Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
I've been lurking on this list for a while but never contributed in any way to the project. Therefore I understand my voice has little weight. I'm terrified by this campaign of harassment against the person who has given the biggest contribution to free software. This confirms to my eyes that the People *is not* the defensor of Liberty and only the law can defend it. The success of this campaign will prove that even the liberty to express personnal opinions seems excessive to the People. This is how terror begins. -- Didier
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
Nathan, I think you identify an important problem of gender imbalance in our community. It is quite likely that finding ways to make our community more welcoming to demographic groups that are currently less present than in the distribution in the global population could reduce this imbalance. However, your diagnosis as to the supposed cause of the problem makes no sense to me. You said yourself that Stallman has not participated in our community for decades. Much as I know, his very hands-off influence in the SC has been mostly limited to licensing and strategic issues, e.g. the GPLv3 and Runtime Exception relicensing, to ensure copyleft defenses were in place to avoid abuse of such features as plugins. It may be very convenient to paint a boogey-man and expel it because that became fashionable. But sacrificing a goat or a lamb does not expiate our own sins, and expelling someone who hasn't even been present in the community can't be expected to make any real difference to that matter; it would rather make us seem *less* welcoming and more intolerant, and suggest other motivations for the move. Let's be real and honest, when was the last time anyone in the GCC community was called out for sexist behavior? When was there even conversation about it, and about how sexist behavior is not acceptable and not to be accepted among participants in the GCC community? What was our latest collective action to promote e.g. gender equity within the community? If we were to shift our collective blame over this very real and undesirable problem to someone who has any direct authority over the project, why not suggesting expelling e.g. the entire Steering Committee for its evident failure to address the problem? (I don't think it's a good idea, but that would be the first thing to try if we were to blame "management"/"leadership" rather than ourselves for it) What could support any rational belief that having RMS one extra level removed from our technical community would bring about anything resembling a solution to the very undesirable and unjust gender imbalance you've correctly identified? The action you propose, besides the absence of effect in making our community actually more welcoming, because he's already absent, would send the opposite of a welcoming signal to people with controversial or impopular opinions, to people at a certain spot in the neurodiversity spectrum, and to many others who oppose this sort of mob rule. How about we set out to take individual and collective actions that actually address the problem *in* our community? We don't need anyone's approval to call out sexist acts, nor to invite and train people with an interest in compiler technology, nor to maintain a welcoming atmosphere. A regime of terror to maintain a false appearance of a welcoming atmosphere won't get us there. If we undertake such actions, individually or collecetively, you might be surprised (but I won't be) that he, even absent from the community, would support these actions, which is the very opposite of the picture you paint. Our taking effective action on our own would help show what the real issues and intents are, and it would tell apart those who are really interested in solving the gender imbalance and the social injustices causing it, like you and me, from those who are abusing that flag as a trojan horse to serve nefarious purposes, as suggested and illustrated in https://ultralux97.medium.com/stallman-must-be-removed-a3061b09fb22 -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
On Sat, 27 Mar 2021, 13:40 Alexandre Oliva via Gcc, wrote: > > What could support any rational belief that having RMS one extra level > removed from our technical community would bring about anything > resembling a solution to the very undesirable and unjust gender > imbalance you've correctly identified? > I completely agree that more work is needed to address the very real imbalance. But listing his name on our web page as a leader of the project surely makes a difference to how the project is perceived. The active developers know he is not involved in any significant way, but you wouldn't know that from the web page. The link to the SC is right at the top of the gcc.gnu.org home page. Surely that gives a misleading impression to potential new contributors, of all genders and backgrounds. Is it helpful to give that impression? If the SC decision is that it's fine, then making a statement to that effect seems necessary. Which is the alternative Nathan asked for. Act or explain, but don't stay silent. I think it's fair to ask for that.
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
On Mar 27, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > But listing his name on our web page as a leader of the project > surely makes a difference to how the project is perceived. You're probably right that it does, just maybe not quite in the way you seem to perceive it. The Free Software community is a lot more diverse in opinions than the corporate-centered fossal scene where the present moral panic (no offense intended with this term; I aim to *not* pass a judgment on its legitimacy by using it) appears to be running strongest. If FSF's experiences in 2019 are of any use, though the wave of community pressure for Richard's removal or resignation hit hard, the wave of complaints that he had resigned, shortly thereafter, was about an order of magnitude stronger, according to my analysis of the data that was made available to me. Right now, published voices are quite divided, but there are also lots of people being driven into silence by the aggressiveness of the emotional peer pressure. There are also reports of one-sided corporate pressure. Richard's support base is not quite as vocal, furious or deep-pocketed, but it's far more numerous and more discrete. All in all, it looks to me like, in the long term, a public stance in alignment with present emotional demands is more likely to backfire, and make the project seem less welcoming, than staying put. > The active developers know he is not involved in any significant way, but > you wouldn't know that from the web page. You wouldn't know about allegations against him from the web page either. It's quite easy to find them in web searches, and they're also consistent in disclaiming his direct participation in software development projects, so it should be fine. > Is it helpful to give that impression? At least in my circles, his name signals strong commitment to respect for the freedoms of software users, and that's the criterion that IMHO should matter the most for GNU and all of its subprojects. As for being inclusive and kind, these are also very important goals that we should devote attention and effort to. But despite numerous claims, these are not points of dissent with him. The fears spread by this sort of campaign are far more effective at pushing contributors away than the reality that they twist and exaggerate. > If the SC decision is that it's fine, then making a statement to that > effect seems necessary. It looks like statements of any position whatsoever are invitations for pressure and trouble right now. Now, there's another thing I've learned during my tenure at the FSF: pressure upon decision-making bodies is not conducive of or propitious for long-term reasoning or rational, thought-through decisions. It takes time for difficult decisions to mature, even for an individual, let alone for a group that may require multiple cycles of interaction for convergence. I've learned that this kind of pressure is undesirable, when I worked to foment it and then was taught, even by the very person who was supported by that pressure, that, rather than offer useful guidance, pressure created difficulties for the collective decision-making body. So, thanks for listening, and for keeping this conversation civil and kind despite the very strong emotions that a lot of people are feeling and expressing, -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
On 3/27/21 7:08 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote: It may be very convenient to paint a boogey-man and expel it because that became fashionable. But sacrificing a goat or a lamb does not expiate our own sins, and expelling someone who hasn't even been present in the community can't be expected to make any real difference to that matter; it would rather make us seem *less* welcoming and more intolerant, and suggest other motivations for the move. Except that it's not a boogeyman. There is evidence for the documented instances of misconduct and have been corroborated by multiple people. Let's be real and honest, when was the last time anyone in the GCC community was called out for sexist behavior? When was there even conversation about it, and about how sexist behavior is not acceptable and not to be accepted among participants in the GCC community? What was our latest collective action to promote e.g. gender equity within the community? The discussion is about RMS' damaging conduct (especially with non-privileged groups) over the years and the steering committees stand on it, not about steps we take to make the community more welcoming to non-privileged groups. The latter definitely needs a discussion, but as far as this thread is concerned, it is a digression. If we were to shift our collective blame over this very real and undesirable problem to someone who has any direct authority over the project, why not suggesting expelling e.g. the entire Steering Committee for its evident failure to address the problem? (I don't think it's a good idea, but that would be the first thing to try if we were to blame "management"/"leadership" rather than ourselves for it) Nope, you're the one shifting blame for RMS' conduct on to the steering committee and the gcc community. What could support any rational belief that having RMS one extra level removed from our technical community would bring about anything resembling a solution to the very undesirable and unjust gender imbalance you've correctly identified? No but it will make it clear that toxic behaviour has no place in the gcc community. That's step zero. The FSF still hasn't got its act together in that regard unfortunately. How about we set out to take individual and collective actions that actually address the problem *in* our community? We don't need anyone's approval to call out sexist acts, nor to invite and train people with an interest in compiler technology, nor to maintain a welcoming atmosphere. Sexist acts, discriminatory comments and inappropriate behaviour by RMS have been called out. It is now the steering committee's responsibility to share their stand on it. On 3/27/21 9:15 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote: > It looks like statements of any position whatsoever are invitations > for pressure and trouble right now. On the flip side, not making a statement would be a statement in itself. You know that though, which is why you advocate silence. Siddhesh
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
It's not a good idea to disrespect the Gnu Father. - Christopher Dimech General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Geophysical Simulation - Geological Subsurface Mapping - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation - Natural Resource Exploration and Production - Free Software Advocacy > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 5:12 AM > From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar" > To: "Alexandre Oliva" , "Nathan Sidwell" > Cc: "GCC Development" > Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee > > On 3/27/21 7:08 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote: > > It may be very convenient to paint a boogey-man and expel it because > > that became fashionable. But sacrificing a goat or a lamb does not > > expiate our own sins, and expelling someone who hasn't even been present > > in the community can't be expected to make any real difference to that > > matter; it would rather make us seem *less* welcoming and more > > intolerant, and suggest other motivations for the move. > > Except that it's not a boogeyman. There is evidence for the documented > instances of misconduct and have been corroborated by multiple people. > > > Let's be real and honest, when was the last time anyone in the GCC > > community was called out for sexist behavior? When was there even > > conversation about it, and about how sexist behavior is not acceptable > > and not to be accepted among participants in the GCC community? What > > was our latest collective action to promote e.g. gender equity within > > the community? > > The discussion is about RMS' damaging conduct (especially with > non-privileged groups) over the years and the steering committees stand > on it, not about steps we take to make the community more welcoming to > non-privileged groups. The latter definitely needs a discussion, but as > far as this thread is concerned, it is a digression. > > > If we were to shift our collective blame over this very real and > > undesirable problem to someone who has any direct authority over the > > project, why not suggesting expelling e.g. the entire Steering Committee > > for its evident failure to address the problem? (I don't think it's a > > good idea, but that would be the first thing to try if we were to blame > > "management"/"leadership" rather than ourselves for it) > > Nope, you're the one shifting blame for RMS' conduct on to the steering > committee and the gcc community. > > > What could support any rational belief that having RMS one extra level > > removed from our technical community would bring about anything > > resembling a solution to the very undesirable and unjust gender > > imbalance you've correctly identified? > > No but it will make it clear that toxic behaviour has no place in the > gcc community. That's step zero. The FSF still hasn't got its act > together in that regard unfortunately. > > > How about we set out to take individual and collective actions that > > actually address the problem *in* our community? We don't need anyone's > > approval to call out sexist acts, nor to invite and train people with an > > interest in compiler technology, nor to maintain a welcoming atmosphere. > > Sexist acts, discriminatory comments and inappropriate behaviour by RMS > have been called out. It is now the steering committee's responsibility > to share their stand on it. > > On 3/27/21 9:15 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote: > > It looks like statements of any position whatsoever are invitations > > for pressure and trouble right now. > > On the flip side, not making a statement would be a statement in itself. > You know that though, which is why you advocate silence. > > Siddhesh >
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
On 3/26/21 9:02 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: Dear members of the GCC Steering Committee (SC), I ask you to remove Richard Stallman (RMS) I do fully support Nathan's request. Martin
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
Didier Kryn writes: > I'm terrified by this campaign of harassment against the person who > has given the biggest contribution to free software. FWIW I find this terrifying too. What scare me the most is that people supporting RMS are indeed scared of coming out publicly by the aggressiveness of the campaign itself. Each one of us can be morally judged by others: how do we behave, what we write, what's the company we work for... I can myself be very sensitive to some of these topics, but this is not what Free Software is about. Free Software is about Free Software and IMHO we should be here just to progress on that. Regards Andrea
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
Hi, On Fri, Mar 26 2021, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > > Dear members of the GCC Steering Committee (SC), I ask you to remove Richard > Stallman (RMS) from the SC, or, should you chose not to do so, make a clear > statement as to why he remains. > I wholeheartedly agree with Nathan. In a few weeks I will have to ask selected GSoC students to sign away their copyright to FSF and it will be very hard for me to make that request - and doubly so if any of the students is female. It is true that RMS has not directly interacted with us for a long time and so removing him from the committee may amount only to a gesture, but it would be a powerful and very helpful gesture in this regard. And IMHO not just in this regard. Thank you, Martin
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
More rats for the wood pile. - Christopher Dimech General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Geophysical Simulation - Geological Subsurface Mapping - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation - Natural Resource Exploration and Production - Free Software Advocacy > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 8:49 AM > From: "Martin Liška" > To: "Nathan Sidwell" , "GCC Development" > Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee > > On 3/26/21 9:02 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > > Dear members of the GCC Steering Committee (SC), I ask you to remove > > Richard Stallman (RMS) > > I do fully support Nathan's request. > > Martin >
gcc-10-20210327 is now available
Snapshot gcc-10-20210327 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20210327/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch releases/gcc-10 revision efe13353a2e5bd3b55db4a2db82b4fa972130120 You'll find: gcc-10-20210327.tar.xz Complete GCC SHA256=ff416fa231fd92774f93ee3b204b38306a2430cce1764080d8a3a1f1d8a43c94 SHA1=12dd0582d5c796d6697ea4524118996bcbd27c8b Diffs from 10-20210320 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-10 link is updated and a message is sent to the gcc list. Please do not use a snapshot before it has been announced that way.
My 2nd attempt to devel for gcc
Hello, I would like to ask whether there would be interest in the project to be able to build a single binary of gcc where target would be selectable with option flags ie more than one target could be included and aimed for by single binary. If so i could try myself at adding such feature to gcc. It looks ambitious but doable. If so, my another question would be whether no matter configure flags, when for example x86 is selected as target, genned target code is always same. Best regards, Pawel Kunio
Re: My 2nd attempt to devel for gcc
On Sat, 27 Mar 2021, 23:38 pawel k. via Gcc, wrote: > Hello, > I would like to ask whether there would be interest in the project to be > able to build a single binary of gcc where target would be selectable with > option flags ie more than one target could be included and aimed for by > single binary. > > If so i could try myself at adding such feature to gcc. It looks ambitious > but doable. > See the reply from Jakub. > If so, my another question would be whether no matter configure flags, when > for example x86 is selected as target, genned target code is always same. > No, some configure options can affect it, e.g. --with-arch
Re: My 2nd attempt to devel for gcc
Hmm, Thanks. Not sure I can see answer from him. Ill recheck it. Best regards, Pawel Kunio niedz., 28.03.2021, 01:27 użytkownik Jonathan Wakely napisał: > > > On Sat, 27 Mar 2021, 23:38 pawel k. via Gcc, wrote: > >> Hello, >> I would like to ask whether there would be interest in the project to be >> able to build a single binary of gcc where target would be selectable with >> option flags ie more than one target could be included and aimed for by >> single binary. >> >> If so i could try myself at adding such feature to gcc. It looks ambitious >> but doable. >> > > > See the reply from Jakub. > > > >> If so, my another question would be whether no matter configure flags, >> when >> for example x86 is selected as target, genned target code is always same. >> > > > No, some configure options can affect it, e.g. --with-arch > > >
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
We on the West are on the brink of entering into a new cycle of social madness, fueled by Postmodern nonsense. Thank you for being brave enough to confront the self-righteous mob, and thank you for doing it with such equanimity and eloquence. Alexandre Oliva via Gcc writes: > Nathan, > > I think you identify an important problem of gender imbalance in our > community. It is quite likely that finding ways to make our community > more welcoming to demographic groups that are currently less present > than in the distribution in the global population could reduce this > imbalance. > > However, your diagnosis as to the supposed cause of the problem makes no > sense to me. You said yourself that Stallman has not participated in > our community for decades. Much as I know, his very hands-off influence > in the SC has been mostly limited to licensing and strategic issues, > e.g. the GPLv3 and Runtime Exception relicensing, to ensure copyleft > defenses were in place to avoid abuse of such features as plugins. > > > It may be very convenient to paint a boogey-man and expel it because > that became fashionable. But sacrificing a goat or a lamb does not > expiate our own sins, and expelling someone who hasn't even been present > in the community can't be expected to make any real difference to that > matter; it would rather make us seem *less* welcoming and more > intolerant, and suggest other motivations for the move. > > > Let's be real and honest, when was the last time anyone in the GCC > community was called out for sexist behavior? When was there even > conversation about it, and about how sexist behavior is not acceptable > and not to be accepted among participants in the GCC community? What > was our latest collective action to promote e.g. gender equity within > the community? > > If we were to shift our collective blame over this very real and > undesirable problem to someone who has any direct authority over the > project, why not suggesting expelling e.g. the entire Steering Committee > for its evident failure to address the problem? (I don't think it's a > good idea, but that would be the first thing to try if we were to blame > "management"/"leadership" rather than ourselves for it) > > What could support any rational belief that having RMS one extra level > removed from our technical community would bring about anything > resembling a solution to the very undesirable and unjust gender > imbalance you've correctly identified? > > > The action you propose, besides the absence of effect in making our > community actually more welcoming, because he's already absent, would > send the opposite of a welcoming signal to people with controversial or > impopular opinions, to people at a certain spot in the neurodiversity > spectrum, and to many others who oppose this sort of mob rule. > > > How about we set out to take individual and collective actions that > actually address the problem *in* our community? We don't need anyone's > approval to call out sexist acts, nor to invite and train people with an > interest in compiler technology, nor to maintain a welcoming atmosphere. > > A regime of terror to maintain a false appearance of a welcoming > atmosphere won't get us there. > > If we undertake such actions, individually or collecetively, you might > be surprised (but I won't be) that he, even absent from the community, > would support these actions, which is the very opposite of the picture > you paint. > > Our taking effective action on our own would help show what the real > issues and intents are, and it would tell apart those who are really > interested in solving the gender imbalance and the social injustices > causing it, like you and me, from those who are abusing that flag as a > trojan horse to serve nefarious purposes, as suggested and illustrated > in https://ultralux97.medium.com/stallman-must-be-removed-a3061b09fb22
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
This was meant to be sent by private e-mail. I'm sorry it was sent to the list by mistake, it was not my intention to stir this debate. I invite everyone to keep discussing this topic in a cold-headed way. Specially, I'll like to see the base problem (lack of diversity) addresed, instead of its hypothetical cause (and even more hypothetical solution.) Let's see if, for once, instead of grand symbolic gestures that solve nothing the problem is attacked with effective and sustained measures. Sorry again for my intrusion on the list. Óscar Fuentes writes: > We on the West are on the brink of entering into a new cycle of social > madness, fueled by Postmodern nonsense. > > Thank you for being brave enough to confront the self-righteous mob, and > thank you for doing it with such equanimity and eloquence. > > Alexandre Oliva via Gcc writes: > >> Nathan, >> >> I think you identify an important problem of gender imbalance in our >> community. It is quite likely that finding ways to make our community >> more welcoming to demographic groups that are currently less present >> than in the distribution in the global population could reduce this >> imbalance. >> >> However, your diagnosis as to the supposed cause of the problem makes no >> sense to me. You said yourself that Stallman has not participated in >> our community for decades. Much as I know, his very hands-off influence >> in the SC has been mostly limited to licensing and strategic issues, >> e.g. the GPLv3 and Runtime Exception relicensing, to ensure copyleft >> defenses were in place to avoid abuse of such features as plugins. >> >> >> It may be very convenient to paint a boogey-man and expel it because >> that became fashionable. But sacrificing a goat or a lamb does not >> expiate our own sins, and expelling someone who hasn't even been present >> in the community can't be expected to make any real difference to that >> matter; it would rather make us seem *less* welcoming and more >> intolerant, and suggest other motivations for the move. >> >> >> Let's be real and honest, when was the last time anyone in the GCC >> community was called out for sexist behavior? When was there even >> conversation about it, and about how sexist behavior is not acceptable >> and not to be accepted among participants in the GCC community? What >> was our latest collective action to promote e.g. gender equity within >> the community? >> >> If we were to shift our collective blame over this very real and >> undesirable problem to someone who has any direct authority over the >> project, why not suggesting expelling e.g. the entire Steering Committee >> for its evident failure to address the problem? (I don't think it's a >> good idea, but that would be the first thing to try if we were to blame >> "management"/"leadership" rather than ourselves for it) >> >> What could support any rational belief that having RMS one extra level >> removed from our technical community would bring about anything >> resembling a solution to the very undesirable and unjust gender >> imbalance you've correctly identified? >> >> >> The action you propose, besides the absence of effect in making our >> community actually more welcoming, because he's already absent, would >> send the opposite of a welcoming signal to people with controversial or >> impopular opinions, to people at a certain spot in the neurodiversity >> spectrum, and to many others who oppose this sort of mob rule. >> >> >> How about we set out to take individual and collective actions that >> actually address the problem *in* our community? We don't need anyone's >> approval to call out sexist acts, nor to invite and train people with an >> interest in compiler technology, nor to maintain a welcoming atmosphere. >> >> A regime of terror to maintain a false appearance of a welcoming >> atmosphere won't get us there. >> >> If we undertake such actions, individually or collecetively, you might >> be surprised (but I won't be) that he, even absent from the community, >> would support these actions, which is the very opposite of the picture >> you paint. >> >> Our taking effective action on our own would help show what the real >> issues and intents are, and it would tell apart those who are really >> interested in solving the gender imbalance and the social injustices >> causing it, like you and me, from those who are abusing that flag as a >> trojan horse to serve nefarious purposes, as suggested and illustrated >> in https://ultralux97.medium.com/stallman-must-be-removed-a3061b09fb22
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
The socialist collective angry bullshit will go on rising from the dead. Richard Stallman executed a truly extraordinary feat that has never been accomplished by anyone before. - Christopher Dimech General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Geophysical Simulation - Geological Subsurface Mapping - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation - Natural Resource Exploration and Production - Free Software Advocacy > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 2:27 PM > From: "Óscar Fuentes" > To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee > > This was meant to be sent by private e-mail. I'm sorry it was sent to > the list by mistake, it was not my intention to stir this debate. > > I invite everyone to keep discussing this topic in a cold-headed way. > Specially, I'll like to see the base problem (lack of diversity) > addresed, instead of its hypothetical cause (and even more hypothetical > solution.) Let's see if, for once, instead of grand symbolic gestures > that solve nothing the problem is attacked with effective and sustained > measures. > > Sorry again for my intrusion on the list. > > Óscar Fuentes writes: > > > We on the West are on the brink of entering into a new cycle of social > > madness, fueled by Postmodern nonsense. > > > > Thank you for being brave enough to confront the self-righteous mob, and > > thank you for doing it with such equanimity and eloquence. > > > > Alexandre Oliva via Gcc writes: > > > >> Nathan, > >> > >> I think you identify an important problem of gender imbalance in our > >> community. It is quite likely that finding ways to make our community > >> more welcoming to demographic groups that are currently less present > >> than in the distribution in the global population could reduce this > >> imbalance. > >> > >> However, your diagnosis as to the supposed cause of the problem makes no > >> sense to me. You said yourself that Stallman has not participated in > >> our community for decades. Much as I know, his very hands-off influence > >> in the SC has been mostly limited to licensing and strategic issues, > >> e.g. the GPLv3 and Runtime Exception relicensing, to ensure copyleft > >> defenses were in place to avoid abuse of such features as plugins. > >> > >> > >> It may be very convenient to paint a boogey-man and expel it because > >> that became fashionable. But sacrificing a goat or a lamb does not > >> expiate our own sins, and expelling someone who hasn't even been present > >> in the community can't be expected to make any real difference to that > >> matter; it would rather make us seem *less* welcoming and more > >> intolerant, and suggest other motivations for the move. > >> > >> > >> Let's be real and honest, when was the last time anyone in the GCC > >> community was called out for sexist behavior? When was there even > >> conversation about it, and about how sexist behavior is not acceptable > >> and not to be accepted among participants in the GCC community? What > >> was our latest collective action to promote e.g. gender equity within > >> the community? > >> > >> If we were to shift our collective blame over this very real and > >> undesirable problem to someone who has any direct authority over the > >> project, why not suggesting expelling e.g. the entire Steering Committee > >> for its evident failure to address the problem? (I don't think it's a > >> good idea, but that would be the first thing to try if we were to blame > >> "management"/"leadership" rather than ourselves for it) > >> > >> What could support any rational belief that having RMS one extra level > >> removed from our technical community would bring about anything > >> resembling a solution to the very undesirable and unjust gender > >> imbalance you've correctly identified? > >> > >> > >> The action you propose, besides the absence of effect in making our > >> community actually more welcoming, because he's already absent, would > >> send the opposite of a welcoming signal to people with controversial or > >> impopular opinions, to people at a certain spot in the neurodiversity > >> spectrum, and to many others who oppose this sort of mob rule. > >> > >> > >> How about we set out to take individual and collective actions that > >> actually address the problem *in* our community? We don't need anyone's > >> approval to call out sexist acts, nor to invite and train people with an > >> interest in compiler technology, nor to maintain a welcoming atmosphere. > >> > >> A regime of terror to maintain a false appearance of a welcoming > >> atmosphere won't get us there. > >> > >> If we undertake such actions, individually or collecetively, you might > >> be surprised (but I won't be) that he, even absent from the community, > >> would support these actions, which is the very opposite of the picture > >> you paint. > >> > >> Our taking effective action on our own would help show what the real > >> issues and intents
