[Fice]

> distance themselves from RMS

Why wouldn't Guix just leave the RMS's GNU Project then?

GNU is a collaboration of free software projects that was started and is lead by Richard Stallman. Remove the leader, and what's left is just a collection of projects sharing the GNU brand. And it looks to me that this is what the Guix maintainers are trying to do: reduce the GNU project to a mere formality (participation in it would mean no more than a simple declaration of support for Free software), keep the GNU brand, position Guix as THE GNU operating system.

[lfam]

It's true that RMS founded GNU and was the key leader for decades, and is basically its mascot. To many, RMS and GNU are the same. One cannot overstate his impact on the ideals and values of GNU.

I disagree with the suggestion that the group of people under discussion — who aim to distance themselves from RMS — want to "reduce the GNU project to a mere formality".

I think it's the opposite: that those people want to embolden GNU and strengthen the bonds between the various GNU softwares to create a first-class operating system made of free software, the GNU way. They ended their association with Stallman but continued with GNU because they believe in its goals. One could even say they did it because they believe that GNU is important.

It's been a very long time since RMS was able to marshall a group of people to work toward that goal. The maintainers of Guix and the other signatories of the statement against Stallman's leadership are doing that very thing.

The proof is in the pudding: the latest Guix release had 201 contributors. I think that's a lot.

GNU is internally managed on a private mailing list. Guix and other GNU maintainers coming out against Stallman may have been surprising to those who aren't privy to that list, but for the rest of us, it has been a long time coming.

For a long time, key GNU projects have either effectively quit GNU or, with great effort, wrested authority away from RMS because what goes on "behind the scenes" in GNU is not good. The only change is that now they are doing it in public.

[Fice]

> The only change is that now they are doing it in public.

They very conveniently started to do it in public when Stallman's reputation was severely damaged by the media spreading lies about him, when he lost his home, when he most needed support. And they started by publishing a vague defamatory statement against him, and they used the GNU projects website for that. And they continued to defame him on the mailing lists.

Could there really be any excuse for their actions? Was it acceptable even if they believe that they were doing it for the good of the GNU project?

[craigsmansion]

> was the key leader for decades, and is basically its mascot.

RMS was and still is the GNU project leader.

> It's been a very long time since RMS was able to marshall a group of people to work toward that goal.

He gives talks all around the world, trying to warn people about proprietary software and getting them involved in Free Software.

> GNU is internally managed on a private mailing list.

But this little kerfluffle was on a public mailing list, as was requested by the various maintainers who wanted to oust RMS. It was open for anyone to follow along on the gnu-misc-discuss list from 2019-10 and forward. The discussion doesn't really support your "it has been a long time coming" assertion.

> For a long time, key GNU projects have either effectively quit GNU

If you mean Gnome, it still has a lot of those who support GNU, or aren't even aware Gnome is not GNU. There are enough of them the Gnome leadership only raises issues when it allows them to raise their own profile and public visibility, like what happened during the MIT debacle.

> The only change is that now they are doing it in public.

Thankfully, so everyone can read for themselves how claims that what is going on in GNU is "not good" is very subjective and more of a "not how I personally would like it to be".

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-10/...

[kdtsh]

GNU is bigger than RMS. Consider the fact that he’s getting on in his years - do you think that GNU will just fold when he’s no longer with us? Of course not, he’s the founder but it doesn’t stand and fall on his name. You’re suggesting the equivalent of “if you don’t like it just fork it” - which is usually to splinter and fade into obscurity. Many in the GNU community felt the same as the Guix maintainers.

Even RMS never suggested they leave the GNU Project (to my knowledge) - and why would he? Guix and Guile are two of the most vital projects in GNU, and the maintainers, both in their capacity as individuals and maintainers of a GNU project, are entitled to espouse their own views. So, if RMS himself didn’t even think they should pack up and leave, taking a crucial aspect of a GNU operating system with them (besides Debian which isn’t part of the GNU projects, how many other GNU operating systems run Linux-libre or Hurd natively?), what makes you think it’s a good idea?

[Fice]

> do you think that GNU will just fold when he’s no longer with us?

Either fold, have new leadership, or become a formal declaration of endorsing some values (not really a project). Maybe it will eventually center around one subproject and become mostly associated with it (Guix as THE GNU OS).

The problem is that the Guix maintainers want to remove Stallman from his own project while he is alive and active, and they pursue their intention with methods that are unethical, disrespectful and destructive to the community.

> Even RMS never suggested they leave the GNU Project (to my knowledge) <...> what makes you think it’s a good idea?

I don't really want Guix to leave GNU, I'm questioning the motivation of the maintainers.

[kdtsh]

RMS does not own the GNU Project. Period. Many have said that this action is about removing him from his own project - it is not, it is a statement that he should not lead a collective project which he founded. He is a founder and a leader, not a king. He’s not even a BDFL. It is not disrespectful or unethical to espouse this view. I don’t think it’s necessarily disrespectful or unethical to oppose this view either, but it is disrespectful to the child victims of sex crimes to accuse the signatories of the statement of acting unethically or underhandedly.

It’s good that you don’t want them to leave GNU, but then asking ‘Why wouldn't Guix just leave the RMS's GNU Project then?’ seems strange - why would they indeed? I think it’s not unreasonable to take them at face value: they made a statement about their belief that the personal conduct of RMS made him unfit to lead the GNU Project.

For what it’s worth, RMS is someone who I think can change his mind when he believes he is honestly wrong, which is not something you always get with people in his position. This however doesn’t mean his statements should go uncriticised. Linus Torvalds is a gold standard here, where his professional conduct was called into question and he took a serious look at himself, made some changes to his behaviour, and came back stronger than ever. RMS could take a leaf out of his book.

[craigsmansion]

> It is not disrespectful or unethical to espouse this view.

And rms would agree. In fact, you don't need to like rms or believe in Free Software to become a GNU maintainer. This wasn't about that.

> but it is disrespectful to the child victims

Yeah, no. When Nadine Strossen, former president of the ACLU, takes the time to weigh in on a personal title on the matter, that means Stallman has been vindicated. One can no longer pin their lack of reading comprehension on him. If someone only gets "the facts" from twitter, that is their own problem, not GNU's, not Stallman's.

> accuse the signatories of the statement of acting unethically or underhandedly.

They spammed all GNU maintainers addresses.

Not all the advocacy for their cause was transparent and above board. It's all there in the mailing list for anyone to see and make up their own minds.

[kdtsh]

>This wasn't about that.

What exactly is it about then? All I have really heard as a not-unreasonable repudiation of their actions is that they have somehow misused their position as GNU maintainers, which is neither here nor there - whether you agree with it or not (I disagree, I believe they have the freedom to espouse views like this regardless of their position, and that they didn't misuse their platform in any way), it's a complete non-sequitur to the matter at hand.

>When Nadine Strossen, former president of the ACLU, takes the time to weigh in on a personal title on the matter, that means Stallman has been vindicated.

I'm not familiar with her or her statement. Her former position is irrelevant, what we should all be concerned with is the facts. For that reason I can't comment on her position on this.

>They spammed all GNU maintainers addresses. Not all the advocacy for their cause was transparent and above board. It's all there in the mailing list for anyone to see and make up their own minds.

I don't know what your definition of `spam' is, but a singular message containing a statement of interest to recipients doesn't really constitute spam to me. You would think that GNU maintainers would want to be notified of this - imagine if the Guix maintainers and others had made this statement and _hadn't_ sent such a notification, there would be talk about how they are secretly undermining the unquestionable leadership of RMS or some other nonsense. Let's also not forget the fact that Jean Louis really did spam the Guix mailing lists for weeks after their announcement, to the point that the mailing lists were almost unusable, and the Guix mailing list moderators only banned him after a large number of complaints.

The fact that you are saying that not all their advocacy for their cause was transparent and above board, while also saying that it's all in the mailing lists for all to see, is confusing to me. Sounds very transparent to me.

[nsajko]

> When Nadine Strossen, former president of the ACLU, takes the time to weigh in [...]

The only source I could find for that comes from some sketchy book promotion site. Are you sure that Strossen wrote about Stallman? Do you know of a better source?

[Fice]

That book has both Strossen and Stallman in the list of authors: https://www.wetheweb.org/post/about-the-book

The article in question: https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web

[davexunit]

Two things:

* It's not his project

* The Guix maintainers care about the GNU project and don't want to see it continue its slow fade into irrelevance