1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
|
~~NOTOC~~
<markdown>
# Feedback on DRAFT GNU Social Contract 1.0
This page contains all of the feedback received regarding the GNU Social
Contract (GSC) following its announcement on 28 January 2020. On 10
February 2020, the GSC drafting working group met to collect the
feedback and address concrete points. The group was composed of:
* Andreas Enge
* Andy Wingo
* Carlos O'Donell
* Ludovic Courtès
* Mark Wielaard
The feedback is included here, stripped of personally identifying
information, as well as the corresponding resolutions and GSC text
changes. Note that some of the feedback is verbatim.
## (a) Name of the document
> Please don't call the document a Social Contract. The first sentence says:
> "These are the core commitments of the GNU Project...". In other words:
> these are promises. A better title for the document would be:
>
> The GNU Promises
### Resolution
We sympathise and this was a point of discussion among the GSC drafting
working group, but it is the option that got the most support. We hope
that those GNU participants that prefer another name can look beyond the
title to the content. The term Social Contract is also commonly used by
other Free Software projects to describe their core values and mission.
## (b) Pledge to whom?
The original text included the sentence, "These are the core commitments
of the GNU Project to the broader free software community," to which
there was the following feedback:
> The first sentence continues with: "to the broader free software community".
> Well, why only to the free-software people? I would say: "to the world".
### Resolution
Good point. We have updated the wording to 'These are the core
commitments of the GNU Project, which creates and distributes a software
system that respects users' freedoms.'
## (c) GNU software
> The second sentence says: "The GNU Project provides a software system..."
> The word "system" is both too vague and too all-encompassing; it sounds as
> if it wants to be a single, massive block of software. I would say that
> the GNU project "provides software packages...".
### Resolution
Thank you for the feedback. The new wording is "The GNU Project creates
and distributes a software system that respects users' freedoms". Note
that we have decided to keep "system" in place as an aspirational
statement.
## (d) GNU and the broader free software community
With regards to the original text: "Free software extends beyond the GNU
Project, which works with companion free software projects that develop
key components of the GNU System. The GNU Project aims to extend the
reach of free software to new fields."
> The third section begins: "Free software extends beyond the GNU Project..."
> Huh? Vague. Does this want to say that there is also free software that
> is not part of the GNU project? If yes, then say so.
> It continues: "which works with companion free software projects that
> develop key components of the GNU System". Oof... Who are those
> "companion free software projects"? How can such projects "that
> develop key components of the GNU System" not be part of the GNU
> project itself? In short: what does this want to say? Where is the
> promise here?
> And then: "The GNU Project aims to extend the reach of free software to
> new fields." Huh? What new "fields"? Again: what is the promise here?
> Is it that we intend to assimilate everything?
### Resolution
These are good points. After much discussion, the revised text is now:
"The GNU Project works together with other free software projects to
advance its goals, and aims to extend the reach of the project beyond
the GNU System." Again, as this document states goals, we keep an
aspirational component.
## (e) On GNU welcoming contributions from everyone
> The fourth section says: "The GNU Project wants to give everyone the
> opportunity of contributing to its efforts..." To me this sounds as if
> the GNU project will not put any hurdles and conditions in people's way
> before they can contribute. But in practice the GNU project requires
> that significant contributors sign a copyright assignment, and that
> translators sign a copyright disclaimer. I think that these two things
> make the GNU project quite unwelcoming to possible contributors. So,
> in my opinion, that sentence is rather untruthful.
The feedback also included some concerns about the “level of experience”
and proposed rewording (replacing “It welcomes […]” by “It [gives]
everyone the opportunity”):
> The GNU Project commits to providing a harassment-free experience for
> all contributors. It wants to give everyone the opportunity of
> contributing to its efforts on any of the many tasks that require work.
> It welcomes all contributors, regardless of their gender, ethnicity,
> sexual orientation, level of experience, or any other personal
> characteristics.
Related comment:
> "welcomes contributions" could be read as "accepts all
> contributions". Might be fixed by moving the important part first
> so it would read: "The GNU Project commits to providing a
> harassment-free experience for all contributors. It wants to
> give..."
### Resolution
We agree that this point should lead with the main message. The
intention is certainly not that all contributions must be accepted, but
rather that GNU should take steps to make sure that no one should feel
unwelcome in GNU based on personal characteristics such as gender. The
new text is: 'The GNU Project commits to providing a harassment-free
experience for all contributors. It wants to give everyone the
opportunity of contributing to its efforts on any of the many tasks that
require work. It welcomes all contributors, regardless of their gender,
ethnicity, sexual orientation, level of experience, or any other
personal characteristics.'
## (f) External threats
With regards to the original text, "Besides upholding the Four Essential
Freedoms, the GNU Project pays attention and responds to new threats to
users' freedom as they arise," there is the following feedback:
> > > the GNU Project pays attention and responds to
> >
> > IMHO missing "to"
> >
> > "pays attention to..."
> >
> > optionally "pays attention to, and responds to, ..."
> >
> > or "monitors and responds to"
### Resolution
The new text is "Besides upholding the Four Essential Freedoms, the GNU
Project pays attention to new threats to users' freedom, and responds to
them as they arise."
## (g) GSC signature required for contribution?
> > Just to clarify here, do you mean to say that you do not
> > want to make endorsement of the GNU Social Contract a
> > requirement for contributing to GNU Foo? If I
> > misunderstood you, please feel free to correct me.
>
> No you have it exactly right.
>
> One point that might be helpful is to include a reference
> to this in the actual contract itself. Eg by adding
> something like this to the "welcomes contributions"
> section:
>
> This contract is voluntary - there is no enforcement
> or oversight enacted and there is no requirement that
> any contributor should adhere to it. Motivations
> for contribution are left entirely up to the individual.
### Resolution
We do not intend to make endorsing the document a condition for
contribution to any package. The GSC simply defines the core values of
the GNU Project. For brevity, we are choosing not to add a
clarification to the document.
## (h) Implications regarding non-GNU activity
> Does adhering to this "social contract" mean that as a GNU developer
> I should not work at <state sponsored spying agency>, <proprietary
> company> or <privacy violating entity>.
### Resolution
While we certainly do not think that you should violate anyone's
privacy, the document simply describes what we do in GNU and when
representing GNU and does not have any broader scope.
## (i) A general meta-question regarding why the document is needed
> The tone and content of the draft contract are not changed from
> existing practice. But give a better explanation of why a
> restatement of the GNU project's goals and standards is needed, and
> where it differs from the goals/standards in previous years.
### Resolution
The goals and principles of the GNU Project should stand on their own
and provide volunteers with a key document they can use to decide what
actions they should be taking when faced with difficult decisions. The
document helps create a common understanding among all volunteers and
helps guide them through their interactions within the project and
without. Existing documents are spread around and mix policies,
rationales, and technical details. The goal of the GSC is to provide a
short document that summarizes our core commitments, with the goal of
building a shared understanding of our mission as part of the GNU
Project.
## (j) Welcoming all contributions even from those who don't endorse
- Endorsement of the GNU Social Contract should not be a requirement
for contributing to GNU. Explicitly adding this under "welcomes
contributions from all and everyone" would be helpful.
### Resolution
Accepted in point (g).
</markdown>
|
