| From: |
| Carlos O'Donell <carlos-AT-redhat.com> |
| To: |
| rms-AT-gnu.org, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh-AT-gotplt.org> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [rain1-AT-airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke |
| Date: |
| Sun, 6 May 2018 23:09:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID: |
| <8aa5a262-f3e7-09b0-253b-4f48ad91ee11@redhat.com> |
| Cc: |
| zackw-AT-panix.com, libc-alpha-AT-sourceware.org |
| Archive-link: |
| Article |
On 05/06/2018 10:00 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 GNU C Library project is mostly a consensus-based community-driven
> > project.
>
> I think that's literally true, due to the word "mostly", but people
> could get the wrong idea from it. GNU Libc is not an independent
> project.
I have adjusted the text in [1] to reference back to the existing text
under the project maintainership page which describes those people who
are responsible for the project as GNU Maintainers.
This should hopefully avoid any confusion about being a GNU package,
and needing to adhere to GNU policies.
> I exercise my authority over Glibc very rarely -- and when I have done
> so, I have talked with the official maintainers. So rarely that some
> of you thought that you are entirely autonomous. But that is not the
> case. On this particular question, I made a decision long ago and
> stated it where all of you could see it.
Several GNU package maintainers for glibc disagree with the joke, agreed
with the removal, and I do not plan to personally put it back without
a broader discussion of the purpose of the current material and what
glibc as a GNU package could stand to gain or loose from it. That discussion
is well underway, but could do with some summarizing of the various current
suggestions and statements.
Does this violate any existing GNU policies?
--
Cheers,
Carlos.
[1] https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Consensus
