Mechanically speaking, does RMS have the ability to enforce his will on this issue? Say the maintainers unanimously just refuse to revert the patch; can he "fire" them?
Who controls glibc?
301–310 of 528 posts
Re: Who controls glibc?
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a big fan of RMS, but I've got to say "No". He's not a maintainer. He doesn't get a vote. If he wants to work his way back into that project, then I've got no problem with it. But he doesn't. It's like the CEO telling you that he wants a joke in the technical documentation for one of your libraries. They might get away with it because of their position, but it's an abuse of that position even if the CEO used to b…
If there is business justification of joke in documentation then maintainer has no authority to say no. RMS is a CEO and he ultimately controls the project goals. If you think otherwise you fork.
That's not the way a company works. A CEO is not dictator, and there are more paths to resolution than simply following orders or quitting.
Why then should the dictatorial mode be the way a non-profit or volunteer effort works?
Moreover, in a company it's the Board of Directors which delegates authority to the CEO. And the shareholders could override even them.
So if we interpret glibc as as a cooperative where the shareholders are also the developers and others working on the project, then certainly the shareholders could override management.
Re: Who controls glibc?
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technical documentation isn't the place for a joke full stop. Documentation is for people who are typically busy, uncertain and potentially dealing with something that is going wrong. They want clear, concise and accessible help. They don't want or need tasteless jokes. It is disrespectful to their time to include random garbage. This is supposed to be read by people who need it, not people who know what is going on…
The early days of computing was very informal and full of jokes. Didn't stop people from creating some of the most long-lasting and technically successful tools.
Maybe even helped them. Those tools create in informal atmosphere seem much more robust and useful than what the present day brings.
Re: Who controls glibc?
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, this is one of those spots where RMS is stubbornly and stupidly standing up for principle in a context where the rest of us just clearly see that it shouldn't matter and he's just being a jerk. But... damn if he's not right about this. The joke has meaning. It still means what he meant when he wrote it. The issue is an important one (to RMS, at least). And no one else has a real argument here other than "it's u…
>The joke has meaning Only if you're American and also have the requisite background knowledge to understand it, which many don't. If you don't know the context, it's meaningless. Which is not a good thing to have in technical documentation.
Laws seem to be the main export of the US these days, so you probably have the context. You definitely should have it if you work in computing, as almost everything in this industry is defined by how US of A sees things.
Re: Who controls glibc?
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a story because Stallman has played the "I'm the boss, you can't outvote me" card, not because anyone's in a tizzy over the politics. If you're going to pull the "I'm the boss, you can't outvote me" card, the best place to do it is somewhere trivial. Especially when you added it yourself a long time ago. Even though I would prefer some sort of vote for these things. there's no "political correctness" here at all…
>> there's no "political correctness" here at all. > Of course there is, Is anyone trying to remove apt-get moo? If the joke only showed up in some joke manpage, that would be one thing. But the joke was in a real manpage, and I think it seemed out of place regardless of one’s political leanings.
Wow then we need to annihilate the Gnus manual...
Re: Who controls glibc?
#306"a GNU manual, like a course in history, is not meant to be a 'safe space"
That blows my mind. Really? Why? A technical instruction manual should definitely be a safe place.
Re: Who controls glibc?
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try reading GPL license... is a political statement itself. Is joke in documentation useful? Probably not...
True (which is one of the reasons I don't use GPL for my personal projects) but that doesn't mean GNU technical space should be a venue for every other political discussion in the world. There are far better venues out there.
Maybe, maybe not. I think the core issue is that RMS doesn't believe in that strong "technical" vs. "political" separation - to him, the whole GNU project is a political endeavour, including all the tech in it.
Re: Who controls glibc?
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lets think how many hours RMS has put into GNU over the years. That should count for something, no?
Count for what? Should it excuse his behavior? Should we excuse the behavior of famous and notable people because of their accomplishments?
I don't think it's a matter of excusing, it's whether he has ultimate authority based on the fact that he created glibc and he's the head of GNU. Talking about excusing assumes he did something wrong, which is jumping the gun, since that's exactly what's being discussed.
Re: Who controls glibc?
#309Stallman has his problems. He is like Cassandra, talking, talking, talking for decades about dangers, they come true and still noone listens. Already in 2002 and 2010 he has expressed suicidal thoughts https://www.wired.com/2010/04/ff_hackers/all/1/
I am saying to help understand him not to say he is right here.
Re: Who controls glibc?
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a big fan of RMS, but I've got to say "No". He's not a maintainer. He doesn't get a vote. If he wants to work his way back into that project, then I've got no problem with it. But he doesn't. It's like the CEO telling you that he wants a joke in the technical documentation for one of your libraries. They might get away with it because of their position, but it's an abuse of that position even if the CEO used to b…
If there is business justification of joke in documentation then maintainer has no authority to say no. RMS is a CEO and he ultimately controls the project goals. If you think otherwise you fork.
Is there really a clear line of authority between the glibc maintainers and RMS? It certainly doesn't seem like it. Authority decays, and RMS's is gone, over glibc at least. Compare with GvR: Guido is involved day-to-day, talks to people, makes decisions. No one questions whether he has power, because he uses it, although they certainly question the way he uses it.
I think the monarchy of the United Kingdom is good way to look at RMS's position here. On paper the monarch has a lot of power, but the reality is that they don't and trying to use it would provoke exactly the kind of crisis we're seeing here.