Re: State of the GNUnion 2020

[Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss)]

On 2020-02-20 11:42, Andreas R. wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 02:45:02PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> > > On the flip side, an argument is made that your initiative might make GNU
> > > more exclusionary because of the extra conditions on what it takes to be a
> > > part of it.
> >
> > At some point you have to exclude some people in order to include 
> > other
> > people, yes.  We can see that in various communities:

One group whose inclusion is being specifically promoted by the
proposed social contract is people with a low level of experience.
The exact rhetoric is that people must be included regardless of
their level of experience, which can only possibly mean
regardless of how low is their level of experience.

So, if people have to be excluded to bring about inclusion,
let us ask: whom do you have to exclude in order to include
people with a low level of experience?

I suspect that the answer is: some experienced people,
who would block their bad work.

I smell age discrimination in disguise: experienced
people tend to be old farts.

Why not just make a simpler social contract: people are to be
retired out of GNU on their 50th birthday.

Older people are politically insensitive, and too smart to
accept crap software changes. These factors work together to
create an environment which prevents snowflakes from
contributing to the GNU project.

Am I getting warmer?

> Some examples of those communities and their problems might be helpful 
> here
> to see if these communities can provide a useful parallel with GNU.

Screw examples! Let's see the actuals.

Under the proposed governance:

- who is going to be included who currently isn't included?

- who is going to be kicked out?

Because ... that's obviously what this must be about, right?

Or, if there are no such specifics, then this initiative is then
simply about being able to wield that power. To wave it people's
faces, and from time to time, use it.