4:38 p.m.
Hi Mark,
Mark Wielaard <mark(a)klomp.org> skribis:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 06:39:18PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Unfortunately, the letter also calls to “[r]efuse to contribute to
> projects related to the FSF and RMS”. As Andy explained³, this is
> something that’s hard for us to sign, as people who maintain and
> contribute to “projects related to the FSF”.
Note that several GNU projects and individual contributors (including
some assembly members) have already signed that open letter. It also
says "We urge those in a position to do so..." which implies a
transitional period for those who cannot yet.
To me (and to Andreas and Andy, AIUI), it can be interpreted as “stop
contributing to GNU”. I don’t see “those in a position to do so” as
having any concrete effect; at best, it can be interpreted as “stop
contributing to GNU eventually”.
First action item is finishing the rules to allow new GNU Assembly
members. We have some requests to join this list that I cannot act
upon because we haven't exactly established what is required to join.
Agreed; we should start a thread on this topic.
Note that this does mean we will have to find a solution for those
GNU
projects (like the GNU toolchain and GNU Guix) currently using the FSF
Working together fund to start using a different financial setup. This
will be somewhat painful. But associating with a different foundation
(or start our own) can also be seen as a fresh start.
That’s another topic (and a tricky one!) that toolchain and Guix folks
will have to sort out. It requires thought and planning, if/when those
projects decide to look for a different fiscal sponsor.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
5:08 p.m.
New subject: The assembly’s position
Am Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 06:38:56PM +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
To me (and to Andreas and Andy, AIUI), it can be interpreted as
“stop
contributing to GNU”. I don’t see “those in a position to do so” as
having any concrete effect; at best, it can be interpreted as “stop
contributing to GNU eventually”.
Indeed, I did not read "in a position to do so" as a restriction to those
who can afford it, but rather as a technical, logical restriction: of
course people who before did not contribute to GNU cannot stop doing so,
but were welcome to sign the petition.
Andreas
10:25 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hi,
On Sun, 2021-03-28 at 18:38 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> First action item is finishing the rules to allow new GNU
Assembly
> members. We have some requests to join this list that I cannot act
> upon because we haven't exactly established what is required to
> join.
Agreed; we should start a thread on this topic.
OK, that is this thread then :)
First, on joining this mailinglist, which is public, but till now we
only have allowed GNU maintainers who endorsed the GNU Social Contract
to join.
https://lists.gnu.tools/postorius/lists/assembly.lists.gnu.tools/
The GNU Assembly <https://gnu.tools/> is a group of GNU project
members who transparently and collectively produce technical and
organizational recommendations for GNU packages following the GNU
Social Contract <https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract>
- How do we open up the participation in the mailinglist?
Do we simply say that anybody contributing to a GNU package may join
as long as the endorse the GNU Social Contract and adheres to the
Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct? Shall we just ask that question
to whoever tries to subscribe and allow them to participate if they
reply yes?
And secondly,
- Is being part of the mailinglist the same as being a GNU Assembly
member? And if not, what is the difference? Do you get a wiki
account?
Cheers,
Mark
12:16 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hi Mark,
Mark Wielaard <mjw(a)gnu.org> skribis:
First, on joining this mailinglist, which is public, but till now we
only have allowed GNU maintainers who endorsed the GNU Social Contract
to join.
https://lists.gnu.tools/postorius/lists/assembly.lists.gnu.tools/
The GNU Assembly <https://gnu.tools/> is a group of GNU project
members who transparently and collectively produce technical and
organizational recommendations for GNU packages following the GNU
Social Contract <https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract>
- How do we open up the participation in the mailinglist?
Do we simply say that anybody contributing to a GNU package may join
as long as the endorse the GNU Social Contract and adheres to the
Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct? Shall we just ask that question
to whoever tries to subscribe and allow them to participate if they
reply yes?
And secondly,
- Is being part of the mailinglist the same as being a GNU Assembly
member? And if not, what is the difference? Do you get a wiki
account?
Communication on the mailing list, wiki, and other tools hosted here are
subject to the code of conduct. Anyone who subscribes to this mailing
list agrees to follow the code of conduct.
I think any GNU contributor can subscribe to the mailing list. I would
exclude people who are not GNU contributors to ensure the list remains
focused.
In my view, being an Assembly member gives the additional possibility of
participating in decision making. That would mean having a voice in the
(presumably rare) case where consensus cannot be found and we need to
vote, and having an opinion “that counts” in other cases.
IMO Assembly members must sign the Social Contract: it’s the way we
collectively agree to basic requirements and goals.
IOW, subscribers who are not members are GNU contributors who have not
signed the Social Contract. I expect it to be a rare situation, but
allowing this permits discussion with people who have not made up their
mind or who even disagree with the direction we’re taking but are
willing to discuss constructively.
Thoughts?
Ludo’.
1:25 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hi,
On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 14:16 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Mark Wielaard <mjw(a)gnu.org> skribis:
Communication on the mailing list, wiki, and other tools hosted here are
subject to the code of conduct. Anyone who subscribes to this mailing
list agrees to follow the code of conduct.
OK.
I think any GNU contributor can subscribe to the mailing list. I
would exclude people who are not GNU contributors to ensure the list
remains focused.
Note that we haven't really defined who is a "GNU contributor", so
there is still some ambiguity that the list admins need to resolve when
they don't know the person. But for now I added Siddhesh Poyarekar, who
is one of the release/uploaders of glibc. And who really should update
his wikipage https://www.sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/SiddheshPoyarekar
In my view, being an Assembly member gives the additional possibility
of
participating in decision making. That would mean having a voice in the
(presumably rare) case where consensus cannot be found and we need to
vote, and having an opinion “that counts” in other cases.
IMO Assembly members must sign the Social Contract: it’s the way we
collectively agree to basic requirements and goals.
I don't like the word "sign", but yes, I agree that being a GNU
contributor (however we define that term) and endorsing the GNU Social
Contract would make you an GNU Assembly member.
But again, we might have some trouble defining GNU contributor. For
example if you look at the maintainer file on fencepost you will now
see that it lists GNU Radio as unmaintained and various
packages/maintainers are now marked as "renegade", like most GNOME
related packages. I assume we still count them as GNU contributors. On
the other hand the maintainer file on fencepost lists some maintainers
who haven't actually contributed much besides an empty package (but
maybe they contributed to others?).
Finally, we should think about what happens over time. Should we have a
yearly checking for example where people can simply recertify
themselves or should we have some minimum activity requirement?
Cheers,
Mark
4:08 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hi Mark,
Mark Wielaard <mjw(a)gnu.org> skribis:
On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 14:16 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
[...]
> I think any GNU contributor can subscribe to the mailing list.
I
> would exclude people who are not GNU contributors to ensure the list
> remains focused.
Note that we haven't really defined who is a "GNU contributor", so
there is still some ambiguity that the list admins need to resolve when
they don't know the person. But for now I added Siddhesh Poyarekar, who
is one of the release/uploaders of glibc. And who really should update
his wikipage https://www.sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/SiddheshPoyarekar
Great!
> In my view, being an Assembly member gives the additional
possibility of
> participating in decision making. That would mean having a voice in the
> (presumably rare) case where consensus cannot be found and we need to
> vote, and having an opinion “that counts” in other cases.
>
> IMO Assembly members must sign the Social Contract: it’s the way we
> collectively agree to basic requirements and goals.
I don't like the word "sign", but yes, I agree that being a GNU
contributor (however we define that term) and endorsing the GNU Social
Contract would make you an GNU Assembly member.
But again, we might have some trouble defining GNU contributor. For
example if you look at the maintainer file on fencepost you will now
see that it lists GNU Radio as unmaintained and various
packages/maintainers are now marked as "renegade", like most GNOME
related packages. I assume we still count them as GNU contributors. On
the other hand the maintainer file on fencepost lists some maintainers
who haven't actually contributed much besides an empty package (but
maybe they contributed to others?).
Good points. In the end, I think what makes most sense is the notion of
membership, where one endorses the GNU Social Contract.
I would hope that this notion of “non-endorsing member” will become
moot. Perhaps we should just exclude that notion in fact, since
non-endorsing members are probably going to be rare.
Finally, we should think about what happens over time. Should we have
a
yearly checking for example where people can simply recertify
themselves or should we have some minimum activity requirement?
There should be some sort of expiry, though in my mind it would be based
on will rather than measured activity (some activities are hard to
measure). We should check what groups like Debian are doing.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
10 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Ludovic Courtès <ludo(a)gnu.org> writes:
>> In my view, being an Assembly member gives the additional
possibility of
>> participating in decision making. That would mean having a voice in the
>> (presumably rare) case where consensus cannot be found and we need to
>> vote, and having an opinion “that counts” in other cases.
>>
>> IMO Assembly members must sign the Social Contract: it’s the way we
>> collectively agree to basic requirements and goals.
>
> I don't like the word "sign", but yes, I agree that being a GNU
> contributor (however we define that term) and endorsing the GNU Social
> Contract would make you an GNU Assembly member.
>
> But again, we might have some trouble defining GNU contributor. For
> example if you look at the maintainer file on fencepost you will now
> see that it lists GNU Radio as unmaintained and various
> packages/maintainers are now marked as "renegade", like most GNOME
> related packages. I assume we still count them as GNU contributors. On
> the other hand the maintainer file on fencepost lists some maintainers
> who haven't actually contributed much besides an empty package (but
> maybe they contributed to others?).
Good points. In the end, I think what makes most sense is the notion of
membership, where one endorses the GNU Social Contract.
“Membership” in the GNU Assembly? Or membership in the … let’s say…
copy-on-write fork of GNU? Is there any difference?
I see this attempt at organizing beyond the structures that the founder
established as a way to improve on the organization of the project. To
me this necessitates endorsement of the GNU Social Contract, at least
for those who want to have their voice heard in decisions that affect
this collaborative effort.
At the same time, the GNU “project” as it is has a number of
contributors who at best don’t care about our vision and don’t have any
motivation to endorse the Social Contract. The original project’s goal
to create a free operating system with many useful programs has been
largely successful, so it seems to me that there is little more
motivation for maintaining even the illusion of a “project”.
I would hope that this notion of “non-endorsing member” will become
moot. Perhaps we should just exclude that notion in fact, since
non-endorsing members are probably going to be rare.
If the requirement to vote is endorsement of the Social Contract, we
will exclude many GNU maintainers who disagree with the necessity for
such a Social Contract. I’m not clear on what “membership” really
entails, but it seems to me that there’s a danger of a circular
definition.
Do we want to tolerate or even invite the dissent of those who disagree
with the Social Contract? (Can we afford to?)
--
Ricardo
1:12 a.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Ludo had mentioned:
> I would hope that this notion of “non-endorsing member” will
become
> moot. Perhaps we should just exclude that notion in fact, since
> non-endorsing members are probably going to be rare.
I agree: we should exclude the notion of "non-endorsing member".
You really don't want people who don't endorse. That's one of our main points
here: to offer a healthy environment.
To give examples of what happens when you don't have norms in place, here are articles
from gnu.misc.discuss (and they scrubbed the worse -- sometimes you only see it quoted):
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2021-03/msg00060.html
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2021-04/msg00002.html
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2020-02/msg00114.html
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2021-03/msg00173.html
or in the private gnu lists (no links to archives available, and I won't forward any
literal text since it is a private list) the naming of specific people for backstabber
awards.
We want our projects and lists to have a code of conduct and the ability to remove toxic
immature trolling when it becomes a problem.
Ricardo mentions:
Do we want to tolerate or even invite the dissent of those who
disagree
with the Social Contract? (Can we afford to?)
I think we should *all* question the social contract and revise it as needed! We
don't give up on critical thinking. We just behave reasonably when we bring up our
thoughts.
But we should all endorse the social contract as we try to improve the parts that might
need it.
7:50 a.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hi Mark,
Mark Galassi <mark(a)galassi.org> skribis:
Ludo had mentioned:
>> I would hope that this notion of “non-endorsing member” will become
>> moot. Perhaps we should just exclude that notion in fact, since
>> non-endorsing members are probably going to be rare.
[...]
We want our projects and lists to have a code of conduct and the
ability to remove toxic immature trolling when it becomes a problem.
To be clear, by “non-endorsing members”, I meant people who do not
endorse the Social Contract, but this people would still be subject to
the code of conduct in my mind—this is not negotiable, for the reasons
you gave.
Ricardo mentions:
> Do we want to tolerate or even invite the dissent of those who disagree
> with the Social Contract? (Can we afford to?)
I think we should *all* question the social contract and revise it as needed! We
don't give up on critical thinking. We just behave reasonably when we bring up our
thoughts.
But we should all endorse the social contract as we try to improve the parts that might
need it.
That makes sense to me.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
11:16 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hi Mark,
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 07:12:34PM -0600, Mark Galassi wrote:
Ludo had mentioned:
>> I would hope that this notion of “non-endorsing member” will become
>> moot. Perhaps we should just exclude that notion in fact, since
>> non-endorsing members are probably going to be rare.
I agree: we should exclude the notion of "non-endorsing member".
You really don't want people who don't endorse. That's one of our
main points here: to offer a healthy environment.
To give examples of what happens when you don't have norms in
place,
here are articles from gnu.misc.discuss (and they scrubbed the worse
-- sometimes you only see it quoted):
[Examples deleted]
or in the private gnu lists (no links to archives available, and I
won't forward any literal text since it is a private list) the
naming of specific people for backstabber awards.
We want our projects and lists to have a code of conduct and the
ability to remove toxic immature trolling when it becomes a problem.
I do agree. And I know you mean well by showing some of the worst
things going on. But I wish you hadn't pointed to one of the active
doxxing campaigns going on, please don't amplify them.
Thanks,
Mark
> Ricardo mentions:
>
> > Do we want to tolerate or even invite the dissent of those who disagree
> > with the Social Contract? (Can we afford to?)
>
> I think we should *all* question the social contract and revise it as needed! We
don't give up on critical thinking. We just behave reasonably when we bring up our
thoughts.
>
> But we should all endorse the social contract as we try to improve the parts that
might need it.
>
3:55 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 6:00 PM Ricardo Wurmus <rekado(a)elephly.net> wrote:
If the requirement to vote is endorsement of the Social Contract, we
will exclude many GNU maintainers who disagree with the necessity for
such a Social Contract. I’m not clear on what “membership” really
entails, but it seems to me that there’s a danger of a circular
definition.
What makes it circular?
Do we want to tolerate or even invite the dissent of those who
disagree
with the Social Contract? (Can we afford to?)
We can and we should. You can be on the assembly mailing list and
discuss exactly this point.
However, radical deviation from consensus is going to be hard because
you have to convince existing members to vote to change the Social
Contract.
Cheers,
Carlos.
1:12 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hi Carlos,
"Carlos O'Donell" <carlos(a)systemhalted.org> skribis:
> Do we want to tolerate or even invite the dissent of those who
disagree
> with the Social Contract? (Can we afford to?)
We can and we should. You can be on the assembly mailing list and
discuss exactly this point.
However, radical deviation from consensus is going to be hard because
you have to convince existing members to vote to change the Social
Contract.
Here I agree with Mark Galassi, who wrote¹:
I think we should *all* question the social contract and revise it as
needed! We don't give up on critical thinking. We just behave reasonably when we
bring up our thoughts.
But we should all endorse the social contract as we try to improve the parts that might
need it.
The Social Contract gives the general framework of our cooperation as a
group. Perhaps we’ll make it change over time, but there needs to be
spelled out common ground. Without this, we may lack the conditions for
consensus², which in turn would prevent progress altogether.
So at this point, I lean towards including on the mailing list only SC
endorsers. After all, if someone does not even agree on the basic
premises listed in the SC, we’re probably going to have a hard time
working together.
Thoughts?
Ludo’.
¹
https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assembly@lists.gnu.tools/message/...
² https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus#conditions
7:46 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Ludovic Courtès <ludo(a)gnu.org> writes:
Hi Carlos,
"Carlos O'Donell" <carlos(a)systemhalted.org> skribis:
>> Do we want to tolerate or even invite the dissent of those who disagree
>> with the Social Contract? (Can we afford to?)
>
> We can and we should. You can be on the assembly mailing list and
> discuss exactly this point.
>
> However, radical deviation from consensus is going to be hard because
> you have to convince existing members to vote to change the Social
> Contract.
Here I agree with Mark Galassi, who wrote¹:
> I think we should *all* question the social contract and revise it as needed! We
don't give up on critical thinking. We just behave reasonably when we bring up our
thoughts.
>
> But we should all endorse the social contract as we try to improve the parts that
might need it.
The Social Contract gives the general framework of our cooperation as a
group. Perhaps we’ll make it change over time, but there needs to be
spelled out common ground. Without this, we may lack the conditions for
consensus², which in turn would prevent progress altogether.
So at this point, I lean towards including on the mailing list only SC
endorsers. After all, if someone does not even agree on the basic
premises listed in the SC, we’re probably going to have a hard time
working together.
Thoughts?
It seems reasonable to me to require endorsement of the SC by all
mailing list participants.
But: can we enforce this?
I’m sorry for involving you in my paranoia, but experience has shown
that GNU has its share of people who do not shy away from bullying, so I
don’t think it’s hard to imagine bad faith actors who agree to whatever
conditions there are to participate just to be able to subvert the
process.
Sure, we can kick trolls and bullies off the mailing list. Is this
enough?
In my opinion, the Social Contract is limited enough to be
non-controversial for those who argue in good faith. However, the fact
that we revised it in the past after discussion means that we cannot
just freeze it and isolate it from requests to change it. How can we
protect the essence of the Social Contract in the presence of those who
join the assembly / the mailing list in an attempt to exercise voting
rights to gut the Social Contract or otherwise sabotage our efforts?
(I loathe thinking so defensively.)
--
Ricardo
9:53 a.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hi!
Ricardo Wurmus <rekado(a)elephly.net> skribis:
Sure, we can kick trolls and bullies off the mailing list. Is this
enough?
In my opinion, the Social Contract is limited enough to be
non-controversial for those who argue in good faith. However, the fact
that we revised it in the past after discussion means that we cannot
just freeze it and isolate it from requests to change it. How can we
protect the essence of the Social Contract in the presence of those who
join the assembly / the mailing list in an attempt to exercise voting
rights to gut the Social Contract or otherwise sabotage our efforts?
I think infiltration¹ a common issue for all non-profit organizations.
In “Guix Europe” (French non-profit), new members have to be approved
unanimously, which preserves it from infiltration. Perhaps Andreas can
comment.
I suppose we could either do that, and/or require modifications to the
SC to be approve unanimously.
There are probably also lessons to learn from Debian. How can its
Constitution be changed?
I also learned about this site, which could be a good source of
inspiration:
https://communityrule.info/create/?r=consensus
Ludo’.
¹ I think it’s a good translation of French “noyautage”, which is what I
have in mind, but correct me if I’m wrong.
10:55 a.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Am Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 11:53:35AM +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
In “Guix Europe” (French non-profit), new members have to be
approved
unanimously, which preserves it from infiltration. Perhaps Andreas can
comment.
I did already in another message. In fact it is not unanymous, but by
simple majority of the SAC. But in practice, it has always been unanimous,
since only people already known in the community applied for membership.
And the two stage process from membership to SAC to approve new members
prevents a flooding with hostile people who immediately approve more
of them.
Andreas
8:15 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Well, the main threat to democracy has always been people perverting it
to push non-democratic agendas and overturn it. How are we gonna solve
that essential problem????
Frederic
On 07/04/2021 21:46, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo(a)gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos(a)systemhalted.org> skribis:
>>
>>>> Do we want to tolerate or even invite the dissent of those who disagree
>>>> with the Social Contract? (Can we afford to?)
>>>
>>> We can and we should. You can be on the assembly mailing list and
>>> discuss exactly this point.
>>>
>>> However, radical deviation from consensus is going to be hard because
>>> you have to convince existing members to vote to change the Social
>>> Contract.
>>
>> Here I agree with Mark Galassi, who wrote¹:
>>
>>> I think we should *all* question the social contract and revise it as needed!
We don't give up on critical thinking. We just behave reasonably when we bring up
our thoughts.
>>>
>>> But we should all endorse the social contract as we try to improve the parts
that might need it.
>>
>> The Social Contract gives the general framework of our cooperation as a
>> group. Perhaps we’ll make it change over time, but there needs to be
>> spelled out common ground. Without this, we may lack the conditions for
>> consensus², which in turn would prevent progress altogether.
>>
>> So at this point, I lean towards including on the mailing list only SC
>> endorsers. After all, if someone does not even agree on the basic
>> premises listed in the SC, we’re probably going to have a hard time
>> working together.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> It seems reasonable to me to require endorsement of the SC by all
> mailing list participants.
>
> But: can we enforce this?
>
> I’m sorry for involving you in my paranoia, but experience has shown
> that GNU has its share of people who do not shy away from bullying, so I
> don’t think it’s hard to imagine bad faith actors who agree to whatever
> conditions there are to participate just to be able to subvert the
> process.
>
> Sure, we can kick trolls and bullies off the mailing list. Is this
> enough?
>
> In my opinion, the Social Contract is limited enough to be
> non-controversial for those who argue in good faith. However, the fact
> that we revised it in the past after discussion means that we cannot
> just freeze it and isolate it from requests to change it. How can we
> protect the essence of the Social Contract in the presence of those who
> join the assembly / the mailing list in an attempt to exercise voting
> rights to gut the Social Contract or otherwise sabotage our efforts?
>
> (I loathe thinking so defensively.)
>
7:54 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 03:12:50PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Here I agree with Mark Galassi, who wrote¹:
> I think we should *all* question the social contract and revise it
> as needed! We don't give up on critical thinking. We just behave
> reasonably when we bring up our thoughts.
>
> But we should all endorse the social contract as we try to improve
> the parts that might need it.
The Social Contract gives the general framework of our cooperation as a
group. Perhaps we’ll make it change over time, but there needs to be
spelled out common ground. Without this, we may lack the conditions for
consensus², which in turn would prevent progress altogether.
So at this point, I lean towards including on the mailing list only SC
endorsers. After all, if someone does not even agree on the basic
premises listed in the SC, we’re probably going to have a hard time
working together.
Agreed. Also note that the mailing list description is:
The GNU Assembly public discussion list
The GNU Assembly <https://gnu.tools/> is a group of GNU project
members who transparently and collectively produce technical and
organizational recommendations for GNU packages following the GNU
Social Contract <https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract>
So endorsement of the GNU Social Contract is a given for members of
this list.
The following new members have subscribed:
Jason Merill, who is one of the global reviewers if GCC.
Florian Weimer, who is one of the glibc maintainers.
Frank Eigler, who is one of the overseers of sourceware which hosts
many of the GNU Toolchain packages (sourceware is also gcc.gnu.org).
In the future for new subscribers I will make sure to mention the
endorsement of the GNU Social Contract upfront and ask new members to
introduce themselves when they join this list and make sure to be
clear that all activity on the list and other gnu.tools spaces is
covered by the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct
https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct
Cheers,
Mark
> ¹
https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assembly@lists.gnu.tools/message/...
> ² https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus#conditions
8:04 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hi -
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 09:54:11PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Agreed. Also note that the mailing list description is:
The GNU Assembly public discussion list
The GNU Assembly <https://gnu.tools/> is a group of GNU project
members who transparently and collectively produce technical and
organizational recommendations for GNU packages following the GNU
Social Contract <https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract>
So endorsement of the GNU Social Contract is a given for members of
this list.
Is the intent to interpret a discussion-list membership as equivalent
to gnu assembly membership, or as an endorsal of position letters
speaking on behalf of the members?
- FChE
9:45 p.m.
New subject: Structure of the GNU Assembly [was: New Assembly Members]
Hello,
Am Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:04:42PM -0400 schrieb Frank Ch. Eigler:
Is the intent to interpret a discussion-list membership as
equivalent
to gnu assembly membership, or as an endorsal of position letters
speaking on behalf of the members?
indeed I think we may have been going too fast (while at the same time I am
happy to see more people joining, so that things can move forward!), since
the purposes of the potentially multiple groups of people have not been
defined. Probably we need two things: an open discussion list for GNU
contributors who endorse the Code of Conduct and (this could be open for
debate) the GNU Social Contract; and a subset of voting members who form
what I would call the assembly and who definitely must endorse the GNU
Social Contract. Currently by adding more people without much debate, this
list serves essentially the former purpose, while its name appears to
reflect the latter purpose (but the "assembly" could also be everybody, and
the decision taking subset could bear a different name).
As a side-note, it would be good if people joining the list explicitly
stated in their first message that they endorse the GNU Social Contract,
instead of it being implicit by their request to join. And that they be
added to the wiki page as endorsers (which may already deter moles).
The point I am making is that our goal (at least as I understand it) is not
to be just another discussion list, but to form an organisation that can
state at some point in time: "We are GNU" (hm, I tend to do so already;
I think we are the most legitimate group of people to make such a claim).
To me that not only feels like the ethical thing to do, but is also
eminently practical (in case the FSF disappears, for instance).
Am Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 09:46:55PM +0200 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus:
I’m sorry for involving you in my paranoia, but experience has shown
that GNU has its share of people who do not shy away from bullying, so I
don’t think it’s hard to imagine bad faith actors who agree to whatever
conditions there are to participate just to be able to subvert the
process.
(I loathe thinking so defensively.)
I share your concern, which is quite natural: Just imagine the most vocal
contributors to gnu-misc-discuss joining the GNU assembly... So there
should be some organisational structure to protect us from a hostile
take-over (which can never be completely excluded).
In the Guix Europe non-profit, for instance, we took the following
approach:
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix/maintenance.git/plain/guix-europe/...
There are regular members, and the Solidary Administrative Council (SAC),
which takes all decisions. The members elect the SAC during their yearly
general assembly. The SAC votes on membership requests. This entails some
kind of bootstrapping in spirals: The founding members elected themselves
to the SAC, and then during one year accepted new members. One year later,
these members joined the SAC and so on. It is not explicitly stated in the
bylaws, but our goal was to be as collegiate as possible and to have every
member join the SAC eventually. And the rules effectively instate a waiting
period of about one year for a new member.
We could have a similar mechanism for the GNU assembly. Maybe it could
additionally reflect our structure consisting of different projects.
(How to limit the power of the bigger projects? Should we have one vote
per project or per member? Or two "chambers"? Should we keep the notion
of maintainers? If yes, how would they be appointed? By the GNU assembly
or from inside the project? If the latter, will they automatically have
voting rights in the assembly?) Lots of interesting questions, but we
could also start small and consider only individuals and their roles in
the GNU Assembly.
Andreas
3:49 a.m.
New subject: Structure of the GNU Assembly [was: New Assembly Members]
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 5:46 PM Andreas Enge <andreas(a)enge.fr> wrote:
The point I am making is that our goal (at least as I understand it)
is not
to be just another discussion list, but to form an organisation that can
state at some point in time: "We are GNU" (hm, I tend to do so already;
I think we are the most legitimate group of people to make such a claim).
To me that not only feels like the ethical thing to do, but is also
eminently practical (in case the FSF disappears, for instance).
After the recent fiasco, trying to claim the GNU brand seems a bit
hopeless. Finding a different name seems more feasible at this point.
Jason
11:02 a.m.
New subject: Structure of the GNU Assembly [was: New Assembly Members]
Hi Jason,
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 5:46 PM Andreas Enge <andreas(a)enge.fr>
wrote:
> The point I am making is that our goal (at least as I
> understand it) is not
> to be just another discussion list, but to form an organisation
> that can
> state at some point in time: "We are GNU" (hm, I tend to do so
> already;
> I think we are the most legitimate group of people to make such
> a claim).
> To me that not only feels like the ethical thing to do, but is
> also
> eminently practical (in case the FSF disappears, for instance).
After the recent fiasco, trying to claim the GNU brand seems a
bit
hopeless. Finding a different name seems more feasible at this
point.
I consider this to be the next and last step.
Claiming the GNU brand as maintainers and contributors of some of
the most active packages in GNU seems to me entirely justified.
With the GNU brand comes the inherited association of software
that aims to guarantee the users’ freedoms. This, to me, sems to
be a valuable association to hold on to.
The close link between GNU and rms (approaching identity) is very
unfortunate (where he is both leader of GNU and not at all
involved at the same time, dependent on which talking point is
more effective), but I don’t think it should define us or be the
sole motivator to action.
--
Ricardo
3:49 a.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:04 PM Frank Ch. Eigler <fche(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi -
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 09:54:11PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Agreed. Also note that the mailing list description is:
>
> The GNU Assembly public discussion list
>
> The GNU Assembly <https://gnu.tools/> is a group of GNU project
> members who transparently and collectively produce technical and
> organizational recommendations for GNU packages following the GNU
> Social Contract <https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract>
>
> So endorsement of the GNU Social Contract is a given for members of
> this list.
Is the intent to interpret a discussion-list membership as equivalent
to gnu assembly membership, or as an endorsal of position letters
speaking on behalf of the members?
This is exactly what we are discussing right now. Do you have an
opinion on the topic?
I don't understand the "or" statement in your question though, could
you expand on that more?
I believe there are 3 members on this list (yourself, Florian, and
Jason) which were not asked to endorse the Social Contract before
joining the list.
Cheers,
Carlos.
2:42 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 11:49 PM Carlos O'Donell <carlos(a)systemhalted.org>
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:04 PM Frank Ch. Eigler
<fche(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 09:54:11PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Agreed. Also note that the mailing list description is:
> >
> > The GNU Assembly public discussion list
> >
> > The GNU Assembly <https://gnu.tools/> is a group of GNU project
> > members who transparently and collectively produce technical and
> > organizational recommendations for GNU packages following the GNU
> > Social Contract <https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract>
> >
> > So endorsement of the GNU Social Contract is a given for members of
> > this list.
>
> Is the intent to interpret a discussion-list membership as equivalent
> to gnu assembly membership, or as an endorsal of position letters
> speaking on behalf of the members?
This is exactly what we are discussing right now. Do you have an
opinion on the topic?
I don't understand the "or" statement in your question though, could
you expand on that more?
I believe there are 3 members on this list (yourself, Florian, and
Jason) which were not asked to endorse the Social Contract before
joining the list.
I endorse it, though talking about the GNU "system" seems a bit
obsolete at this point.
Jason (GCC)
12:47 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hello Jason,
Am Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:42:00AM -0400 schrieb Jason Merrill:
I endorse it, though talking about the GNU "system" seems a
bit
obsolete at this point.
Jason (GCC)
I took this as an invitation to add you to the "people" web page with gcc
as your affiliation; if this is contrary to your intentions, I will happily
remove you again.
Thanks,
Andreas
1:59 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hi,
Jason Merrill <jason(a)redhat.com> skribis:
I endorse it, though talking about the GNU "system" seems a
bit
obsolete at this point.
To put it differently, I think we need to define the Assembly’s
technical vision.
The vision of a “system” probably makes sense to Guix/Mes/Hurd people,
much less for people in other projects.
Discussing the “system” vision advertised by Rust folks and how it
affects our work could be one way to see where we’re at:
https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assembly@lists.gnu.tools/thread/U...
Ludo’.
12:51 a.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hi Florian,
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:14:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Mark Wielaard:
> Florian Weimer, who is one of the glibc maintainers.
For the record, I'm a regular glibc contributor, not a maintainer for
glibc appointed by the GNU project.
Grin. I think that is precisely the point of the GNU Assembly, to
document and recommend the actual GNU governance setup. You are what
the glibc project calls a maintainer of the project:
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/MAINTAINERS
I think it is a maybe unspoken assumption on this list that there
hasn't been any proper GNU governance for the last couple of years
(some would say decades). And that if the person who calls himself
"Chief GNUisance" does try to "govern" the results are unbearable. As
you experienced in the glibc community. Most of the time the project
stewards simply say no, go away, shielding the actual developers from
the disfunctionality. But that isn't really a good governance model.
Cheers,
Mark
3:42 a.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 8:53 PM Mark Wielaard <mjw(a)gnu.org> wrote:
I think it is a maybe unspoken assumption on this list that there
hasn't been any proper GNU governance for the last couple of years
(some would say decades). And that if the person who calls himself
"Chief GNUisance" does try to "govern" the results are unbearable.
As
you experienced in the glibc community. Most of the time the project
stewards simply say no, go away, shielding the actual developers from
the disfunctionality. But that isn't really a good governance model.
In response to pressure from the GNU Assembly in 2019 RMS did write this up:
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-structure.html
With regards to the abortion joke in the glibc manual, I did not do a good
job of shielding the community from the GNU Project in this case. The fact
that I have to do that shielding as my GNU Package maintainer duties
is disappointing.
Cheers,
Carlos.
9:53 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hi Florian,
* Mark Wielaard:
> Florian Weimer, who is one of the glibc maintainers.
For the record, I'm a regular glibc contributor, not a
maintainer for
glibc appointed by the GNU project.
would you mind if I added you (with affiliation “glibc”) to the
/people and /software pages at https://gnu.tools?
--
Ricardo
9:06 a.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hello Florian,
Am Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 10:14:56PM +0200 schrieb Florian Weimer:
* Mark Wielaard:
> Florian Weimer, who is one of the glibc maintainers.
For the record, I'm a regular glibc contributor, not a maintainer for
glibc appointed by the GNU project.
I notice that you do not appear on the list of people:
https://gnu.tools/en/people/
which is probably an error during the early rush of additions.
Would you like me to add you with glibc as your affiliation?
Andreas
8:49 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Mark Wielaard <mjw(a)gnu.org> skribis:
But again, we might have some trouble defining GNU contributor. For
example if you look at the maintainer file on fencepost you will now
see that it lists GNU Radio as unmaintained and various
packages/maintainers are now marked as "renegade", like most GNOME
related packages.
Somehow I had to see it by myself, and it’s funny that the word actually
appears, as in:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
name: r maintainers
email: R-core(a)lists.R-project.org
package: r
renegade: true
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
Ludo’.
10:53 a.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hi,
On Mon, 2021-04-05 at 15:25 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 14:16 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I think any GNU contributor can subscribe to the mailing list. I
> would exclude people who are not GNU contributors to ensure the
> list remains focused.
Note that we haven't really defined who is a "GNU contributor", so
there is still some ambiguity that the list admins need to resolve when
they don't know the person. But for now I added Siddhesh Poyarekar, who
is one of the release/uploaders of glibc. And who really should update
his wikipage https://www.sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/SiddheshPoyarekar
And today we got two more subscribers.
Marc Poulhiès who works on GCC-Rust.
And Jack Hill who works on Guix.
https://jackhill.us/talks/guix-software-freedom/guix-software-freedom.pdf
Cheers,
Mark
2:37 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
Hello all,
sorry for the silence, I just caught up. I agree with the consensus that
appears to have been reached: A member of the GNU Assembly must endorse
the GNU Social Contract, which is the foundation of our organisation.
And this need not mean it is set in stone, but I do not see a pressing need
to rediscuss it now. Anyway, it seems to be so basic that the task will
rather be expanding on top of it than modifying the foundations. Thanks for
working toward that!
Am Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 03:25:57PM +0200 schrieb Mark Wielaard:
But for now I added Siddhesh Poyarekar, who is one of the
release/uploaders of glibc.
Am Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 12:53:04PM +0200 schrieb Mark
Wielaard:
And today we got two more subscribers.
Marc Poulhiès who works on GCC-Rust.
And Jack Hill who works on Guix.
https://jackhill.us/talks/guix-software-freedom/guix-software-freedom.pdf
Welcome to the new endorsers! Would it make sense to update the page at
https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract-endorsement
to continually list the GNU contributors who have joined the movement?
(We still have the distinction between "maintainers" and
"developers",
inherited from former times, which I think we will want to rework eventually;
but this is probably not very urgent.)
Andreas
3:19 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021, Mark Wielaard wrote:
And Jack Hill who works on Guix.
https://jackhill.us/talks/guix-software-freedom/guix-software-freedom.pdf
Greetings everyone and thanks for the welcome!
I endorse the GNU Social Contract.
I asked to join the mailing list because as someone who is enthusiastic
about free software and participates in Guix, I care very much about
having a bright future for GNU packages.
I'm willing the help as I am able, but recognize my limited standing and
experience in this area, so expect I will be doing a lot of listening.
There's also a video of my talk available:
https://jackhill.us/talks/guix-software-freedom/guix-software-freedom.webm
If nothing else, I encourage people to look at slides 20 and 24 to see
cute groundhogs from around our house and feel good about the world.
Best,
Jack
3:53 p.m.
New subject: New Assembly Members
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 8:16 AM Ludovic Courtès <ludo(a)gnu.org> wrote:
I think any GNU contributor can subscribe to the mailing list. I
would
exclude people who are not GNU contributors to ensure the list remains
focused.
I'd probably make a statement of expectation e.g. "This list is
intended for those contributing to GNU packages."
The intent is to keep the list focused on the work required by GNU
package maintainers.
I don't know how to clearly define a contribution that we could
actively use it to exclude people.
In my view, being an Assembly member gives the additional possibility
of
participating in decision making. That would mean having a voice in the
(presumably rare) case where consensus cannot be found and we need to
vote, and having an opinion “that counts” in other cases.
IMO Assembly members must sign the Social Contract: it’s the way we
collectively agree to basic requirements and goals.
Fully agreed. Otherwise consensus doesn't work.
IOW, subscribers who are not members are GNU contributors who have
not
signed the Social Contract. I expect it to be a rare situation, but
allowing this permits discussion with people who have not made up their
mind or who even disagree with the direction we’re taking but are
willing to discuss constructively.
Thoughts?
Agreed.
Cheers,
Carlos.
1094
days inactive
1118
days old
34 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Andreas Enge -
Carlos O'Donell -
Florian Weimer -
Frank Ch. Eigler -
fredomatic -
Jack Hill -
Jason Merrill -
Ludovic Courtès -
Mark Galassi -
Mark Wielaard -
Ricardo Wurmus