3 ms·

> So, what's the strawman? It was RMS that wrote those GNU principles so I'm assuming he agrees with us as well. I see the straw man in saying that it's RMS fa

> So, what's the strawman? It was RMS that wrote those GNU principles so I'm assuming he agrees with us as well. I see the straw man in saying that it's RMS fault if "many (most?) GNU developers [...] still consider RMS to be GNU's rightful leader". That's the opposite of GNU's, and therefore his, objectives. > I believe that's what Stallman intended when he wrote "I am still the head of the GNU Project (the Chief GNUisance), and I intend to continue as such." When we agree between us that he does not fire people that do not consider him the head of the GNU project, does not code, does not design software and therefore does not "run things", Stallman also agrees. He never said he does these things. What RMS said instead is: - he would like to be called GNU's "head", whatever that means - the work he wants to do as GNU's "head" is to act as a guarantor for new projects to be included inside GNU and spend time advocating for free software I think the reason is he wants to contribute too and considers himself the better candidate for these tasks. I don't know if that's true, but the fact he believes to be indispensable to GNU it's probably not.

eesmith 7y ago
Where is the claim or implication that it's RMS's fault? Just because some people have a belief - which is what the author wrote - doesn't mean that RMS caused that belief.
- 9k2jdn4339sdt23 7y ago
  > Where is the claim or implication that it's RMS's fault? Where he says Stallman is "pretending" to run things.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    I've been staring at the text trying to see the strawman argument, and have failed. The author asserts that many GNU developers consider RMS to be GNU's rightful leader. The author asserts that that Stallman is pretending to run things. I can see that the author can be wrong. I don't see where it's a strawman. BTW, "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" at https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm is relevant. A social group with "an apparent lack of structure too often disguise[s] an informal, unacknowledged and unaccountable leadership that [is] all the more pernicious because its very existence [is] denied." (quoting Hilary Wainwright at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne... ). If Stallman doesn't "run things" at least to some extent, then what decisions is is referring to when he writes at https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-10/msg00005.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-10/msg00005... : > "I would like to make incremental changes in how some decisions are made, because I won't be here forever and we need to ready others to make GNU Project decisions when I can no longer do so."
    - 9k2jdn4339sdt23 7y ago
      I may be wrong as well, but here's another attempt to explain myself: 1. (If I understand correctly) Straw man is when you say someone supports an argument he actually doesn't 2. (If true, I don't know) Developers say he's the rightful "leader", but their definition of leader can't be the one Wingo says it means for them. The GNU licenses forbid that. 3. Stallman also has a definition of "successful GNU leader" that is not the one Wingo believes in: we know because he invented it, implemented it and considers himself successful 4. We know that Wingo believes Stallman shares with him his own definition of leader because Wingo claims that Stallman needs to pretend to do things he doesn't to continue being considered successful > If Stallman doesn't "run things" at least to some extent, then what decisions is is referring to when he writes at https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-10/msg00005.. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-10/msg00005.... : Surely not ones that go against GNU licences, since licenses are legally binding (in theory) in guaranteeing that software, developers and users keep their "freedoms" and are not a matter of any leadership, be it GNU leadership or any other. Your link is interesting, I'll read it tomorrow, but at least for me the reason I care about GNU is not to be a part of a group but the opposite. I dislike being around most people, from my point of view distrust is a virtue. But as an individual, if it's part of a GNU project I can still contribute to build something that is both ethical according to my values and bigger than I could achieve alone. It's a way to contribute selectively only when I know that, once in a while, I agree with what those people are doing. (It's not like I have developed a dislike for Wingo now, I admire him and his work even if I don't agree with the fact Stallman has had a greater negative impact then the false claims made against him in the past)
      - eesmith 7y ago
        Wingo is responding to an argument that could be made by some readers, and which Wingo believes is asserted by "many (most?) GNU developers". He does not believe it to be a valid argument. Under your definition of straw man (which I believe is incorrect; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ), it would be a straw man only if so few people were presenting that argument that it doesn't make sense to even bring up, in order to reject it. I believe there are enough people who believe that Stallman is the leader of the GNU project that it's worthwhile to bring up. I think a "strawman argument" is more like one where I point out that Stallman says he is involved in making GNU project decisions, and ask when those decisions are, then you point out that he cannot be involved in making GNU license changes which break legally binding obligations. The structureless essay has come up many times before on HN - search the archive for comments.

eesmith 7y ago

Where is the claim or implication that it's RMS's fault? Just because some people have a belief - which is what the author wrote - doesn't mean that RMS caused that belief.

9k2jdn4339sdt23 7y ago
> Where is the claim or implication that it's RMS's fault? Where he says Stallman is "pretending" to run things.
- eesmith 7y ago
  I've been staring at the text trying to see the strawman argument, and have failed. The author asserts that many GNU developers consider RMS to be GNU's rightful leader. The author asserts that that Stallman is pretending to run things. I can see that the author can be wrong. I don't see where it's a strawman. BTW, "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" at https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm is relevant. A social group with "an apparent lack of structure too often disguise[s] an informal, unacknowledged and unaccountable leadership that [is] all the more pernicious because its very existence [is] denied." (quoting Hilary Wainwright at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne... ). If Stallman doesn't "run things" at least to some extent, then what decisions is is referring to when he writes at https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-10/msg00005.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-10/msg00005... : > "I would like to make incremental changes in how some decisions are made, because I won't be here forever and we need to ready others to make GNU Project decisions when I can no longer do so."
  - 9k2jdn4339sdt23 7y ago
    I may be wrong as well, but here's another attempt to explain myself: 1. (If I understand correctly) Straw man is when you say someone supports an argument he actually doesn't 2. (If true, I don't know) Developers say he's the rightful "leader", but their definition of leader can't be the one Wingo says it means for them. The GNU licenses forbid that. 3. Stallman also has a definition of "successful GNU leader" that is not the one Wingo believes in: we know because he invented it, implemented it and considers himself successful 4. We know that Wingo believes Stallman shares with him his own definition of leader because Wingo claims that Stallman needs to pretend to do things he doesn't to continue being considered successful > If Stallman doesn't "run things" at least to some extent, then what decisions is is referring to when he writes at https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-10/msg00005.. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-10/msg00005.... : Surely not ones that go against GNU licences, since licenses are legally binding (in theory) in guaranteeing that software, developers and users keep their "freedoms" and are not a matter of any leadership, be it GNU leadership or any other. Your link is interesting, I'll read it tomorrow, but at least for me the reason I care about GNU is not to be a part of a group but the opposite. I dislike being around most people, from my point of view distrust is a virtue. But as an individual, if it's part of a GNU project I can still contribute to build something that is both ethical according to my values and bigger than I could achieve alone. It's a way to contribute selectively only when I know that, once in a while, I agree with what those people are doing. (It's not like I have developed a dislike for Wingo now, I admire him and his work even if I don't agree with the fact Stallman has had a greater negative impact then the false claims made against him in the past)
    - eesmith 7y ago
      Wingo is responding to an argument that could be made by some readers, and which Wingo believes is asserted by "many (most?) GNU developers". He does not believe it to be a valid argument. Under your definition of straw man (which I believe is incorrect; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ), it would be a straw man only if so few people were presenting that argument that it doesn't make sense to even bring up, in order to reject it. I believe there are enough people who believe that Stallman is the leader of the GNU project that it's worthwhile to bring up. I think a "strawman argument" is more like one where I point out that Stallman says he is involved in making GNU project decisions, and ask when those decisions are, then you point out that he cannot be involved in making GNU license changes which break legally binding obligations. The structureless essay has come up many times before on HN - search the archive for comments.