GNU Assembly Launches As Collaborative Platform For GCC, Other Packages

[chocolate]

Which line exactly is a lie? There were only a few lines about RMS at all, and they all just related what had happened in the past.

This:

...but in the end it was his insinuation that it was somehow OK if his recently-deceased mentor Marvin Minsky, then in his 70s or 80s, had sex with a 17-year-old on Jeffrey Epstein's private island.

Blatant lie. Proof: well, English grammar and RMS' original email in the MIT thread.

What this accusation implies is: (a) that Minsky did indeed carry out a premeditated crime, and that (b) RMS, despite knowing Minsky had engaged in premeditated criminal behavior, decided to stand up for him.

What really happened: RMS argued over argumentum ad ignorantiam (no proof of Minsky carrying out a premeditated crime) because he was sad to see Minsky thrown into the same cauldron as Epstein's.
Then people mischaracterized RMS and accused him of defending pedophiles. Illiterate and malevolent people followed, because it was the mode du jour to be woke and angry.

Meanwhile Elon Musk blatantly called an innocent guy he didn't like a pedophile and still won a libel lawsuit.

I don't think you understand the legal system very well.

Yeah, Justice has different forms depending on wealth. Also, extra-judicial agreements... you never know, I guess. I do not believe pathetic individuals who choose to spend their time defaming RMS over literally nothing (or rather, things they outright invented and then forcefully put in his mouth) would be able to defend themselves in court.
Lastly, thanks for offending my understanding of """THE""" legal system.

[kingu]

Which line exactly is a lie? There were only a few lines about RMS at all, and they all just related what had happened in the past.
…

As the poster in-between have already pointed out, but here it is from RMS himself https://www.fsf.org/news/rms-address...ware-community
There is a good summary of the whole effort to remove RMS as a leader of FSF and GNU, but can't find it now.

Here is a mailing-list post about the e-mail from the group calling itself GNU Assembly sent out to maintainers

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00014.html

It was created by some GNU participants who are trying to push changes on the GNU Project.
…
GNU package maintainers have committed to do work to maintain and add to the GNU system, but not anything beyond that. We have never pressed contributors to endorse the GNU Project philosophy, or any other philosophical views, because people are welcome to contribute to GNU regardless of their views. To change that -- to impose such requirements -- would be radical, gratuitous, and divisive, so the GNU Project is not entertaining the idea. Likewise, we will not ask package maintainers to be "members" instead of volunteers. If you contribute to GNU, you are already a member of the GNU community.

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00033.html

The head of the GNU project rejected the idea of a project-wide wiki
…
the GNU project has no intention of adopting a social contract of any sort.

Yet here is a wiki, and a CoC (called social contract) is one of the first things on it

https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract

At the bottom of the page it reads:

Please read the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct to see how we keep a friendly and harassment-free environment that anyone can contribute to.

(I for one can't because I refuse to pledge allegiance to it, for a whole heap of reasons, so that isn't true.)

As I thought the calls for bans came, almost immediately even. It seems "nice" sounding language happens not to be used or appreciated as such.

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00037.html

You seem very well aware that staying polite and keeping a smile at all times is very important for this goal.

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00044.html

This is inappropriate use of GNU resources and it is intended to create an air of authority that they do not have.BAN THEM

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00035.html

I've argued with Richard that there needs to be a banning of those that challenge to governance of GNU... OUTRIGHT. He, in is infinite patience, has opted to allow this to continue to simmer and give the appearance of negations. In truth though, while RMS is extremely tolerant of discourse and political maneuvering, and even lies and libel, I can't see how he is going to be able to settle this one.
…
Go fuck yourself. You are not stealing GNU.

Responses are not positive, to say the least

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00037.html

So yes, people take down your "gnu.tools" domain. Having the word 'gnu' in it is misleading and hostile.

About a "proposed GNU Social Contract DRAFT"
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/g.../msg00027.html

Which is why we proposed to extend the discussion to what it means to be a GNU member.

(Actual part of draft by the looks of it. In bold for emphasis.)
As I thought it coincides with the call

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-10/msg00073.html

Under the title "Joint statement on the GNU Project". If GNU is a project, this certainly isn't one in it, and the idea that projects are software doesn't hold.
(More about this at the bottom.)

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, the undersigned GNU maintainers and developers, owe a debt of gratitude to Richard Stallman for his decades of important work in the free software movement.

We believe that Richard Stallman cannot represent all of GNU. We think it is now time for GNU maintainers to collectively decide about the organization of the project.

TL;DR What was in October of 2019 "a group of GNU maintainers" and "undersigned GNU maintainers and developers" was an attempt to remove RMS as leader of GNU,
and is still the same list of people now, in what is now attempting to be a platform instead.

The "GNU Social Contract and Code of Conduct" can not bear the name for lack of being software, or by being a platform. What GNU means is already clear.

GNU is not simply a collection of useful programs, but a unified operating system that is 100% free software.

which is from:

https://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html#whatmeans

GNU is not simply a collection of useful programs, but a unified operating system that is 100% free software. Thus, to keep the GNU system technically coherent, we make sure that the parts fit well together. So the evaluators judge programs based on how well they fit into the GNU system, both technically and philosophically, as well as on their quality, usability, and the other characteristics you would expect. Based on the evaluators' report, Richard Stallman (the Chief GNUisance) makes the final decision on whether to accept the contribution.

(quoting the part directly from RMS)

Making a program GNU software means that its developers and the GNU project agree that “This program is part of the GNU project, released under the aegis of GNU”—and say so in the program.

…

Since a GNU program is released under the auspices of GNU, it should not say anything that contradicts the GNU Project's views.

Some of the people are GNU maintainers. That doesn't make it a GNU initiative, or a GNU document. In fact the opposite.

affiliating with the GNU project as a maintainer means you must agree to work—within the confines of the maintenance—with the GNU project's mission for software freedom.

Plans to throw out RMS as a leader have been removed for now, so what is the thing calling itself "GNU Assembly"?

Through using the name for something that isn't part of GNU, and authority as maintainers against the requirements for being one, The GNU Assembly attempts to redefine what it means to be a GNU, by way of a platform, tied to a social contract, which is under the Covenant Code of Conduct. This is done by allowing maintainers of GNU software to sign up, which doesn't make it a GNU project on that end either.

[kingu]

(It got to be a bit tedious waiting for approval for edits, so making a new post with fewer URLs.)

The origin of the Assembly effort is either 10 years ago ( https://gnu.tools/en/blog/2021/04/ki...-gnu-assembly/ and for some reason gnu-prog-discuss isn't on https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/, or this: https://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/gn.../msg00050.html ,or at various points in 2019 onwards, but always seemingly in opposition rather than to clarify anything that wasn't at all clear beforehand.

(From the link) Drafts for "Guidelines" or "mission" statements in a discussion about throwing the leader and making the organisation "bottom-up", can't be said to attempt avoid this situation, when it is a "response" to it, from people actively attempting to cause it, at various times and through various means.

Over time, free software has extended beyond the GNU Project, and the GNU Project naturally works with companion free software projects that have been developing key components of a typical GNU system. The GNU Project supports developments that aim to extend the reach of free software to new fields.

(bold added for emphasis)

Any software outside of GNU, or being outside of GNU while converging with its goals, or through GNU components lead by people with different goals, does not mean those people can extend the meaning of GNU.

Removing authority, falsely representing it, changing it, adding it, and tying the various approaches together or through other things, seems a central theme to the "Assembly" offering, perhaps even its only additional change.

[kingu]

The website:
All content on the site (unless otherwise noted) is licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0, and not GNU FDL. With "adopts policies that encourage and enable developers to actively defend user freedom" one wonders why a scheme that doesn't mean anything in relation to user freedoms is picked. (The NC is one of the optional clauses which makes "CC" irrelevant in communicating the goals of the Assembly social contract 1.0.)

In the social contract, it says:

These are the core commitments of the GNU Project, which creates and distributes a software system that respects users' freedoms.

One wonders if that is anecdotally correct, or if it is being defined…

aims to extend the reach of the project beyond the GNU System.

Is nowhere to be found on the GNU site, nor is the added virtue signalling. So it attempts to re-define the GNU project there, and further:

We came up with a founding document last year through a transparent discussion process, followed by a formal endorsement period, after which we set up the Assembly mailing list. This mailing list is a safe space where the group discusses its organization and governance.

(Emphasis added.)
In the hopes this isn't an attempt at recreating its stint in academia, what exactly does "safe space" mean?

Everything there is, for some reason, mentioned and cited out of the context you can find in the above posts. It lends itself to the use of the word "formal".
Freudian slip in not calling the mailing list name GNU?

The GNU Assembly is moving toward a governance model founded on adherence to the GNU Social Contract and our code of conduct.

(Emphasis added.)
Developers and maintainers are asked to sign up for rosy language and forego the mere notion that there is no new governance model.
Basing it on the single most hated document in all of libre software is bound to rack up even more fiascos.

Is said model even strictly related to the Assembly project? No.

Governance comes up when specific decisions have to be made about the GNU Assembly as a whole, such as defining the level of coherence of GNU packages

This is in direct conflict with the GNU project doing the same thing. https://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html#whatmeans
It already has a mailing list, and the Assembly effort isn't popular on it… Why the need to re-create the GNU mailing list? Is it not a safe space, perhaps?

All the GNU Assembly public spaces are covered by the code of conduct. This includes mailing lists and the wiki.

Where other than everywhere could the already elected "community leaders" be avoided? Electing those presumably came to be by way of "transparent", and "formal".
No? Oh, but it _ensures_ it. Oh it doesn't? Well, then the new governance is based on the document it is in.
Surely the legitimacy of developers and maintainers will undo this. That way it almost sounds like meritocracy.

In the annals of the Covenant Code of Conduct, one finds "Project maintainers" is replaced by "Community leaders" from 1.4 to 2.0.

The Assembly is playing its own trick on itself.

[smitty3268]

This:
...but in the end it was his insinuation that it was somehow OK if his recently-deceased mentor Marvin Minsky, then in his 70s or 80s, had sex with a 17-year-old on Jeffrey Epstein's private island.

Blatant lie. Proof: well, English grammar and RMS' original email in the MIT thread.

I'll be honest and say I haven't done a ton of research on this whole RMS thing, because the entire thing bores me and I really don't care about any of it.

But my understanding is that RMS basically said that if Minsky did have sex with someone underage they were probably acting like it was consensual and therefore Minsky did nothing wrong and that the girl in question was perfectly fine with it.

I don't see that as particularly different than what the quote above is saying. It's just that the quote above treats that as something wrong, while RMS treats it as something that is ok. That's going to be a difference of opinion between different people, for sure. But nothing that's factually different or even approaches what would be required for libel.

The implications you are reading into the statement aren't actually stated anywhere - which is why they can't be sued over.

[Vaporeon]

But my understanding is that RMS basically said that if Minsky did have sex with someone underage they were probably acting like it was consensual and therefore Minsky did nothing wrong and that the girl in question was perfectly fine with it.

This statement is incorrect. Richard Stallman never said anything that would mean "that the girl in question was perfectly fine with it" at any point in time. He ONLY suggested that it is wrong to automatically label Minsky a rapist when it is possible that Jeffrey Epstein could have forced the victim into it without Minsky's knowledge.

This is a very important difference as the main charge against Stallman is that he was suggesting people should be absolved of guilt in any abuse that happened, and this is false.

[Alexmitter]

This is very dangerous. It looks like a straight enemy takeover of the GNU Project by people who want to put a Code of Conduct on every action instead of GNU's Code of Kindness. The Website does not even use a GPL license, the 4 freedoms aren't even counted starting from zero.
I have the feeling that whoever started this has no being in programmer and hacker history and those traditions the GNU people follow.

Whoever made this should be ashamed of him or herself.

[hotaru]

it's nice to see that some people within GNU are trying to improve things, but it's going to take a lot of changes for me to ever consider contributing to a GNU project again. they made it very clear a decade ago that women were not welcome, and things have obviously not changed substantially since then.