[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: What's GNU -- and what's not

From: Carlo Wood
Subject: Re: What's GNU -- and what's not
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 17:24:35 +0100

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 20:51:49 +0100
Mark Wielaard <> wrote:

> Many people already gave feedback on it and we do hope that it does
> match as closely as possible. If you still believe it doesn't entirely
> accord with the GNU Project's views then please do suggest wording
> changes. We hope to combine all the feedback by February 10th for an
> updated version.

I've only seen three people giving feedback so far,
of which only one was "positive" and that wasn't backed up
by the content of the but as a reaction to
the rather rude / impolite wording of Jean Louis mails
(I believe it was).

Also, you keep saying "we" - but have not reacted to my email
asking for names.

So, I think all of this can be summarized as a small group of
two maybe three people who started a new website and are trying
to create momentum under the maintainers of GNU project for it,
with as goal to undermine the position of RMS as Chief GNUisance
of the GNU Project.

You seem very well aware that staying polite and keeping a
smile at all times is very important for this goal.

At the same time you make use of the emotions that this hostile
takeover causes among a few people to make THEM look like fools
(since they are NOT keeping their emotions in check). This is,
obviously, because they have a lot to lose if you win this battle,
while you are not running any risk since you have nothing to lose,
only to gain.

The fact that bring all of this under the pretense of improving
the GNU organization - instead of talking about what your real
goals are - proves to me that you manipulative.

I've seen this type of thing before; lots of "political" babble
and arguments like "how can it be bad when more people get to
have a say in the matter?" after which those people nod and "vote"
yeah. Then suddenly you are the sole active members of a committee
that will take things a step further.

If I see how you are abusing the word "we" already WITHOUT EVER
saying WHO exactly you mean, by name; then I know exactly what
will happen when whatever it is that you are proposing now is
even a LITTLE BIT accepted as more or less a little bit more
"official" as it is now -- for example by having a hand full of
ignorant maintainers post a GPG signed mail saying they agree with
your document.

It does not matter even what is IN the document. The very fact that
you wrote it (you as in: the one person that wrote it) and then got
SOME people to take it seriously enough to react with a signed mail
will make you suddenly someone MORE "official". Exactly the kind of
official that I meant above.

More mails with "we" will follow.

All of this effort must be fueled by something; probably hatred against
RMS. And your hidden agenda is to shift the power balance away from him.

Well -- I do not agree with that.

The BEST thing for any organization is when ONE man can take all the
important decisions. And we know that RMS is more than capable to look
out for whatever the GNU project really stands for: he is the founder
and has led it from the start. There is no risk at all here, we know
what we get.

If you create a committee to take decisions that that will destroy
the project: a committee, especially a new one, will mainly be concerned
with staying in power. Most of their decisions will have to do with
removing people from the project that has opposing ideas, RMS only being
one of them. Nothing will be left in the end of this project then
endless discussions and bickering. No really important decisions will
be made at all anymore. I've seen it before. I say no to movement,
because whatever the result, it will be devastatingly bad for the GNU

So yes, people take down your "" domain. Having the word 'gnu'
in it is misleading and hostile.

Carlo Wood <>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]