Re: feeling intimidated for endorsing the GNU social contract

[Andreas R.]

Hi Mark,

I think this adequately illustrates one of the fundamental problems
with your social contract. The contract states it "commits to providing 
a harassment-free experience"

but for the gnu.tools initiative itself harassment seems defined by
what its review commitee finds expedient.

Asking for feedback, and then ignoring pertinent and neutral questions
consistently can also be considered harassment. This is amplified by 
the persistent gerrymandering through the definition of "stakeholders", 
continuously repartitioning those involved in the discussion to guard 
the gate of acceptable criticism and questions.

It's also true that many, including myself, have received unwanted and even 
aggressive  messages. I think everyone on the list has. This is also
harassment.

But now, this latter type of harassment is presented as a main problem, and 
gnu.tools presents itself as a solution in what seems to be another
effort to shut out those who are skeptical about the initiative.

> The FSF keeps ignoring our calls for a neutral discussion space. And I
> think it is unacceptable that people are afraid to publicly discuss why
> they participate in GNU because they feel intimidated 

Could you provide any examples of where gnu-misc-discuss was less than neutral? 
A
few messages have slipped through with the moderation acknowledging them
and apologising.

The bulk of intimidating messages were addressed directly to recipients or
seem to originate from an external mailing list that gnu-misc-discuss readers 
were subscribed to by a third party without their consent, and completely 
outside of GNU or the FSF.

What type of communications could the FSF provide that would prevent such
things from happening?

> We are working on providing a better discussion space for GNU
> volunteers, but that is taking some time. I hope we can soon though, so
> people who do want to publicly discuss why and how they want to
> participate in GNU can do that in a more safe space.

Given the track record of transparantly discussing "how"s and "why"s
by gnu.tools leadership I don't think creating a separate channel where 
no one will even ask the questions because everyone already agrees will
improve public discussion.

Insults and intimidation on gnu-misc-discuss, detrimental though they may
be, are not an adequate reason for the lack of answers or for restructuring
the venue of the discussion to something under your direct control.

        thanks,
        Andreas R.