| Message ID | 87a7ach367.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | manual: Remove warning in the documentation of the abort function | expand |
Thanks, this change looks good to me, both for the reasons you mentioned and for other reasons discussed when the topic came up before. For those who'd like a review of this controversial topic, here is a list of some of the relevant messages; each message starts a thread that can be quite lengthy. I've read all the messages in these threads, and taken collectively it does appear that although there are strong opinions on both sides, removal would be in the best interests of the GNU project. https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-04/msg00600.html https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00001.html https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00212.html https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00291.html https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00453.html
I support this change, as removing something that has been confusing in practice to readers of the manual and does not in any way benefit those users in understanding the GNU C Library functionality. While humor is explicitly accepted in GNU, it is also explicitly not required, and in this particular instance it has proven actively unhelpful. Similarly, while "It is ok to refer once in a rare while to spatially or temporally localized reference points or facts, if it is directly pertinent or as an aside.", in this particular case it impedes understanding of the technical content for readers without the relevant cultural reference points to understand that it is intended as humorous content rather than information about the abort function. Finally, the original reasons for inclusion of this joke have been thoroughly explored in previous discussions, and so the current glibc maintainers have all the information needed about those reasons to take into account in a decision to override a 1992 decision of a previous maintainer to include it at that time.
On 10/7/19 1:32 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > The warning is confusing to those who do not understand the context, > and the warning is easy to misunderstand: I agree. I made the same comments myself in the original post about the issue, and backed that up with a stackoverflow and reddit post showing confusion over the statement in the manual. > A reader needs to know that it was written by someone who is generally > skeptical of government influence and control, otherwise it reads as > an affirmation of the U.S. government's role as the ultimate editor of > the manual. This is precisely the opposite of what the warning > intends to convey. (Reportedly, it criticizes that several > U.S. administrations have tried to restrict the medical advice that > U.S.-funded health care workers can provide abroad, considering that > censorship.) Ageed. > The warning is also misleading on a technical level. A reader who > makes the connection to pregnancy termination will get the wrong > impression that calling the abort function will terminate subprocesses > of the current process, but this is not what generally happens. Agreed. > Finally, for both GNU and the FSF, it is inappropriate to use female > reproductive health as mere joke material, since these organizations > do not concern themselves with such issues otherwise, and the warning > is purportedly about something else entirely. Agreed. > This reinstates commit 340d9652b9d0e1d4136588f18b726662d195777c > ("manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove inappropriate > joke."), effectively reverting the revert in commit > ffa81c22a3ac0fb75ad9bf2b1c3cdbf9eafa0bc9 ("Revert:"). This looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> > 2019-10-07 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> > > * manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove warning. > > diff --git a/manual/startup.texi b/manual/startup.texi > index 7395d32dd0..21c48cd037 100644 > --- a/manual/startup.texi > +++ b/manual/startup.texi > @@ -1005,14 +1005,6 @@ This function actually terminates the process by raising a > intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}. > @end deftypefun > > -@c Put in by rms. Don't remove. > -@cartouche > -@strong{Future Change Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations > -may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of > -calling this function. We would be required to say that this is not an > -acceptable way of terminating a program. > -@end cartouche > - OK. Removes the entire cartouche. > @node Termination Internals > @subsection Termination Internals > >
On Oct 7, 2019, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote: > The warning is confusing to those who do not understand the context, > and the warning is easy to misunderstand: I don't think it's appropriate at all to bring this issue back at this time. It's too much of an shamelessly opportunistic move to take advantage of the mob lynching underway. Please hold this discussion for another, more sensible time.
Le lundi 07 octobre 2019 à 19:32 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : > The warning is confusing to those who do not understand the context, > and the warning is easy to misunderstand: > > A reader needs to know that it was written by someone who is > generally > skeptical of government influence and control, otherwise it reads as > an affirmation of the U.S. government's role as the ultimate editor > of > the manual. This is precisely the opposite of what the warning > intends to convey. (Reportedly, it criticizes that several > U.S. administrations have tried to restrict the medical advice that > U.S.-funded health care workers can provide abroad, considering that > censorship.) > > The warning is also misleading on a technical level. A reader who > makes the connection to pregnancy termination will get the wrong > impression that calling the abort function will terminate > subprocesses > of the current process, but this is not what generally happens. > > Finally, for both GNU and the FSF, it is inappropriate to use female > reproductive health as mere joke material, since these organizations > do not concern themselves with such issues otherwise, and the warning > is purportedly about something else entirely. > > This reinstates commit 340d9652b9d0e1d4136588f18b726662d195777c > ("manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove inappropriate > joke."), effectively reverting the revert in commit > ffa81c22a3ac0fb75ad9bf2b1c3cdbf9eafa0bc9 ("Revert:"). > > 2019-10-07 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> > > * manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove warning. > > diff --git a/manual/startup.texi b/manual/startup.texi > index 7395d32dd0..21c48cd037 100644 > --- a/manual/startup.texi > +++ b/manual/startup.texi > @@ -1005,14 +1005,6 @@ This function actually terminates the process > by raising a > intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}. > @end deftypefun > > -@c Put in by rms. Don't remove. > -@cartouche > -@strong{Future Change Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship > regulations > -may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of > -calling this function. We would be required to say that this is not > an > -acceptable way of terminating a program. > -@end cartouche > - > @node Termination Internals > @subsection Termination Internals > LGTM, +1 Thanks.
On 07/10/2019 14:32, Florian Weimer wrote: > The warning is confusing to those who do not understand the context, > and the warning is easy to misunderstand: > > A reader needs to know that it was written by someone who is generally > skeptical of government influence and control, otherwise it reads as > an affirmation of the U.S. government's role as the ultimate editor of > the manual. This is precisely the opposite of what the warning > intends to convey. (Reportedly, it criticizes that several > U.S. administrations have tried to restrict the medical advice that > U.S.-funded health care workers can provide abroad, considering that > censorship.) > > The warning is also misleading on a technical level. A reader who > makes the connection to pregnancy termination will get the wrong > impression that calling the abort function will terminate subprocesses > of the current process, but this is not what generally happens. > > Finally, for both GNU and the FSF, it is inappropriate to use female > reproductive health as mere joke material, since these organizations > do not concern themselves with such issues otherwise, and the warning > is purportedly about something else entirely. > > This reinstates commit 340d9652b9d0e1d4136588f18b726662d195777c > ("manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove inappropriate > joke."), effectively reverting the revert in commit > ffa81c22a3ac0fb75ad9bf2b1c3cdbf9eafa0bc9 ("Revert:"). > > 2019-10-07 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> > > * manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove warning. The subject has already being discussed to exhaustion and the previous requested cooldown period has been granted. Let's moved on. LGTM. Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> > > diff --git a/manual/startup.texi b/manual/startup.texi > index 7395d32dd0..21c48cd037 100644 > --- a/manual/startup.texi > +++ b/manual/startup.texi > @@ -1005,14 +1005,6 @@ This function actually terminates the process by raising a > intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}. > @end deftypefun > > -@c Put in by rms. Don't remove. > -@cartouche > -@strong{Future Change Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations > -may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of > -calling this function. We would be required to say that this is not an > -acceptable way of terminating a program. > -@end cartouche > - > @node Termination Internals > @subsection Termination Internals > >
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
Before deciding this question, there are several questions, more basic
and general, that we need to tackle first. The answers to them will
be the basis for this specific decision.
We have addressed three or four of them. Perhaps only one remains.
With the current disturbance, this is not the time to discuss it.
But we should be able to take it up in a few months. Then we could
decide this question.
Unless, that is, Republicans impose a decision on us before then.
At the rate things are going, it wouldn't surprise me. ;-{.
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, Richard Stallman wrote: > Before deciding this question, there are several questions, more basic > and general, that we need to tackle first. The answers to them will > be the basis for this specific decision. I think the conclusion is clear based on the answers so far; the further general discussions might help answer other questions, but they are not needed for this one. This is not a tricky technical design question where the choice of an interface now will affect large amounts of code built on top of it and we need to take care to avoid choosing an interface that will be hard to maintain compatibly in future, or to avoid an interface that doesn't properly achieve its goals and will need a new interface added while keeping the old one around as well. Nothing else depends on the details of which particular jokes are in the manual. The glibc maintainers have plenty of information in the past discussions to come to a conclusion now on this issue. For example, I think this case is clear enough that we don't need to restart the discussion of general principles around when it is or is not appropriate for current package maintainers to change decisions made by previous maintainers in order to reach a conclusion to apply to this case, even if that discussion might be helpful in other such less clear cases in future.
* Richard Stallman: > Before deciding this question, there are several questions, more basic > and general, that we need to tackle first. The answers to them will > be the basis for this specific decision. > > We have addressed three or four of them. Perhaps only one remains. > > With the current disturbance, this is not the time to discuss it. > But we should be able to take it up in a few months. Then we could > decide this question. There is always some excuse. We have waited for more than a year. You said repeatedly that you are still in charge in the GNU project, and that GNU is not a democracy. So this should really be simple. Just say you want the warning gone, and it will be gone. Or you tell us you want to keep it. What is so difficult about this? > Unless, that is, Republicans impose a decision on us before then. > At the rate things are going, it wouldn't surprise me. ;-{. This has nothing to do with U.S. politics. Not everything revolves around the USA. We ended up with this problem on our own. Thanks, Florian
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, Florian Weimer wrote: > You said repeatedly that you are still in charge in the GNU project, and > that GNU is not a democracy. So this should really be simple. Just say > you want the warning gone, and it will be gone. Or you tell us you want > to keep it. And if Richard wants it kept, I consider that just a previous maintainer's view to be considered by the maintainers. This is not a difficult question about the exact boundaries of when it is appropriate for GNU to intervene in decisions made by individual package maintainers; it's a case for which it's extremely clear-cut that it's properly within the scope of package maintainers to make the final decision and would be improper for GNU to attempt to overrule such a decision. The precise boundaries of appropriate intervention in individual packages may be worth considering elsewhere, but that's not relevant for this case.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 1:32 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote: > This reinstates commit 340d9652b9d0e1d4136588f18b726662d195777c > ("manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove inappropriate > joke."), effectively reverting the revert in commit > ffa81c22a3ac0fb75ad9bf2b1c3cdbf9eafa0bc9 ("Revert:"). > > 2019-10-07 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> > > * manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove warning. As the person who committed 340d9652b9d0e1d4136588f18b726662d195777c in the first place, I endorse its reinstatement. I wish to say for the record that I think the overrule of the glibc maintainers' original decision, exercised by RMS in the lengthy thread last May (representative message: <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00001.html>), was an illegitimate use of authority, REGARDLESS of whether he is to continue as "Chief GNUisance" in the future, or whether the GNU Project should have a person empowered to make such unilateral overruling decisions. As the original author of the text in question he has a conflict of interest and he should have either accepted the decision of the maintainers or referred the issue to someone both sides could agree would act as a neutral arbiter. Because it was an illegitimate act, we should not consider ourselves bound by it. zw
On Oct 8, 2019, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
> What is so difficult about this?
This patch has proven before to be an inflammatory topic.
The current state of affairs is also prone to inflammatory discussions.
It is just not possible to hold a sane discussion about this patch at
this time.
I therefore insist that the discussion about this patch be posponed to
some time in which moods are not so inflamed to begin with.
On 09/10/19 8:03 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Oct 8, 2019, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote: > >> What is so difficult about this? > > This patch has proven before to be an inflammatory topic. > > The current state of affairs is also prone to inflammatory discussions. > > It is just not possible to hold a sane discussion about this patch at > this time. > > I therefore insist that the discussion about this patch be posponed to > some time in which moods are not so inflamed to begin with. > The two issues are unrelated. You are only making things worse for yourself and the community by objecting to removal of a joke (A JOKE!) from a technical manual that multiple people on list and on social media have flagged as offensive. If you're so passionate about *jokes* on abortion rights then I'd suggest posting a separate patch that proposes inclusion of a new joke that does not offend people. If you can't think of one then that's OK too; while humour is nice to have in documentation, it's not absolutely necessary. Siddhesh
Hello, +1 on this. Samuel Florian Weimer, le lun. 07 oct. 2019 19:32:32 +0200, a ecrit: > The warning is confusing to those who do not understand the context, > and the warning is easy to misunderstand: > > A reader needs to know that it was written by someone who is generally > skeptical of government influence and control, otherwise it reads as > an affirmation of the U.S. government's role as the ultimate editor of > the manual. This is precisely the opposite of what the warning > intends to convey. (Reportedly, it criticizes that several > U.S. administrations have tried to restrict the medical advice that > U.S.-funded health care workers can provide abroad, considering that > censorship.) > > The warning is also misleading on a technical level. A reader who > makes the connection to pregnancy termination will get the wrong > impression that calling the abort function will terminate subprocesses > of the current process, but this is not what generally happens. > > Finally, for both GNU and the FSF, it is inappropriate to use female > reproductive health as mere joke material, since these organizations > do not concern themselves with such issues otherwise, and the warning > is purportedly about something else entirely. > > This reinstates commit 340d9652b9d0e1d4136588f18b726662d195777c > ("manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove inappropriate > joke."), effectively reverting the revert in commit > ffa81c22a3ac0fb75ad9bf2b1c3cdbf9eafa0bc9 ("Revert:"). > > 2019-10-07 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> > > * manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove warning. > > diff --git a/manual/startup.texi b/manual/startup.texi > index 7395d32dd0..21c48cd037 100644 > --- a/manual/startup.texi > +++ b/manual/startup.texi > @@ -1005,14 +1005,6 @@ This function actually terminates the process by raising a > intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}. > @end deftypefun > > -@c Put in by rms. Don't remove. > -@cartouche > -@strong{Future Change Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations > -may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of > -calling this function. We would be required to say that this is not an > -acceptable way of terminating a program. > -@end cartouche > - > @node Termination Internals > @subsection Termination Internals >
On Oct 9, 2019, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
> The two issues are unrelated.
Even if they were, and that this coming up right now was just an
incredibly sorry coincidence, you really think the time to hold a
rational and sane debate is one in which some people are scared to be
beaten up for holding controversial opinions that are not in line with
that of the lynching mob, while others have already been beaten up for
speaking their minds? Seriously?
On 09/10/19 1:17 pm, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Oct 9, 2019, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote: > >> The two issues are unrelated. > > Even if they were, and that this coming up right now was just an > incredibly sorry coincidence, you really think the time to hold a > rational and sane debate is one in which some people are scared to be > beaten up for holding controversial opinions that are not in line with > that of the lynching mob, while others have already been beaten up for > speaking their minds? Seriously? My argument is that I have complete faith in your ability to stall discussions forever and twist words to suit your purpose. IMO the issue here is clear and has nothing to do with the intent of the joke. It has to do with feature creep of the FSF's fight against censorship into the GNU projects manifesto of providing Software Freedom. Nothing in the GNU manifesto talks about censorship so this is literally the only bit in the GNU manifesto and glibc combined that talks about censorship. The only barely valid argument I have seen in allowing such feature creep from FSF to GNU was that RMS practically owns FSF and GNU and can claim it's one and the same thing. Using that to justify keeping the text IMO is a sure road to obsolescence for the GNU project in the coming years regardless of whether all of us continue development here. Siddhesh
On Oct 9, 2019, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote: > The only barely valid argument I have seen in allowing such feature > creep from FSF to GNU ?!? What do you imagine the FSF has to do with any of this?
* Alexandre Oliva: > On Oct 9, 2019, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote: > >> The two issues are unrelated. > > Even if they were, and that this coming up right now was just an > incredibly sorry coincidence, you really think the time to hold a > rational and sane debate is one in which some people are scared to be > beaten up for holding controversial opinions that are not in line with > that of the lynching mob, while others have already been beaten up for > speaking their minds? Seriously? I'm sorry, but you do not seem to understand the issue at all. From my perspective, any chance of a rational and sane debate ceased when you committed the revert in May 2018. This was my worst day at Red Hat, worse than when I was told that the team I was originally hired for had been disbanded. (Alexandre and I worked both on the Red Hat Platform Tools team back then, albeit working on different things, which is why this was also work-related matter for me.) It took *a lot* of effort from Carlos and others to prevent the glibc project from disintegrating on the spot (and yes, I see it as a project on its own, not merely a piece of code under GNU). As I see things, here is what's going on: The de-facto glibc maintainers want the warning removed. The warning is offensive to many people inside and outside the GNU community. As a result, a GNU project decision not to remove the warning would alienate many people. Some of them would object to the warning itself, some of them to the way that the glibc maintainer wishes were not respected. Due to how things stand today, inaction is still a decision, against removal. Thanks, Florian
On 09/10/19 2:18 pm, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Oct 9, 2019, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote: > >> The only barely valid argument I have seen in allowing such feature >> creep from FSF to GNU > > ?!? What do you imagine the FSF has to do with any of this? > The FSF actively speaks out against censorship and talking about abortion rights and censorship regarding it is within its scope. That is not true for the GNU project because nothing in the GNU project, especially its manifesto has any mention of censorship or fight against censorship as its goal. So within the context of the GNU project, this abort joke is literally the only thing that mentions abortion rights and censorship without any context whatsoever other than the fact that the function happens to be named abort. In other words, there is no ideological relationship of the abortion rights joke with the GNU project unless you or RMS decide to add it. Siddhesh
Hello, Siddhesh, Sorry this is a little terse; typed from the airport before boarding. On Oct 9, 2019, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote: > That is not true for the GNU project because nothing in the GNU > project, especially its manifesto has any mention of censorship or > fight against censorship as its goal. So let's see what Free Software is about, shall we? You might recall freedom #1: the freedom to study the source code and adapt the software so that it does what you wish. That amounts to free speech in code: you are free to take preexisting code and then express whatever idea you see fit in it. Freedom #0: the freedom to run the software for any purpose. That amounts to putting the ideas expressed in the software in action. Furthermore, if the software is written so that running it conveys ideas, it's actual free speech, expressed through the software. Freedom #3: the freedom to improve the software, and to distribute your improvements when you wish. That amounts to conveying to others the ideas you expressed in (vs through, already covered in #0) the software. Do you see now that censorship, being the opposite of free speech, is indeed something that the whole Free Software movement stands against?
On Oct 9, 2019, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote: > As a result, a GNU project decision not to remove the warning would > alienate many people. A decision to remove it also problematic. It's no wonder several complex conversations pertaining to this very topic have been started and debated extensively in other GNU fora. Now, I can't imagine whatever gave you the idea that now would be a good time to add to the already boiling cauldron, so to speak, all of the hurt feelings from the earlier discussion surrounding this patch. It really isn't. There is no possibility of a sane debate about it at this moment. Sorry, I really think it should wait a little longer. I acknowledge that there probably won't ever be a *good* time to discuss this patch, because it does touch a number of inflammatory issues, but that doesn't justify bringing it up at what is likely the worst possible time.
On 09/10/19 9:14 pm, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > So let's see what Free Software is about, shall we? > > You might recall freedom #1: the freedom to study the source code and > adapt the software so that it does what you wish. That amounts to free > speech in code: you are free to take preexisting code and then express > whatever idea you see fit in it. > > Freedom #0: the freedom to run the software for any purpose. That > amounts to putting the ideas expressed in the software in action. > Furthermore, if the software is written so that running it conveys > ideas, it's actual free speech, expressed through the software. > > Freedom #3: the freedom to improve the software, and to distribute your > improvements when you wish. That amounts to conveying to others the > ideas you expressed in (vs through, already covered in #0) the software. > > Do you see now that censorship, being the opposite of free speech, is > indeed something that the whole Free Software movement stands against? Do you not see that the freedoms specifically talk about software? How is abortion rights or censorship about abortion related to software? You're not making any sense at this point. Siddhesh
On 09/10/19 9:20 pm, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Oct 9, 2019, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote: > >> As a result, a GNU project decision not to remove the warning would >> alienate many people. > > A decision to remove it also problematic. It's no wonder several > complex conversations pertaining to this very topic have been started > and debated extensively in other GNU fora. > > Now, I can't imagine whatever gave you the idea that now would be a good > time to add to the already boiling cauldron, so to speak, all of the > hurt feelings from the earlier discussion surrounding this patch. > > It really isn't. There is no possibility of a sane debate about it at > this moment. Sorry, I really think it should wait a little longer. I > acknowledge that there probably won't ever be a *good* time to discuss > this patch, because it does touch a number of inflammatory issues, but > that doesn't justify bringing it up at what is likely the worst possible > time. I strongly suggest we undo the reversion and then wait for the good time to discuss bringing the text back; you've held the community hostage long enough. I don't think it makes any sense to wait any longer because there is sustained support from a significant majority of the community to get rid of the warning and my faith in your and RMS' ability to negotiate a conclusion that I can personally agree with is running out. Siddhesh
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > The two issues are unrelated. You are only making things worse for > yourself and the community That is a matter of judgment, and my judgment is different. In my judgment, it is vital to decide, first, several broader issues that are bigger and more important. Each of those issues affects the right way to decide this question _and other questions_. I have not been idle about this. I've brought up several of those issues, one by one, on this list, and we reached conclusions that are now stated in the coding standards or maintainer's guide. But not quite all of them. We should wait till the situation is clear and calm, then take up the remaining issues, one by one, with a month's pause in between. Once they are resolved, we can wait another month, then take up the question of the abort(2) joke and decide it the right way. That joke has been in the C Library manual for around 28 years, since I thoroughly rewrote that manual, and the sky has not fallen. Let's not delay needlessly, but we should not be in a rush about the bigger issues.
On 10/8/19 5:40 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> You said repeatedly that you are still in charge in the GNU project, and >> that GNU is not a democracy. So this should really be simple. Just say >> you want the warning gone, and it will be gone. Or you tell us you want >> to keep it. > > And if Richard wants it kept, I consider that just a previous maintainer's > view to be considered by the maintainers. This is not a difficult > question about the exact boundaries of when it is appropriate for GNU to > intervene in decisions made by individual package maintainers; it's a case > for which it's extremely clear-cut that it's properly within the scope of > package maintainers to make the final decision and would be improper for > GNU to attempt to overrule such a decision. The precise boundaries of > appropriate intervention in individual packages may be worth considering > elsewhere, but that's not relevant for this case. I agree.
On 10/10/19 4:48 am, Richard Stallman wrote: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > The two issues are unrelated. You are only making things worse for > > yourself and the community > > That is a matter of judgment, and my judgment is different. > > In my judgment, it is vital to decide, first, several broader issues > that are bigger and more important. Each of those issues affects the > right way to decide this question _and other questions_. > > I have not been idle about this. I've brought up several of those > issues, one by one, on this list, and we reached conclusions that are > now stated in the coding standards or maintainer's guide. But not > quite all of them. We should wait till the situation is clear and > calm, then take up the remaining issues, one by one, with a month's > pause in between. Once they are resolved, we can wait another month, > then take up the question of the abort(2) joke and decide it the right > way. I do not agree. I will always be grateful to you for the idea of Software Freedom that is one of my core personal values but I have no faith in your judgment or intention in this regard because you're making it clearer that it is about assertion of your power and influence in the project, something I am deeply uncomfortable with and strongly believe is not in the interest of the glibc project. Siddhesh
On Oct 9, 2019, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote: >> Furthermore, if the software is written so that running it conveys >> ideas, it's actual free speech, expressed through the software. > Do you not see that the freedoms specifically talk about software? I think you missed the bit I quoted above. Consider writing a server program that includes in responses to requests it receives a message that you are supportive of. Then someone modifies their copy so as to include a message you find abhorrent instead. The freedom to do so is encompassed by those in the Free Software Definition, is it not?
On 10/10/19 12:39 pm, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > I think you missed the bit I quoted above. > > Consider writing a server program that includes in responses to requests > it receives a message that you are supportive of. Then someone modifies > their copy so as to include a message you find abhorrent instead. > > The freedom to do so is encompassed by those in the Free Software > Definition, is it not? Are you kidding me? THAT is your defense? Siddhesh
On 10/10/19 4:48 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > The two issues are unrelated. You are only making things worse for > > yourself and the community > > That is a matter of judgment, and my judgment is different. > > In my judgment, it is vital to decide, first, several broader issues > that are bigger and more important. Each of those issues affects the > right way to decide this question _and other questions_. > > I have not been idle about this. I've brought up several of those > issues, one by one, on this list, and we reached conclusions that are > now stated in the coding standards or maintainer's guide. But not > quite all of them. We should wait till the situation is clear and > calm, then take up the remaining issues, one by one, with a month's > pause in between. Once they are resolved, we can wait another month, > then take up the question of the abort(2) joke and decide it the right > way. > > That joke has been in the C Library manual for around 28 years, since > I thoroughly rewrote that manual, and the sky has not fallen. Let's > not delay needlessly, but we should not be in a rush about the bigger > issues. The decision to remove the joke has been delayed for almost 1.5 years [1]. That we have no concrete conclusion today is again another indication to me that the current governance structure of the GNU Project is not working. As a GNU Maintainers for glibc I will no longer hold for further input on the matter. I agree with Joseph, that your input shall be considered as another previous maintainer's view on the topic. We should have a discussion about when it is appropriate for GNU to intervene in decisions made by individual package maintainers. I look forward to having that discussion (hopefully on a public mailing list). I would hope such a discussion focuses on the GNU Maintainers Guide, GNU's principles, and the GNU Coding Standard.
On 10/7/19 1:32 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > The warning is confusing to those who do not understand the context, > and the warning is easy to misunderstand: > > A reader needs to know that it was written by someone who is generally > skeptical of government influence and control, otherwise it reads as > an affirmation of the U.S. government's role as the ultimate editor of > the manual. This is precisely the opposite of what the warning > intends to convey. (Reportedly, it criticizes that several > U.S. administrations have tried to restrict the medical advice that > U.S.-funded health care workers can provide abroad, considering that > censorship.) > > The warning is also misleading on a technical level. A reader who > makes the connection to pregnancy termination will get the wrong > impression that calling the abort function will terminate subprocesses > of the current process, but this is not what generally happens. > > Finally, for both GNU and the FSF, it is inappropriate to use female > reproductive health as mere joke material, since these organizations > do not concern themselves with such issues otherwise, and the warning > is purportedly about something else entirely. > > This reinstates commit 340d9652b9d0e1d4136588f18b726662d195777c > ("manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove inappropriate > joke."), effectively reverting the revert in commit > ffa81c22a3ac0fb75ad9bf2b1c3cdbf9eafa0bc9 ("Revert:"). > > 2019-10-07 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> > > * manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove warning. I have reviewed the full discussion thread. I see 3 +1's from GNU Maintainers: * Paul Eggert * Joseph Myers * Carlos O'Donell The following developers have also given a +1: * DJ Delorie * Yann Droneaud * Adhemerval Zanella * Zack Weinberg * Samuel Thibault I note that Richard Stallman (GNU Project lead) has insisted that there is more to discuss before this issue can be decided. Given the current wait of ~1.5 years, and no progress on the issue, I consider it a failing of the GNU Project to give timely input on the matter. It seems clear to me that we can move forward on this and discuss other issues separately. I note that Alexandre Oliva (GNU Maintainer, FSF board member) has asked we delay the decision. This was a sensible request, request 1.5 years ago, but it is no longer a sensible request. The status of the GNU Project and the FSF are issues to be discussed in other venues, and they impact the glibc project only in as much as some kind of governance change would impact glibc. This looks like glibc project consensus to push the change. Consensus need not imply unanimity. Florian please feel free to push the change.
On Oct 10, 2019, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote: > On 10/10/19 12:39 pm, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> I think you missed the bit I quoted above. >> >> Consider writing a server program that includes in responses to requests >> it receives a message that you are supportive of. Then someone modifies >> their copy so as to include a message you find abhorrent instead. >> >> The freedom to do so is encompassed by those in the Free Software >> Definition, is it not? > Are you kidding me? THAT is your defense? ?!? I think you're just showing how impossible it is to hold a sane conversation surrounding this topic at this time. See, you claimed censorship was not in the GNU charter, and that the stance against censorship was somehow coming from the FSF. I explained that your assumption was mistaken, that free speech is actually encompassed by the four software freedoms that the Free Software Movement, GNU and FSF all promote and defend. Instead of realizing that the statement only countered your mistaken attribution of the anti-censorship position exclusively to the FSF, you appear to mistake that as intended to support my objection to the patch. It would indeed support an objection to the patch, but that's not the context in which I presented the argument. My objection to the patch is based on the understanding that conversation about this topic at this time is not possible, because of the already inflamed moods and the inflammatory topics surrounding the patch.
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > The only barely valid argument I have seen in allowing such feature > creep from FSF to GNU That way of conceptualizing the situation surprises me. It doesn't fit with the events as they happened. I suggest reading https://gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html about how GNU and the FSF came to be. was that RMS practically owns FSF and GNU and can > claim it's one and the same thing. They are not the same thing. One pertinent historical point for the C Library Manual is that I am one of its main authors. I rewrote most of its text to make it more readable. When I came to the abort system call, I added the joke. I've appointed others to manage work on GNU libc, including this manual, but I gave specific instructions not to delete this joke. We can and will consider deleting it, after looking at the remaining bigger issues.
On 10/10/19 10:26 pm, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > ?!? I think you're just showing how impossible it is to hold a sane > conversation surrounding this topic at this time. > > See, you claimed censorship was not in the GNU charter, and that the > stance against censorship was somehow coming from the FSF. > > I explained that your assumption was mistaken, that free speech is > actually encompassed by the four software freedoms that the Free > Software Movement, GNU and FSF all promote and defend. > > Instead of realizing that the statement only countered your mistaken > attribution of the anti-censorship position exclusively to the FSF, you > appear to mistake that as intended to support my objection to the patch. > It would indeed support an objection to the patch, but that's not the > context in which I presented the argument. No I did not interpret it as a defense of the patch, I understood (and rejected) the idea that the GNU manifesto and software freedoms *actually* talks about privacy. > My objection to the patch is based on the understanding that > conversation about this topic at this time is not possible, because of > the already inflamed moods and the inflammatory topics surrounding the > patch. It is no longer about the patch, it probably never was for me because I don't have the American context of abortion rights. For me it is about your manipulative and frustrating arguments, overreach and your wonderful ability to hold the community hostage and at the same time act like you're the victim. I am done engaging with you because there's only so much that a vacation can heal. Siddhesh
On 10/10/19 10:53 pm, Richard Stallman wrote: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > The only barely valid argument I have seen in allowing such feature > > creep from FSF to GNU > > That way of conceptualizing the situation surprises me. It doesn't > fit with the events as they happened. > > I suggest reading https://gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html > about how GNU and the FSF came to be. > > was that RMS practically owns FSF and GNU and can > > claim it's one and the same thing. > > They are not the same thing. It isn't to me either, definitely not any more but thank you for making it explicit. > One pertinent historical point for the C Library Manual is that I am > one of its main authors. I rewrote most of its text to make it more > readable. When I came to the abort system call, I added the joke. > > I've appointed others to manage work on GNU libc, including this manual, > but I gave specific instructions not to delete this joke. > > We can and will consider deleting it, after looking at the remaining > bigger issues. You continue to project yourself as a spiritual leader and the contributor community as your faithful cabal that does your bidding. I am grateful to you for starting the GNU project, but I do not contribute to GNU tools at your appointment and I never did. Siddhesh
On 10/10/19 2:41 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > I have reviewed the full discussion thread. > > I see 3 +1's from GNU Maintainers: > > * Paul Eggert > * Joseph Myers > * Carlos O'Donell > > The following developers have also given a +1: > > * DJ Delorie > * Yann Droneaud > * Adhemerval Zanella > * Zack Weinberg > * Samuel Thibault > > I note that Richard Stallman (GNU Project lead) has insisted that > there is more to discuss before this issue can be decided. Given > the current wait of ~1.5 years, and no progress on the issue, > I consider it a failing of the GNU Project to give timely input > on the matter. It seems clear to me that we can move forward on > this and discuss other issues separately. > > I note that Alexandre Oliva (GNU Maintainer, FSF board member) > has asked we delay the decision. This was a sensible request, > request 1.5 years ago, but it is no longer a sensible request. > The status of the GNU Project and the FSF are issues to be > discussed in other venues, and they impact the glibc project only > in as much as some kind of governance change would impact glibc. > > This looks like glibc project consensus to push the change. > Consensus need not imply unanimity. > > Florian please feel free to push the change. Forgive me for coming in late, but I've only just noticed this discussion. My name is on the manual, and I support removing the "joke". It's not funny, and it doesn't provide any useful technical information. -Sandra
Alexandre Oliva, le jeu. 10 oct. 2019 23:26:12 -0300, a ecrit: > On Oct 10, 2019, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote: > > > On 10/10/19 12:39 pm, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> I think you missed the bit I quoted above. > >> > >> Consider writing a server program that includes in responses to requests > >> it receives a message that you are supportive of. Then someone modifies > >> their copy so as to include a message you find abhorrent instead. > >> > >> The freedom to do so is encompassed by those in the Free Software > >> Definition, is it not? > [...] > I explained that your assumption was mistaken, that free speech is > actually encompassed by the four software freedoms that the Free > Software Movement, GNU and FSF all promote and defend. However with such reasoning, not only free speech is encompassed, but basically anything in the world. You write some software to manage selling bubblegum, somebody can modify it to manage selling anything, including whatever you consider abhorrent. With such reasoning you can claim that free software is about anything. Which is exactly what we want in the end, indeed! But actually backing up anything from this is meanless. Samuel
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 04:41:58PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 10/7/19 1:32 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > The warning is confusing to those who do not understand the context, > > and the warning is easy to misunderstand: > > > > A reader needs to know that it was written by someone who is generally > > skeptical of government influence and control, otherwise it reads as > > an affirmation of the U.S. government's role as the ultimate editor of > > the manual. This is precisely the opposite of what the warning > > intends to convey. (Reportedly, it criticizes that several > > U.S. administrations have tried to restrict the medical advice that > > U.S.-funded health care workers can provide abroad, considering that > > censorship.) > > > > The warning is also misleading on a technical level. A reader who > > makes the connection to pregnancy termination will get the wrong > > impression that calling the abort function will terminate subprocesses > > of the current process, but this is not what generally happens. > > > > Finally, for both GNU and the FSF, it is inappropriate to use female > > reproductive health as mere joke material, since these organizations > > do not concern themselves with such issues otherwise, and the warning > > is purportedly about something else entirely. > > > > This reinstates commit 340d9652b9d0e1d4136588f18b726662d195777c > > ("manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove inappropriate > > joke."), effectively reverting the revert in commit > > ffa81c22a3ac0fb75ad9bf2b1c3cdbf9eafa0bc9 ("Revert:"). > > > > 2019-10-07 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> > > > > * manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove warning. > > I have reviewed the full discussion thread. > > I see 3 +1's from GNU Maintainers: > > * Paul Eggert > * Joseph Myers > * Carlos O'Donell > > The following developers have also given a +1: > > * DJ Delorie > * Yann Droneaud > * Adhemerval Zanella > * Zack Weinberg > * Samuel Thibault I'm in favor or removing the joke. I quote myself from May 2018 (cf. [1]): "After having read the LVM article and following the thread here I feel the need to voice my opinion: I'm in favor of removing this joke and reverting the revert. The comments on the LWN article and the wider discussion seem to indicate that some question whether there is sufficient consensus among maintainers. Even though I'm neither a senior developer nor steward, but a simple maintainer I feel it's important to explicitly voice my opinion to help build consensus." [1]: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00245.html > > I note that Richard Stallman (GNU Project lead) has insisted that > there is more to discuss before this issue can be decided. Given > the current wait of ~1.5 years, and no progress on the issue, > I consider it a failing of the GNU Project to give timely input > on the matter. It seems clear to me that we can move forward on > this and discuss other issues separately. > > I note that Alexandre Oliva (GNU Maintainer, FSF board member) > has asked we delay the decision. This was a sensible request, > request 1.5 years ago, but it is no longer a sensible request. > The status of the GNU Project and the FSF are issues to be > discussed in other venues, and they impact the glibc project only > in as much as some kind of governance change would impact glibc. > > This looks like glibc project consensus to push the change. > Consensus need not imply unanimity. > > Florian please feel free to push the change. > > -- > Cheers, > Carlos.
On 10/11/19 12:34 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 10/10/19 2:41 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> I have reviewed the full discussion thread. >> >> I see 3 +1's from GNU Maintainers: >> >> * Paul Eggert >> * Joseph Myers >> * Carlos O'Donell >> >> The following developers have also given a +1: >> >> * DJ Delorie >> * Yann Droneaud >> * Adhemerval Zanella >> * Zack Weinberg >> * Samuel Thibault >> >> I note that Richard Stallman (GNU Project lead) has insisted that >> there is more to discuss before this issue can be decided. Given >> the current wait of ~1.5 years, and no progress on the issue, >> I consider it a failing of the GNU Project to give timely input >> on the matter. It seems clear to me that we can move forward on >> this and discuss other issues separately. >> >> I note that Alexandre Oliva (GNU Maintainer, FSF board member) >> has asked we delay the decision. This was a sensible request, >> request 1.5 years ago, but it is no longer a sensible request. >> The status of the GNU Project and the FSF are issues to be >> discussed in other venues, and they impact the glibc project only >> in as much as some kind of governance change would impact glibc. >> >> This looks like glibc project consensus to push the change. >> Consensus need not imply unanimity. >> >> Florian please feel free to push the change. > > Forgive me for coming in late, but I've only just noticed this > discussion. > > My name is on the manual, and I support removing the "joke". It's > not funny, and it doesn't provide any useful technical information. Thank you for your review.
On Oct 11, 2019, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote: > With such reasoning you can claim that free software is about > anything. Which is exactly what we want in the end, indeed! Yes, exactly! That's what freedom is about, and that's what the Free Software Movement stands for. If it was about imposing such constraints as censorship, or prohibitions of certain activities, then it wouldn't be the case that one could change it to express any idea whatsoever, or to serve any function one could conceive of.
Alexandre Oliva, le ven. 11 oct. 2019 21:24:36 -0300, a ecrit: > On Oct 11, 2019, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote: > > > With such reasoning you can claim that free software is about > > anything. Which is exactly what we want in the end, indeed! > > Yes, exactly! You dropped the rest. > then it wouldn't be the case that one could change it to express any > idea whatsoever, or to serve any function one could conceive of. Which doesn't mean it backs free speech more than anything else. Again, with your reasoning you could back *anything*, so it is a meaningless reasoning. Put in other words, "\forall A, X => A" means that X is meaningless since anything can be deducted from it. Samuel
On Oct 11, 2019, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva, le ven. 11 oct. 2019 21:24:36 -0300, a ecrit: >> then it wouldn't be the case that one could change it to express any >> idea whatsoever, or to serve any function one could conceive of. > Which doesn't mean it backs free speech more than anything else No, no, the argument is precisely that *because* it appears to back anything the way you pointed out, it can be concluded that it actually stands for freedom, free speech specifically. Conversely, if it constrained speech in any way, that would be noticeable in that you could point out what it is that it excluded. You'll notice that the four freedoms even enable software to be used to build censorship systems. That doesn't mean the four freedoms are for censorship, it just shows that respecting others' freedom sometimes involves respect for things that you may find very objectionable. Free Software does encompass that notion. It is quite disturbing and worrying to find out that some Free Software supporters do not realize that it does, or even reject that it does :-/
Alexandre Oliva, le sam. 12 oct. 2019 13:54:17 -0300, a ecrit: > On Oct 11, 2019, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote: > > Alexandre Oliva, le ven. 11 oct. 2019 21:24:36 -0300, a ecrit: > >> then it wouldn't be the case that one could change it to express any > >> idea whatsoever, or to serve any function one could conceive of. > > > Which doesn't mean it backs free speech more than anything else > > No, no, the argument is precisely that *because* it appears to back > anything the way you pointed out, it can be concluded that it actually > stands for freedom, free speech specifically. But my point is that it's not *specifically* about free speech. Going the way you suggested, anybody could argue anything and introduce any kind of not-so-related things in the libc manual, and thus actually *blurrying* the point of free software. > You'll notice that the four freedoms even enable software to be used to > build censorship systems. That doesn't mean the four freedoms are for > censorship, But your reasoning *can* go that way. If you didn't mean your reasoning to go that way, you'll have to understand that it is a meaningless reasoning. > It is quite disturbing and worrying to find out that some Free > Software supporters do not realize that it does, or even reject that > it does :-/ I am not rejecting that it does. What I mean is that you can not claim that free software is about freedom of speech in particular, because that's just one of anything that free software allows. Samuel
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] I > am grateful to you for starting the GNU project, but I do not contribute > to GNU tools at your appointment and I never did. You were appointed indirectly by the package maintainers that I appointed. Every GNU package has maintainers appointed by the GNU Project. They are in charge of the work on that package and responsible to the GNU Project. The maintainers of GNU libc are the people on the steering committee. The maintainers of a package can do the work alone -- that is the usual case -- but with the maintainers of some packages delegate some of the work to other developers that they appoint. The package maintainers can delegate responsibility but they cannot cede it. Apparently an unfortunate miscommunication happened in your case.
On 10/13/19 9:43 PM, Richard Stallman wrote: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > I > > am grateful to you for starting the GNU project, but I do not contribute > > to GNU tools at your appointment and I never did. > > You were appointed indirectly by the package maintainers that I > appointed. He is still correct, you did not appoint him. > Apparently an unfortunate miscommunication happened in your case. I don't think there was any miscommunication. Would you care to expand on exactly what was miscommunicated?
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > am grateful to you for starting the GNU project, but I do not contribute > > > to GNU tools at your appointment and I never did. > > You were appointed indirectly by the package maintainers that I > > appointed. > He is still correct, you did not appoint him. Did I say his statement was literally incorrect? No. My point was that it doesn't mean he is independent. I did not appoint him directly. I directly appoint only package maintainers, who are then responsible directly to me. Rather, the package maintainers of GNU libc recruited him to do some of the work. He is supposed to be responsible to them. > > Apparently an unfortunate miscommunication happened in your case. > I don't think there was any miscommunication. Would you care to expand > on exactly what was miscommunicated? Apparently it was not explained to him that he was responsible to the package maintainers who were responsible to me.
On 18/10/19 10:13 am, Richard Stallman wrote: > > He is still correct, you did not appoint him. > > Did I say his statement was literally incorrect? No. > My point was that it doesn't mean he is independent. > > I did not appoint him directly. I directly appoint only > package maintainers, who are then responsible directly to me. > > Rather, the package maintainers of GNU libc recruited him to do > some of the work. He is supposed to be responsible to them. > > > > Apparently an unfortunate miscommunication happened in your case. > > > I don't think there was any miscommunication. Would you care to expand > > on exactly what was miscommunicated? > > Apparently it was not explained to him that he was responsible to > the package maintainers who were responsible to me. You missed the tone and context of my statement; it has less to do with my understanding of the GNU project hierarchy* and more to do with how I see my contribution to the project. My response was an attempt to bring forward the fact that a number of us in the GNU project continue contributing to the project not because of your involvement but despite it. Siddhesh * I've been contributing to GNU projects for a little less than a decade so presuming that I don't understand is frankly a bit patronizing.
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > You missed the tone and context of my statement; it has less to do with > my understanding of the GNU project hierarchy* and more to do with how I > see my contribution to the project. My response was an attempt to bring > forward the fact that a number of us in the GNU project continue > contributing to the project not because of your involvement but despite it. I'm grateful for your contributions, whatever your reasons for making them, as long as you follow the project's rules. The fact that you are motivated by the cause of free software is a plus (not every contributor shares that motivation). There is no rule that you have to admire me. I think you're doing me an injustice, but I'm not going to reject your contributions just because of that. But there are some rules about the organization of the project -- certain decisions I can make. > * I've been contributing to GNU projects for a little less than a decade > so presuming that I don't understand is frankly a bit patronizing. I didn't presume it. I have seen you write some mistaken things about that issue. What I did presume is that the libc maintainers didn't explain to you that they delegatie to you the authority I delegated to them. I also see that you take offense at all sorts of things I say, even though they do not criticize you.
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] I rspond first to the your last two points, then to the main point. > > Unless, that is, Republicans impose a decision on us before then. > > At the rate things are going, it wouldn't surprise me. ;-{. > This has nothing to do with U.S. politics. The point of the joke is to remind people of an issue in US politics which affects women in other countries too. US Republicans are trying to make abortion illegal, in the US and elsewhere. And they have had substantial success in doing so. > Not everything revolves > around the USA. We ended up with this problem on our own. I don't understand that text. Maybe we are talking about two different topics here. As a factual matter, the US government, through the conditions it places on medical aid funds and its "global gag rule", impedes access to abortion in many poor countries. > You said repeatedly that you are still in charge in the GNU project, and > that GNU is not a democracy. So this should really be simple. Just say > you want the warning gone, and it will be gone. Or you tell us you want > to keep it. I could decide it all by myself, ignoring the arguments presented by others. But, surprising as it may seem, I don't want to do that. Even when this issue first came up, I did not want to do that. What I want to do is make a good decision applying our general principles and good general policies. But that required setting general policies. We did not have any policies about some aspects of this question. Since 18 months ago, I have been working, on and off, on discussing and adopting GNU Project policies for the issues that are pertinent to this. These policies do not, by themselves, determine that the joke should be deleted, or that it shoulo be kept. But they do affect the decision. Now I think we have the right basis for deciding, or pretty close. In the process of deciding, we might discover another issue or two that calls for a general policy. I ask people to work with me to make the decision in the right way.
diff --git a/manual/startup.texi b/manual/startup.texi index 7395d32dd0..21c48cd037 100644 --- a/manual/startup.texi +++ b/manual/startup.texi @@ -1005,14 +1005,6 @@ This function actually terminates the process by raising a intercept this signal; see @ref{Signal Handling}. @end deftypefun -@c Put in by rms. Don't remove. -@cartouche -@strong{Future Change Warning:} Proposed Federal censorship regulations -may prohibit us from giving you information about the possibility of -calling this function. We would be required to say that this is not an -acceptable way of terminating a program. -@end cartouche - @node Termination Internals @subsection Termination Internals
The warning is confusing to those who do not understand the context, and the warning is easy to misunderstand: A reader needs to know that it was written by someone who is generally skeptical of government influence and control, otherwise it reads as an affirmation of the U.S. government's role as the ultimate editor of the manual. This is precisely the opposite of what the warning intends to convey. (Reportedly, it criticizes that several U.S. administrations have tried to restrict the medical advice that U.S.-funded health care workers can provide abroad, considering that censorship.) The warning is also misleading on a technical level. A reader who makes the connection to pregnancy termination will get the wrong impression that calling the abort function will terminate subprocesses of the current process, but this is not what generally happens. Finally, for both GNU and the FSF, it is inappropriate to use female reproductive health as mere joke material, since these organizations do not concern themselves with such issues otherwise, and the warning is purportedly about something else entirely. This reinstates commit 340d9652b9d0e1d4136588f18b726662d195777c ("manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove inappropriate joke."), effectively reverting the revert in commit ffa81c22a3ac0fb75ad9bf2b1c3cdbf9eafa0bc9 ("Revert:"). 2019-10-07 Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> * manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove warning.