Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/11/22/gnu-kind-communication-guidelines.html
I have until now avoided making a public statement about my views on the
various interrelated issues regarding the GNU Kind Communication
Guidelines that came up over the last month. However, given
increasing interest in our community on these issues, and the repeated
inquiries that I received privately from major contributors in our
community, I now must state my views publicly. I don’t have much desire to
debate these topics in public, nor do I think such is particularly useful,
but I’ve been asked frequently about these GNU policy statements. I feel,
if for no other reason than efficiency, that I should share them in one
place publicly for easy reference:
- I think
the GNU
Kind Communication Guidelines, as a stand-alone document, are useful
suggestions and helpful to the GNU project and would be helpful, if
adopted, for any software freedom project. - However, I think that the GNU Kind Communication
Guidelines standing alone are inadequate for a project of GNU’s
size and number of contributors to address the stated problems.
Traditional Codes of Conduct, particularly those that offer mechanisms
for complaint resolution when bad behavior occurs, are necessary in Free
Software projects of GNU’s size. Codes of Conduct are the best mechanism
known today in our community to ensure welcoming environments for those
who might be targeted by inappropriate and unprofessional behavior. - I therefore disagree with
the meta-material stated in
the announcement of these Communication Guidelines. First, I
disagree with the decision to reject any Code of Conduct for the GNU
project. Second, I believe that diversity is an important goal for
advancing software freedom and human equality generally. I support all
Outreachy‘s goals (including their
political ones) and I work hard to help Outreachy
succeed as part of my day job. I have publicly supported affirmative
action since the early 1990s, and continue to support it. I agree with
“making diversity a goal”; Richard Stallman (RMS), speaking
on behalf of GNU, states
that perse disagrees with “making diversity a goal”. - I also disagree with encouraging GNU project contributors to ignore
the request of non-binary-gender individuals who ask for the pronouns
they/them0,
as
stated
in RMS’ personal essay linked to from the GNU Kind Communication
Guidelines. My position is that refusing to use the pronouns
people ask for is the same unkindness as refusing to call transgender
people by a name that is not their legal name when they request it. I
don’t think the grammatical argument that “pronouns are different
from proper nouns” is compelling enough to warrant unwelcoming
behavior toward these individuals. The words people use matter. RMS has
insisted for years that people make a clear distinction between open
source and free software — for good reason —. I believe that
how we say things makes a political statement in itself. - Related to the last point, I am concerned with the conflating of GNU
project views with RMS’ personal views. RMS seems to have decided
unilaterally that GNU would take a position that requests for use of
they/them pronouns need not be honored. I think it is essential that RMS
keeps per personal views separate from official GNU policy; I have said
so many times to the FSF Board of Directors in various contexts. It was
a surprise to me that RMS’ personal view on this issue was referenced as
part of GNU project guidelines. - I think
the GNU
Kindness Communication Guidelines should apply to all communication from
the project, including GNU manuals themselves, and I also believe the
glibcabort()joke should be removed. I don’t believe
free speech of anyone is impacted if a Free Software project forbids
certain types of off-topic communication in its official channels.
Everyone can have their own website and blog to express their personal
views; they don’t need to do so through project channels.
I have been encouraged many times this year by various prominent community
members to resign from the FSF’s Board of Directors (sometimes over these
issues, and sometimes over other, similar issues). I have also received
many private communications from other prominent community members
(including some GNU contributors) expressing similar concerns to the above,
but these individuals noted that they feel much better about the FSF and
its shepherding of the GNU project because I’m on the FSF Board of
Directors, even though I clearly pointed out to them that my views on these
matters will not necessarily become GNU and/or FSF policy. The argument
that many have made to me is that it’s valuable to have dissenting opinions
in the leadership on these issues, even if those dissenting opinions do not
become FSF and/or GNU policy.
I am swayed by the latter argument, and I have decided to continue as an
FSF Director indefinitely (assuming the other Directors wish me to
continue). However, these recent public positions are far enough out of
alignment with my own views that I feel it necessary to exercise my own
free speech rights here on my personal blog and state my disagreement with
them. I will continue to urge the FSF and GNU to change and/or clarify
these positions. (I also sent this blog post privately to the FSF
Directors 8 days before I posted it, and had also discussed these concerns
in detail with RMS for a month before posting this.)
Governing well means working (and finding common ground) with those you
disagree. We oscillate a bit too much in software freedom communities:
either we air every last disagreement no matter how minor, or (perhaps as
an over-correction to the former) we seek to represent a seemingly perfect
consensus even when one isn’t present. I try to avoid both extremes; so
this is the first time in my many years on the FSF Board of Directors where
I’ve publicly disagreed with an FSF or GNU project policy. FSF and GNU
primarily fight for one principle: equal software freedom for all users and
developers. On other topics, there can easily exist disagreement, and
working through those disagreements together, in my opinion, usually make
the community stronger.
As always, this is my personal blog, and nothing here necessarily reflects
the official views of any organization with which I am affiliated,
including not only the Free Software Foundation and GNU, but also Software
Freedom Conservancy.
Change made on 2019-03-25: Above, the words I am
were changed to:
a supporter of
Outreachy and work hard to help it
succeed as part of my day job.
I support all
Outreachy‘s goals (including their
political ones)
0
A review of
various
archive.org
links
shows that this particular text was surreptitious changed in the weeks
following my publication of this blog post. I was never contacted nor
consulted to review the original condemnation by the GNU project of
they/them pronouns nor the improvements. This footnote here was added in
2020 long after these incidents, as that’s when I first became aware those
changes were made after the fact. I believe that the change, which evolved
into something more reasonable after a few months of edits (but coming
after I posted this blog) vindicates both my position that the GNU project
should not have initially condemned the use of they/them pronouns for
non-binary individuals, and that it would have been advisable for the GNU
project to seek input from the FSF Board of Directors (which I
was a member of at the time
but am no longer) before setting such policies about diversity and
inclusiveness.