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
|
~~NOTOC~~
<markdown>
This page contains all of the feedback received regarding the GNU
Social contract. Each piece of feedback will be reviewed and
evaluated for inclusion. The feedback is included here anonymized
without any personally identifying information.
# 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
# Pledge to whom?
> 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".
# 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...".
# GNU and the broader free software community
> 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?
# 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.
Some concerns about the “level of experience”; 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..."
# External threats
> A native speaker sent this to me:
>
> > > 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"
>
> I agree with the proposal and would go for:
>
> the GNU Project pays attention to, and responds to threats
>
> Should we discuss this on gnu-misc-discuss or just apply the change?
# 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.
>
# 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>.
# A wording suggestion
> "pays attention and responds to" should be "pays attention to and
> responds to" or "pays attention to, and responds to," or "monitors
> and responds to".
# 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.
</markdown>
|
