[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of
From: |
Corwin Brust |
Subject: |
Re: The anti-GNU defamatory group of Ludovic Courtès - Re: assessment of the GNU Assembly project |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:28:45 -0500 |
Thanks Andrea.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:08 PM Andreas Enge <[1]andreas@enge.fr>
wrote:
I call out to the moderators of these mailing lists, if moderation
indeed
still exists there, to act against such hate mail by Jean Louis
singling
out an individual whose actions they disagree with:
Am Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 10:12:13AM +0300 schrieb Jean Louis:
> Ludovic Courtès (Guix)
> Ludovic Courtès
> Ludovic Courtès
> Ludovic Courtès
This cannot be qualified but as personal harrassment.
Cosigned.
FWIW, I find the flood of replies demanding "evidence" and otherwise
interrogating the concerns you express here to be excellent
substantiation in and of themselves.
Peers devoted to free software,
Please reread the threads with an eye to how much good the topics most
favored on this list have done and will do to draw people and
public opinion to our cause. I hope and expect we can move forward
with a better tone and clearly visible mutual respect. What I have
seen is that our "work environment" has been and is becoming
increasingly toxic.
For example
- Well respected philosophies are given kilobytes of air-time while
any decent or nuance that could serve to evolve the tactics we apply in
bringing these important points more successfully to the greater
community are ignored or (more likely) heckled, pelted with platitudes
and sophistry.
- Any questioning of the greatness or suggestion of the fallibility of
our esteemed founder is ridiculed. Is Dr. Stallman so weak we must
rush to deflect any unflattering commentary or views?
I beg the assembly: don't rush to the aid of our principles nor our
heros. They can each take critique. They will grow only stronger
for our honesty even as we become more able to attract and sustain more
diverse viewpoints. Moreover, your fellow community members are (or
should be assumed to be) as capable as ourselves: we are each
responsible for separating signal and noise.
Let me be very clear and direct: when a woman wrote us to express
personally and specifically her concerns around RMS we ran her off, and
ran her down. There's no place for that in this community, nor in any
community dedicated to the public good. It has nothing to do with the
veracity much less universality of the concerns she took the time to
share with us. We should be grateful to anyone troubling to hold up
the mirror. If we find it distorted, and wonder why that soul
searching should begin at home. When we finally show those questions,
we must do so in a way that encourages and rewards the courage shown.
Little I've read on this list since the convention has conveyed we are
able to do this, much less that we are committed to doing so.
Thanks for your consideration.
References
1. mailto:andreas@enge.fr