MESSAGE
| DATE | 2019-10-11 |
| FROM | Taylan Kammer
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Joint statement on the GNU Project
|
On 07.10.2019 16:32, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello Guix!
>
> We, a group of GNU maintainers sharing a vision for a stronger GNU
> Project, are publishing this statement today:
>
> https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/
>
> We are somewhat abusing the Guix blog here, for lack of a better
> place, but OTOH the future of GNU is obviously relevant to Guix.
> (Ricardo and I started this initiative before Tobias, Maxim, and
> Marius were on-board.)
>
> This mailing list is maybe not the best place to discuss this in
> detail but your local GNU maintainers will surely be happy to answer
> any questions you may have. :-)
>
> Ludo’.
Hi all,
Some drama about this leaked out of my mailing list-specific sub-folders
(which I only skim occasionally) into my main INBOX, so of course I had
to jump straight into it even though I'm barely around these days. ;-)
Jokes aside, I wanted to ask:
Hasn't RMS already officially stepped down? What position does he hold
within today's GNU project other than being a wise old person (wise with
respect to his topics of expertise) who is respected a lot?
From what I can tell, the GNU project is a collection of very loosely
coupled sub-projects and the maintainers and contributors collectively
hold a lot more power than any single person. So in a way I guess I
don't really see what the statement is trying to accomplish, although I
agree with the sentiment of it. What is the desired effect and end
result of publishing the statement?
I'm not asking rhetorically, I think it would help the discussion a lot
to clarify concrete goals instead of just signaling a sentiment.
A second question:
Assuming the talk about RMS's behavior includes his voicing of certain
unpopular opinions, rather than just behavior that directly targets a
person (like undesired advances), are we going to have a discussion
about which opinions are considered "taboo" within the GNU project?
That is, opinions which shall not be expressed while working with other
GNU contributors, or not expressed publicly at all by high ranking
representatives such as maintainers of important (or any) packages?
(I'm not referring to any particular opinions voiced by RMS. I'm asking
generally.)
I wouldn't be *categorically* opposed to such limitations. For instance
I would welcome a rule that officially bans sympathizing with neo-Nazis.
However, I frequently see people go overboard with what they consider
to be "hateful" ideas that ought to be taboo and banned from communities.
I've been banned from some places myself, and decided to quit some other
places after receiving hostility. I've seen some of the very people who
support the banning others for being "hateful" against minorities defend
or even openly celebrate threats or real acts of physical harm and
vandalism against other political minorities.
(My hiatus from contributing to free software has, I would say, about
10% to do with sensing such vibes from some community members who see
themselves as socially progressive, though it's 90% about things related
to me and not the community. Still, if I find time to come back, I'd
like to know how much self-censorship I have to apply and how much I
have to tolerate opinions which I in turn find offensive.)
Personal suggestions re. second question follow; feel free to stop
reading here if you don't want to get into more and more off-topic
territory.
My personal suggestion would be to keep a very small list of explicit
limitations, probably just the support or apologia of neo-Nazism and
child sexual exploitation. Voicing such opinions on any channel of the
GNU project would be a reason to terminate someone's access to the
channel. Voicing them on any public channel would disqualify someone
from maintainer and similar positions, and perhaps allow other members
to raise a complaint against their involvement as a contributor too.
I think it's important to have such an explicitly and clearly laid out
set of rules on what world-views get to be silenced, as otherwise you
get repeated arguments about free speech.
All other political conflicts should IMO be decided on a case by case
basis with the goal of reaching mutual compromise within the confines of
the communication channels of the GNU project. That is, 1. no favorites
on who gets to silence who and 2. the silencing shall be limited to the
project's communication channels. For example let's take homosexuality
and religion. A gay community member could request another member to
refrain from expressing religious views critical of homosexuality within
the project's communication channels, as it offends her or him. On the
flip side, a religious person could request another member to refrain
from expressing political views in support of normalizing homosexuality
within society, because that in turn offends them. Outside channels of
communication of the project, both could express their opinions. This
freedom would apply even to maintainers. This means that one might have
to put up with the fact that the maintainer of a project privately holds
opinions which one finds offensive. The maintainer could voice those
opinions on other public platforms, but not the communication channels
of the GNU project where another member might object. (Basically same
rules for maintainers and contributors.)
I think it's important to keep the rules rather slim and neutral like
this, as otherwise people get too censorship-happy and you fall into the
problem of "who gets to decide what's offensive."
Remarks to clarify my general thoughts on these issues and where I'm
coming from:
When "getting offended" becomes a socially accepted reason to silence
others, it's a no-brainer that those who hold unjust social power and
want to keep it would also start using the "getting offended" card to
silence their opposition. As such, "political correctness" cannot help
political minorities in the long run; it will inevitably lead to more
and more political opinions of minorities being labeled "politically
incorrect," as those in positions of unjust power learn to use the
language of the oppressed. (I personally believe that this is already
happening on a large scale.)
Further, the situation is never black and white. Someone who belongs to
one oppressed group may in turn be a member of a group oppressing yet
another. (Typical examples in US politics: misogynist black men and
racist white women.) When all groups expect total political purity from
all their members, you inevitably get a splintering into a thousand tiny
communities fighting each other.
“The left is very cannibalistic. It eats its own.”
“In the quest for inclusiveness, the left is willing to discard a
certain kind of complex truth. I think there’s a quickness to
assign ill intent.”
-- Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
I think principles of respectful open dialogue on an even playing field,
with a few exceptions for extreme exceptions like I've mentioned, offer
a better basis for social improvement than communities with dozens of
rules attempting to make every single member feel validated in their
personal world-view.
A community focused on a certain political topic can of course create
its own rules, like for instance a women's rights group setting much
more stringent rules on accepted speech in the group's channels, to
prevent the wasting of time with anti-feminist trolls.
The GNU project's goal is to further software freedom, by developing
free software. As such, any limitations regarding accepted speech in
its channels should IMO be limited to that topic. I.e. ban propaganda
for proprietary software, and keep it at that. Any other limitations
should only have the goal of ensuring a non-hostile working environment
for all members, regardless of political opinions in *any* direction,
otherwise you eventually end up in a "some are more equal than others"
situation.
End wall of text. Hope I'm making sense to you all. I had to think a
lot about political correctness and freedom of speech recently, hence
this lengthy reply to this topic.
- Taylan
_______________________________________________
Hangout mailing list
Hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout
|
|
