
Conflicts in the GNU project now affect Guile - iso-8859-1
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2019-10/msg00005.html
======
emacsdevel
It's an unfortunate fact that the GNU projects and their email lists have
_always_ attracted difficult people. If your organization is founded on
inflexible ideological commitment (as the FSF is) then you will end up
appealing to a lot of inflexible, idealistic people who are very committed to
having things go their way. RMS has been one of the worst offenders in many
well-documented ways, but every GNU project I'm familiar with has had its
share of "missing stairs", who are often among the most vocal people on the
project's -devel email list. Many of them are extremely proficient
technically, but abrasive to others in ways that they might not recognize.

For newcomers to the projects this can lead to unpleasant interactions that
push people away from volunteering on the projects.

At the same time, this shouldn't push you away from getting involved with a
GNU project if you find it interesting. Many of the projects are full of kind,
helpful, hardworking people. The maintainers in particular are mostly
excellent. If you have an unpleasant interaction, I'd encourage you to reach
out to one of the maintainers in a private message to ask for advice on how to
contribute and work with the community. Often they can help by pointing you to
specific people to talk to and interact with.

------
nkurz
Mark Weaver's response should probably be read immediately after reading the
linked post that starts the thread:

[https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-
devel/2019-10/msg00...](https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-
devel/2019-10/msg00021.html).

To me, they both come across as eminently reasonable, and it makes me think
the the Guile project is going to be in good hands regardless of what happens.

~~~
geofft
The odd part here to me is that it seems to be the norm that, if you want to
join the maintainer team of Guile, you ask RMS and you don't even need to talk
to the existing maintainer team first. I agree that the response sounds
reasonable too, and in any other development project I would be confused by
how a reasonable-sounding person can take such an unreasonable-sounding
approach - so I assume that this approach is reasonable and that this is in
fact a norm.

I think that the idea that _anyone_ who isn't involved with the project (RMS
or otherwise) gets to pick the maintainers of projects, and doesn't just defer
to the existing maintainer teams in all but exceptional cases. is untenable
(and has been causing unnecessary interpersonal conflicts in GNU for decades),
and I hope one of the long-term results of all this is to get rid of that
norm.

For an example of doing things pretty firmly in the other direction, I've
always liked how new hires on Canonical's OS engineering teams aren't
immediately appointed Ubuntu maintainers - they have to go through the same
process anyone else would. Of course they have lots of advantages (a full-time
job where they work closely with most of the existing maintainers to learn
everything they need to publicly demonstrate their fitness for the role), but
it makes it clear that the maintainership of Ubuntu is driven by Ubuntu and
not by managers at Canonical.

~~~
plorkyeran
I'm guessing that RMS's position is that he _is_ involved in the project: he
leads GNU, Guile is a GNU project, therefore he is in charge of Guile.

Disagreements over what it means to be a part of GNU have been a (usually
minor) issue for decades.

------
etiam
Finally some concrete examples of what RMS is alleged to have done wrong.

All those references from stallman.org seems like perfectly reasonable
opinions to hold and express though. Seems like you'd have to be fairly deep
into radical leftism to read it as anything that "speaks for itself" that the
author is due for an extra large helping of sexual taboo condemnations and
being ousted from his job.

But if this is the level of differences that will cause cooperation-breaking
conflicts these people can't work together.

Non-GNU Guile?

~~~
emacsdevel
Many regular contributors to GNU projects didn't like RMS's involvement in the
first place. He makes no technical contribtions, and he tends to post
politically divisive flamebait-ey topics to the email lists. He'll also
undercut his appointed maintainers by posting his own musings about decisions
that have already been settled by the maintainers. More than once, he's used
an effective "veto" power to force sub-optimal architectural choices in an
effort to make sure GNU projects can't easily interoperate with non-GPL
software. Refusing to expose gcc functionality through a library interface is
the best-known example (which directly led many developers, researchers, and
organizations to adopt clang and LLVM), but there are others, including a veto
of Emacs features that would make it easier to talk to clang to power IDE-like
features.

Most regular contributors found this behavior frustrating, and would discuss
it privately, although rarely if ever discuss it on-list. These are people who
are absolutely committed to free software, they were just sick of dealing with
RMS. Wingo's stated attitude seems pretty typical: RMS was damage that needed
to be routed around.

After developing this reputation, it's not shocking that most maintainers and
contributors accepted his resignation from the FSF with a shrug. They were
sick of dealing with him anyway - they're not going to protest to try to get
him back.

~~~
billyjobob
If someone values optimal architectural choices even when it damages the
political cause of software freedom, then what is he doing in the Free
Software movement? There is a sister movement that was set-up explicitly to be
technical and non-political: Open Source. The licenses are even compatible so
if you discover you accidentally joined the wrong movement it is easy to
switch to the other one!

~~~
plorkyeran
The disagreement is over what hurts the Free Software movement more: letting
people subvert your license and use it in non-Free ways, or having everyone
simply switch to non-Free software.

------
gdwatson
I don't know anything about the current goings on, but I read Wingo's blog for
his fascinating technical insights. He has written some controversial things
on hiring and collaboration that I do not agree with but do find helpful to
understand what he's writing here about RMS:

[https://wingolog.org/archives/2017/09/04/the-hardest-
thing-a...](https://wingolog.org/archives/2017/09/04/the-hardest-thing-about-
hiring-is-avoiding-the-fash)

[https://wingolog.org/archives/2017/09/05/a-new-interview-
que...](https://wingolog.org/archives/2017/09/05/a-new-interview-question)

Edit: The important takeaway for me is that he regards a host of project-
unrelated views, including pro-free-speech views, as disqualifying.

~~~
catalogia
I'm not sure either of these blog posts are relevant. To my knowledge he's not
accused Mark Weaver of being either a fascist or a sexist.

~~~
techwizrd
As some of the comments in the linked articles explain, he seems to
uncharitably read into comments people make. He assumes the worst in people
and then publicly paints them as personae non gratae based on what may be, at
best, a mischaracterization.

~~~
catalogia
I can't say I disagree with your take on the matter, but I don't think airing
anybody's personality flaws on HN is in the best interests of Guile or GNU.
The individuals involved are probably already aware of each other's
personality quirks and don't need this forum to help them discuss the matter.

------
billyjobob
Stallman is GNU. GNU is Stallman. If the project maintainer has a problem with
Stallman issuing orders then he has a problem with being part of GNU. If a GNU
project has problems with GNU then the solution is to fork the project into a
non-GNU project, not try to usurp the name GNU into meaning something that is
not RMS.

~~~
geofft
This has been done before multiple times and the resulting technical work
significantly improved GNU (ECGS and EGLIBC come to mind). Also, historically,
GNU maintainers aren't obligated to give total deference to RMS (the glibc
steering committee comes to mind). So while "RMS is the king" might be true on
paper, it's been neither true nor helpful to GNU in practice, and insisting on
it simply hurts projects that are less well-staffed to fight political fights
or organize forks. It doesn't help the free software movement at all.

~~~
emacsdevel
Don't forget XEmacs!

------
kragen
When I was 17, I started dating the woman who I married when I was 20. She was
older than I was, so it's fairly horrifying to me to see people publicly
equating "pedophilia" with "sex between adults and teenagers". It makes my old
wounds ache to see respected community leaders like Andy Wingo publicly
accusing her of pedophilia and, implicitly, of abusive behavior, promoting the
unwarranted social stigma we had to struggle against for the entire duration
of our relationship.

Although we were only intimate partners for seven years, the relationship was
not in any way a matter of her taking advantage of me or abusing me. The
relationship changed my life dramatically for the better, and I still love
her, even though it has been some years since we last saw each other.

I thank God I lived in New Mexico, where the age of consent was low enough to
protect her from legal risks in addition to the social ostracism she did
suffer.

To state my position clearly, there is nothing wrong with sexual relationships
between adults and older teenagers. It is not a result of pedophilia, nor is
that situation inherently abusive. It does require special attention to issues
of inequality of power stemming from economic and social differences, as well
as the special difficulties faced by any relationship involving teenagers or
people in their early twenties stemming from inexperience and higher levels of
impulsivity.

Of course, the relationship that provoked this controversy had nothing of this
egalitarian character. According to the account of Virginia Giuffre, the
victim, she was enslaved by serial rapist Jeffrey Epstein, who preyed on
teenagers precisely because of their economic and psychological vulnerability;
he ordered her to have sex with a variety of men who were presumably unaware
of her enslavement. Her obedient efforts at seducing Stallman’s friend Marvin
Minsky included accompanying him on travel around the country, but she has not
alleged that they actually had sex or that he knew of her enslavement.
Physicist Gregory Benford testified to observing Minsky reject Giuffre’s
advances.

Epstein may have had an additional motive for preying on teenagers: he
maintained a large library of surreptitious video recordings of famous men
having sex with enslaved underage women. There is evidence that Epstein was
working for the US Intelligence Community; prosecutor Acosta accepted an
unconscionable level of impunity as a result.

Stallman defending his dead friend Minsky from wholly unfounded allegations of
“sexual assault” on the basis of the above facts is what provoked the current
controversy.

I find it profoundly appalling to see people like Andy Wingo equating people
like my beloved first wife to perpetrators of atrocities like Jeffrey Epstein,
asserting that the most important fact about our relationship is that I, like
Giuffre, was 17 years old when it began.

~~~
fock
Your point of view is still pretty common in any non-puritan country on this
planet, so I also are a little bit puzzled everytime, when RMS is judged that
way.

And Mr. President "infinite wisdom" still "grabs them by the pussy". This is
totally schizophrenic even for a plural society.

~~~
catalogia
I doubt many of RMS's critics, if any, support Trump or at least that comment
by Trump. Society seems "schizophrenic" because it's composed of many people
who all have different perspectives and opinions. You should only look for
ideological coherency from organizations and individuals, although even then
you'll be disappointed fairly often. But looking for ideological coherency
across the general population is certainly an exercise in folly.

------
vfclists
I think Andy Wingo issues with GNU should be more focused on his RMS
management style and not his political or social views.

But it is clear that a number of people involved in the GNU projects have had
issues with the management style and personality of RMS quite separate from
his non-conformist views raising views on sexual mores.

Andy Wingo focusing on his views relating to sex risks turning one thing into
another. He should just focus on the management issues within GNU projects and
ignore the unconventional sexual views.

The Epstein case shouldn't be an excuse or a rationale for focusing on the
leadership of RMS.

Having RMS as the leader of the GNU project is like having mildly eccentric
relatives, especially parents. You just have to live with them.

------
cma
> He threatened to leave because he wished to be consulted before I landed
> mixed definitions and expressions

Damn, isn't that what made Guido quit Python as well?

~~~
ploxiln
I think it was sort of the opposite. That was about the new "walrus operator"
(:=) and there was quite a lot of proposals, consultation, a PEP, and lots of
flaming on public mailing lists, and apparently this flaming included people
who Guido respected the opinion of, and some would be quite angry at him
either way he chose over this issue, IIRC.

------
letstrynvm
That email says how the author doesn't like rms or his various writings, then
switches to an unrelated drama about how the author fell out with a major
contributor and there's some ongoing shitstorm in the project due to that.

The title makes it sound like rms' fault but he only features to be ritually
denounced in the first half.

I had to google what guile was I'll certainly be trying to avoid it now.

~~~
cannonedhamster
You appear to have missed where RMS was supposed to have appointed a new co-
maintainer without asking anyone in the current team, therefore asserting
ownership of a project he was uninvolved with in what appears to a spiteful
reason related to his speaking out against RMS. It's in the bottom of the
message. It's weird that your response is to threaten to avoid something
you've never known about before. Unless you were active in the GNU community
already you wouldn't have had reason to use it, so you've not created GNU
extensions, were unaware of the language and the threat you're making is that
you'll avoid it.

Regardless of whether the statements are accurate, I'll hold judgement until
hearing the other side though it does seem odd. I'd be curious what the
prospective co-maintainer wants since he quit prior without resolving issues.

~~~
jsnell
There is a reply from Mark Weaver later in the thread:

[https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-
devel/2019-10/msg00...](https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-
devel/2019-10/msg00021.html)

~~~
techwizrd
Mark's reply should really get a lot more attention.

    
    
      > Secondly, there was a specific purpose to raising my grievances on the
      > internal mailing list.  It's because you are vigorously arguing for
      > collective decision making within GNU, while at the same time you are
      > acting in a dictatorial manner within the Guile project, failing to even
      > consult your co-maintainers on core language changes.  I think that's
      > hypocritical, and I said so.
    

The email in the original post felt very one-sided and strange. Every single
action felt like it was being analyzed to find the worst possible reading. The
additional perspective from Mark's reply (especially the above quote) feels
more balanced and more rational.

------
catalogia
It's really disappointing to see this conflict seem to metastasize.

------
tjr
Bradley Kuhn also wrote an article with regard to recent matters with RMS,
which was submitted on HN a couple of days ago, and (I think) received
inadequate attention:

[http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-
rms.html](http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2019/10/15/fsf-rms.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21262282](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21262282)

------
wruza
“Ability to differentiate = intelligence. Disability to differentitate is
making us stupid.”

Trivial but worth a frame on the wall.

------
worik
RMS is a difficult person. Anybody who has had anything to do with him knows
that.

But he is also (relatively) a old person. He comes from a era when to get
heard you had to shout. His generation turned out a lot of well intentioned,
but bullying, people.

We are much more inclusive these days, we make efforts to broaden the appeal
of our groups and ensure that people other than the usual alphas can function
in them. But in that process we have become intolerant of the shouty bullying
men (usually men, but not always) of old.

This is mostly good. But for RMS and Linus and lots of others of the old guard
there is a difficult adjustment.

It is OK to have opinions. It is OK to express them. But what RMS and co. (me
too, I had to, I am the same generation) had to, have to, learn is that we
need to always speak our opinions softly. Because those who are "weaker"
personalities than us view our shouted opinions as a affront. And if we want
them in our groups, and I know I do, we have to accommodate them.

It seems RMS is stepping out of the way. I know Linus did. Any takers for a
sweepstake on when Theo de Raadt will?

~~~
hollerith
>It seems RMS is stepping out of the way. I know Linus did.

When and how did Linus step out of the way? Are you referring to this event
(quoting Wikipedia):

>On Sunday, September 16, 2018 the Linux Kernel Code of Conflict was suddenly
replaced by a new Code of Conduct based on the Contributor Covenant. Shortly
thereafter, in the release notes for Linux 4.19-rc4, Linus apologized for his
behavior, calling the personal attacks of the past "unprofessional and
uncalled for" and announced a period of "time off" to "get some assistance on
how to understand people's emotions and respond appropriately". It soon
transpired that these events followed The New Yorker approaching Linus with a
series of questions critical of his conduct. Following the release of Linux
4.19 on October 22, Linus went back to maintaining the kernel.

~~~
worik
Yes. That would be what I meant.

I'm hazy on the details thanks for the extra information

