Re: Truth matters when writing software and selecting leaders

Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
> On 2021-03-25 18:57, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>> Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
>>> On 2021-03-24 19:55, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>>>> [...] I now wonder if
>>>> we may be seeing a different angle of an attack on the GNU project
>>>> that RMS did not anticipate.
>>>
>>> I also have similar suspicions. If you can replace the stewards of
>>> free software with meek, emotional weaklings, or fools, you can easily
>>> manipulate those projects in whatever direction you see fit.
>>>
>>> "You must accept this backdoor patch because it's written by a
>>> member of a vulnerable, disadvantaged group."
>>>
>>> If you don't think that's coming, just sit back and watch.
>>
>> I have vague memories of similar incidents having already occurred,
>> although I do not recall exactly what they were.  I think they were
>> actually demands for direct commit access, on the grounds that none of
>> the active developers were [insert FOOBAR group name here].  I want to
>> say that the attempts failed, but I am not certain.
>>
>> [...]
>
> Those incidents could have been "innocent" in the sense that
> the person was really just working on their own and actually member
> of [FOOBAR group], just with a really oboxious personality and
> way of thinking.
>
> The conspiracy-like theory of mine that I'm referring to is that the
> submitter is not actually a member of any [FOOBAR group]. The claim is 
> fake,
> used by some nefarious agency to push rogue commits.

There was a time when I would call you paranoid for that, but then 
Snowden (never mind how that guy somehow got a security clearance after 
publicly stating his intention to leak whatever he could grab -- my tax 
dollars at work bungling a background check, obviously) dumped a bunch 
of documents, and even if I still doubt the NSA would go quite that far 
against the GNU project, I am convinced that there are plenty of foreign 
agencies that would try it.

> To make it crystal clear, I am not in any way "FOOBAR-phobic" or
> whatever.

I think I might remember what FOOBAR actually was, but I deliberately 
replaced it with a placeholder to exclude any question of irrational 
fears related to any specific group.

> That strategy will easily work if the project leaders have been
> replaced by mental/emotional weaklings, by some coup in which the 
> original
> leaders were displaced for faintly smelling of being resistant
> to unconditional "inclusivity".

You mean like the ousting of Brendan Eich, who had stated in no 
uncertain terms that Firefox would not support DRM, after which Mozilla 
reversed that decision?

That also ignores the harm that that larger incident has likely done to 
the cause of transparency in politics, since the activists specifically 
promised the court that there would be no harassment of the people whose 
names they wanted revealed, a promise that was quickly shown to be 
utterly worthless.  The next shady group that wants to keep their donor 
list secret can now point to that case and its aftermath as justification.

> I'm not even saying anything like that the new project leaders are
> moles.  Basically everyone involved, up to that point, had just been
> a pawn being played.
>
> Let me articulate the crazy conspiracy theory more precisely:
> some nefarious agencies are injecting animosity into free software
> communities in order to create disruption which will have the result
> of bringing changes into projects, such that the leadership of those
> projects becomes more docile and pliable in the face of pressure from
> those nefarious agencies. Nefarious agencies could be corporations,
> governments (local and foreign), you name it.

The major problem I have with this is that I do not recall seeing any of 
the initial disruptions your conspiracy theory posits.

> The disruption is what causes certain social activists to take notice
> of free software and become attracted to free software projects
> in the first place.

Can you show such disruptions prior to the arrival of the certain social 
activists?

I suspect that the activists were also the sources of the initial 
disruptions.  This is one of the reasons that they have not gotten very 
far, as they are simply invaders in every sense and they do not fit 
amongst us at all.  Even the attacks on RMS are predominately based on 
pressure from outside of our community, although they may expose 
foolish, cowardly, or deluded members of our community.

> "Hey there is this world of free software which is really great
> and powers most of the Internet. But I hear stories about how it's
> run by volunteers some of whom are bad people. Racists, trans-phobics,
> defenders of pedophilia and sex trafficking. That's how I even heard
> about this stuff in the first place, sadly! Well, we can fix that.
> Gosh, darn it, I'm gonna join one of these projects and do something
> about it!"

The solution here is to refuse to create sinecure positions of any sort 
and to demand technical competence for technical work.  The worst of the 
social activists, whose only skill is whining, will be effectively 
excluded.  Let them whine -- and keep them thoroughly excluded because 
they are simply toxic people whose only skill is whining.

> [...]
>
> Projects must put up a barrier against allowing manipulation via
> irrelevant politics.

We have 
(<URL:http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Other-Politics>) 
such a policy in GNU.  Even the Kind Communication Guidelines 
(<URL:http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html>) which do 
make a small concession to "gender identity" include a footnote that 
explicitly endorses the use of gender-neutral pronouns and they do not 
suggest accommodating "snowflake" pronouns.  The Guidelines also 
(implicitly) leave the option of not using pronouns at all, which is 
typically appropriate for email lists anyway to avoid confusion in 
larger discussions.


-- Jacob