing to drop the word offended from the above?

I think that focusing on offense rather than harm detracts from the
power of the progressive agenda and of moving for social justice.
It's not about political correctness or a bunch of people running around
with sensitive natures taking offense at whatever they can.
It's about recognizing the pain others are feeling, developing empathy
with them, and working to reduce that pain and foster respect.

Making it about offense gives people who disagree with social justice
work an easy way to trivialize what we're doing.

--Sam

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

#2135

* Russ Allbery:

> Sruthi Chandran <srud@disroot.org> writes:
>
>> I have an alternate suggestion. Instead of signing the said letter,
>> Debian can issue a position statement similar to the one released by FSF
>> Europe. [1]
>
>> Will share the amended text if this idea has supporters.
>
>>  [1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html
>
> I'm comfortable with Debian signing the original letter, but as an
> organizational statement, I think I like this one somewhat better.  I
> think an organization should try to express what that organization itself
> is going to do, and this seems clearer on that point.  (Personal
> statements are a bit different.)

+1.

The FSF board has shown remarkable short-sightedness and arrogance in
readmitting RMS. I personally agree that he should no longer assume any
kind of leadership position within the Free Software community, simply
because by now he has lost any moral authority that he may or may not
have had in the past. However, the open letter cited in the GR pushes
the issue way too hard without any positive purpose: The damage to the
FSF has already been done and cannot be repaired.

The Debian project should not call for the removal of the FSF's board.
Neither should Debian urge people to refuse contributing to
FSF/RMS-associated software projects, especially not while we are still
shipping a Linux distribution that is built on such software projects.

If irony was generally acceptable for a GR, the Debian project should
simply offer its condolences to the FSF for having acknowledged its own
irrelevance. Since this does not work, let's keep things simple and go
with something modelled after the FSF's or the EFF's statements

Cheers,
-Hilko

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

#2013

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

Sruthi Chandran <srud@disroot.org> writes:

> On March 25, 2021 2:24:16 AM GMT+05:30, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
>>Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the
>>body
>>who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
>>
>>https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md
>>is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just
>>individual
>>Debian developers, should consider signing on to.
>>
>>This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by adopting
>>the
>>text from that open letter via GR.
>>
> I have an alternate suggestion. Instead of signing the said letter, Debian can issue a position statement similar to the one released by FSF Europe. [1]
>
> Will share the amended text if this idea has supporters.
>
>  [1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html

Thank you for bringing up the FSF Europe statement, Sruthi!

I personally have grave reservations about the original open letter, but
find the FSF Europe statement much more palatable. I would support a
statement that is more along these lines, but would have trouble
supporting a ratification of the original open letter.


 Best,
 Gard

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

#2133

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

Many things have already been said, I'm not going to comment on them.


There is however a particular sentence that gives me a really sour
stomach. It's the second in:

| We urge those in a position to do so to stop supporting the Free Software
| Foundation.  Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS.

To me, that is very vague, and therefore I ask those in favour of that
resolution to not only clarify the meaning but also explain why from
their point of view that meaning should be obvious.

First, this is certainly not meant to be forever. But without a clause
like "until this situation has been resolved", I understand it quite
so.


Second, how should I understand that second sentence? Putting it into
context ...

| We urge those in a position to do so to stop supporting the Free Software
| Foundation.  Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS.

... it can be read as:

| We urge those in a position to do so to (...)
| [r]efuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS.

... or as:

| We (...) [r]efuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS.

... or (not very likely, though) indeed as an imperative (to whom?):

| Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS[!]

Which one is meant? If it's the second there's quite a chance the
signers are acting contradictory. That depends on ...


Last but certainly not least: What's the understanding of "related"
here, or: Which projects are meant by this?

If I understand "related" as "has in a way to do with it", I see a huge
variety of interpretations, for example: Project that are endorsed by
FSF or have been so in the past. Projects that show the FSF as
copyright holder. Projects that use the GNU word in the name, possibly
being part of the GNU project. Or even, since RMS is no doubt the main
inspiration of the idea of open source software, every GPL-licensed
project. Or even Debian itself, to bring this ad absurdum.

So, where is the line? Which projects should fall under this appeal
(first meaning) or boycott (second meaing), which not? How likely will
that hit innocent bystanders?

And I'm a little surprised nobody else seems to have a problem with
this. Perhaps it's just because I'm not a native speaker.

    Christoph

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

#2175

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

It bothers me to comment on this at all, but... I would like to propose the
following resolution.

Choice X:

The Debian Project disapproves of recent and past actions taken by FSF. With
regards to the latest action (re-acceptance of RMS to the board), it now
chooses to cut ties with the foundation. The Debian Project encourages members
impacted by recent actions to sign the open letter.


I would personally choose this because:
- I have many problems with FSF, beyond this particular concern.
- The concerns raised are irrelevant to me, but other concerns remain relevant.
- Many (including DD's) clearly feel personally attacked by recent actions.


tl;dr -- This is just Choice 2 with a separation from FSF.

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

#2178

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

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:12:47PM -0500, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> Choice X:
> 
> The Debian Project disapproves of recent and past actions taken by FSF. With
> regards to the latest action (re-acceptance of RMS to the board), it now
> chooses to cut ties with the foundation. The Debian Project encourages members
> impacted by recent actions to sign the open letter.

Seconded. (Though I'm not fully sure the forms is correct, but maybe it's
sufficient?!)
 
And then, what does 'cut ties with the foundation' mean exactly? We certainly
won't stop shipping stuff where the copyright belongs to the FSF 8-) So probably
this should be specified a bit more?

> I would personally choose this because:
> - I have many problems with FSF, beyond this particular concern.
> - The concerns raised are irrelevant to me, but other concerns remain relevant.
> - Many (including DD's) clearly feel personally attacked by recent actions.
> 
> tl;dr -- This is just Choice 2 with a separation from FSF.

I'm not sure how I'd rank this, but I do think this is an important and new
choice for the GR.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁       holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

Der Mensch is' gut, aber die Leut' san a G'sindel!

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

#2183

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

On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 10:09:48 +0000
Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:12:47PM -0500, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> > Choice X:
> > 
> > The Debian Project disapproves of recent and past actions taken by FSF. With
> > regards to the latest action (re-acceptance of RMS to the board), it now
> > chooses to cut ties with the foundation. The Debian Project encourages members
> > impacted by recent actions to sign the open letter.  
> 
> Seconded. (Though I'm not fully sure the forms is correct, but maybe it's
> sufficient?!)

I'm definitely open to improvements.

> And then, what does 'cut ties with the foundation' mean exactly? We certainly
> won't stop shipping stuff where the copyright belongs to the FSF 8-) So probably
> this should be specified a bit more?

My understanding is that there is a financial relationship between Debian and
FSF. I don't know if there are further ties beyond individuals choosing to
continue packaging their software.

-- 
Michael Lustfield

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web