Re: Joint statement on the GNU Project

[Taylan Kammer]

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