Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Jean Louis]

* Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> [2020-02-22 22:49]:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 10:26:22AM -0800, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) 
> wrote:
> > On 2020-02-22 01:22, Andreas Enge wrote:
> > > And another ad-hominem attack. Can you substantiate the claim of us
> > > being
> > > powermongers?
> > 
> > https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct
> > "Enforcement", "Ban", "Correction", "Warning" ....
> > You are sick.
> 
> Could I kindly ask for this person to be put on moderation? I find it
> difficult to interpret the last statement as anything but a gratuitous insult
> (following a message that was not even directed at them). Notice that there
> is a pattern of overly aggressive messages by Kaz Kylheku.

> If anything, this message shows how much a code of conduct is
> needed.

GNU project was and is liberal in the sense that it favored and favors
any contribution to free software and promotion of free software
philosophy, regardless of anything.

You are promoting the idea that GNU project shall adopt a political
theory of advocating an authoritarian hierarchical governance, with
rules and regulations of behavior over people which is very much
opposed to liberal approach.

You have published the Code of Conduct and non-authorized edict, and
public shamings, etc. -- and then somebody is reacting and giving you
the comment. The comment may not be kind as "you are sick" is not kind
-- but if I would be in your shoes, I would look what am I really
doing here -- I would ask myself, if that person is commenting, is
there anything I should improve myself.

Rejecting people, or forgetting people, hiding them, ignoring people
for their comments is lack of communication skills and lack of
understanding.

How about trying to understand what is liberal approach, welcoming
contributions from anybody, as compared to the approach that you 5
people have and trying to impose it on other people?

People do have something to say, and all what you get on the mailing
list is that you yourself endorsed your social edict, and that you are
trying to implement some idea, but your results are poor. You should
consider negative comments, and not just positive comments. You are
not tackling the subject properly, and you do have the not-so-hidden
agenda, and due to your lack of communication, people respond that
way. I wish it could be better, but you are the one to make it right,
as your group is the one who started it in the first place.

Imagine Boy Scouts. Now I was scout, and I was boy, and I still am a
boy in my ages, and I am still scout, only this time sleeping in
bushes with elephants. And imagine Boy Scouts are there, and I come
along, and wish to ask their leaders to join me, and to listen to my
own set of rules, and to change their uniforms to pink or uniforms, as
I think that Boy Scouts are not welcoming enough, I should be picking
of them, mocking them, publishing incorrect statements about them,
publicly shaming them and so on. For heaven's sake, those are children
that learn orientation, camping, skills -- I would be mad, as my
behavior would not be rational.

It would be quite alright for a parent of some of those Boy Scouts to
say "I am sick" -- as that behavior of mine would not fit into already
established group's attitude.

That is exactly what you are trying to do, you are imposing some new
rules and regulations, which were clearly rejected, and then you are
wondering why is somebody calling you sick.

Analyse who you are and what you are, people will not be calling you
this way.

Finally -- why not be friends? You can always create your own
communities, but why are you picking exactly on GNU maintainers, where
it is already obvious that all that you are creating is waste of time
and damages.

Jean