Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project

[Corwin Brust]

   Thanks Andrea.
   On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:08 PM Andreas Enge <[1]andreas@enge.fr>
   wrote:

     I call out to the moderators of these mailing lists, if moderation
     indeed
     still exists there, to act against such hate mail by Jean Louis
     singling
     out an individual whose actions they disagree with:
     Am Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 10:12:13AM +0300 schrieb Jean Louis:
     > Ludovic Courtès (Guix)
     > Ludovic Courtès
     > Ludovic Courtès
     > Ludovic Courtès
     This cannot be qualified but as personal harrassment.

   Cosigned.
   FWIW, I find the flood of replies demanding "evidence" and otherwise
   interrogating the concerns you express here to be excellent
   substantiation in and of themselves.
   Peers devoted to free software,
   Please reread the threads with an eye to how much good the topics most
   favored on this list have done and will do to draw people and
   public opinion to our cause.  I hope and expect we can move forward
   with a better tone and clearly visible mutual respect.  What I have
   seen is that our "work environment" has been and is becoming
   increasingly toxic.
   For example
    - Well respected philosophies are given kilobytes of air-time while
   any decent or nuance that could serve to evolve the tactics we apply in
   bringing these important points more successfully to the greater
   community are ignored or (more likely) heckled, pelted with platitudes
   and sophistry.
    - Any questioning of the greatness or suggestion of the fallibility of
   our esteemed founder is ridiculed.   Is Dr. Stallman so weak we must
   rush to deflect any unflattering commentary or views?
   I beg the assembly: don't rush to the aid of our principles nor our
   heros.  They can each take critique. They will grow only stronger
   for our honesty even as we become more able to attract and sustain more
   diverse viewpoints.  Moreover, your fellow community members are (or
   should be assumed to be) as capable as ourselves:  we are each
   responsible for separating signal and noise.
   Let me be very clear and direct:  when a woman wrote us to express
   personally and specifically her concerns around RMS we ran her off, and
   ran her down.  There's no place for that in this community, nor in any
   community dedicated to the public good.   It has nothing to do with the
   veracity much less universality of the concerns she took the time to
   share with us.   We should be grateful to anyone troubling to hold up
   the mirror.  If we find it distorted, and wonder why that soul
   searching should begin at home. When we finally show those questions,
   we must do so in a way that encourages and rewards the courage shown.
   Little I've read on this list since the convention has conveyed we are
   able to do this, much less that we are committed to doing so.
   Thanks for your consideration.

References

   1. mailto:andreas@enge.fr