For context, I think it's an answer to this open letter from GNU developers: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...
Very anemic list. For example, only one person from GCC steering committee (Ian Lance Taylor)
No Radical Changes in GNU Project
21–30 of 155 posts
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#22This might be a noob question but can someone explain me how mailing lists are used in software projects. I keep seeing these archived emails that are posted. Could someone fill me in?
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#23For context, I think it's an answer to this open letter from GNU developers: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...
> Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users
The notion that empowered means shielded from opinions you might disagree with seems odd.
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#24This might be a noob question but can someone explain me how mailing lists are used in software projects. I keep seeing these archived emails that are posted. Could someone fill me in?
Mailing lists are still the best async method for discussing meta issues with regards to a project, when the people who work on it span the globe.
Basically you post to the list if you have a meta issue and then everyone replies. It can get pretty tough to follow if you're using email, but most of these had (still have?) mailnews gateways, so you could use a threaded Usenet reader to keep track of all the forks in the threads.
It's sort of a lost art with the news service being mostly gone and with threaded social media.
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#25This might be a noob question but can someone explain me how mailing lists are used in software projects. I keep seeing these archived emails that are posted. Could someone fill me in?
When you send an email there, everyone on the list gets it. It's like a group chat via email. Lots of things are discussed, from technical to commit access to use questions.
God I feel old now.
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#26For context, I think it's an answer to this open letter from GNU developers: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...
> Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users The notion that empowered means shielded from opinions you might disagree with seems odd.
[redacted]
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's correct but it's also worth noting that he did not resign, he was resigned.
I'm confused; I'm pretty sure resigning is an act done by the individual, at least supposedly voluntarily, and a quick dictionary check seems to bear that out. Are we just using this as a euphemism, or is there another definition that I needed to learn?
You're correct in the definition of 'resigning'. However, there are many cases (and this seems to be one) where people are pushed into resigning against their will. People will still resign, whether out of a sense of honour, or due to the alternative being a prolonged process which will end in the same outcome (being out of a job).
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's correct but it's also worth noting that he did not resign, he was resigned.
I'm confused; I'm pretty sure resigning is an act done by the individual, at least supposedly voluntarily, and a quick dictionary check seems to bear that out. Are we just using this as a euphemism, or is there another definition that I needed to learn?
> at least supposedly voluntarily
This is the implication. As an example very, very few CEOs are fired but a great many are sternly asked to voluntarily resign by the board.
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#29Hard to read, but we definitely need to make sure the GNU project stays in the right hands.
Why do you say it's hard to read? Because it's talking about the eventual need for succession?
Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "hit piece" was written by Stallman himself.
I think they're referring to this article, which took his quotes entirely out of context since Stallman never said that the victims were willing (quite the opposite) https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-r...
The original hit piece was from Vice:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...