FreeBSD asking contributors to fix their opinions - is it official?

[Marc Lehmann]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 06:46:45AM -0600, Adam Weinberger <adamw at freebsd.org> wrote:
> Moving this to a more appropriate list (portmgr at FreeBSD.org, the
> oversight group for all ports committers, removing questions@, which
> is a list intended for new users to receive basic help).

Ah, OK, but that doesn't seem to be the appropriate address for the policy
question I had, and I think it is rather important not just for me but for
the whole FreeeBSD project to clarify this.

> As I mentioned in my email, you maintain many important modules, and
> my job is to provide our users with a simple and safe way to deploy

That's good to hear - Canary::Stability should support you in doing that
already - at least, I didn't hear anything to the contrary from anybody so
far.

> them. I suggested retiring Canary::Stability because it (a) doesn't
> seem to contain objective checks for system brokenness

It doesn't claim to check system brokeness - it checks perl suitability,
and specifically, the perl version and branch.

> and (b) makes subjective claims that are in fact harmful if followed.

You keep repeating that, but no evidence is provided, so O am not sure
what you expect me to do?

> I know of no other way to refer to "don't use any Perl newer than
> 5.21" besides "personal opinion of the author."

That's neither my opinion nor something expressed by Canary::Stability -
did you make this up? If not, do you have a source for this statement,
preferably in Canary::Stability?

The only refernc e to 5.21 in Canary::Stability is the part that points out
that (many, depends on the module) versions older than 5.21 are, in fact,
supported.

Does FreeBSD have a problem with modules supporting older perl versions?
That would be an awful problem for most of CPAN.

> For reference, 5.22 was released in 2015.

Actually 2017, according to http://www.cpan.org/src/, but I am not sure
what the relevance of any 5.22 release data would be (stableperl 5.22 has
been released in 2015, and is fully maintained since then for example).

> I notice that in your email, you declined to address Canary::Stability
> entirely

That's obviously a false statement - do you have a source for this
claim? It looks to be made up, and I would wish you wouldn't misrepresent
other people like that.

In my mail reply to you, I addressed every single point you brought up
that could be addressed. If you think I didn't address something, feel
free to point it out, but I don't think a normal person could misinterpret
my reply as "decline to address ... entirely" when the opposite is true.

I might point out that claiming the exact opposite of something somebody
did is a common propaganda technique, and I am not happy that you use this
on me.

I think you should either take this back or explain what you really meant.

> and instead focused entirely on the two words "personal
> opinion."

Again, that's clearly not true. What is true that in second mail where I
asked whether this opinion fixing is an official policy of the freebsd
project, I of course focused on the personal opinion aspect, as any other
issues you might have brought up were either completely unsubstantiated or
were completely off-topic for the question I have.

> If you really want answers to your questions: no, no, and yes.

Not sure what the second "no" is meant to signify (does this mean the
answer to the first question is yes?), but it is weird that FreeBSD is
fine with people policing opinions in the name of the whole project - are
you really sure you meant to answer like that?

I rally find that very hard to believe, and I'd rather ask the freebsd
community than rely on a single person with a track record of making
false claims.

> I'm not sure how to respond to phrases like "orwellian," "thought
> police," and "police their personal opinions."

Well, that's objectively what you did, no? I also don't know how you
should respond to that - but it seems you really meant it, and you claim
the FreeBSD project is fine with this, which _I_ find absolutely shocking
(and certainly newsworthy).

> I requested making Canary::Stability objective

Not sure where you did this, or what that even means (you don't seem to
wish to tell me) - in my opinion, it is objective. Without answering my
request for clarification, this is just a completely unsubstaniated claim
by you.

> or retiring it. If that feels like "thought police" to you, then I am
> not sure how else to help you.

Trying to silence other people's opinion pretty much feels like thought
police to me. And I am indeed absolutely convinved that this is not an
unreasonable reaction.

Especially the way this is rnought forwward - you make nebulous claims and
aks me to remove "something" from my module, implying it needs to be done
by FreeBSD, without ever tleling me what you object to.

> I urge you to contact portmgr at FreeBSD.org if you want to make a formal
> complaint.

Not sure what a formal compaint would even be - I think the (apparent)
fact the the FreeBSD project is fine with people trying to silence opinion
in their name is something that should be publicised, as I am sure many
people will agree that this is rather reprehensible on the side of a whole
project.

And I honetsly still can't believe this is true, despite you claiming so.

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 06:57:11AM -0600, Adam Weinberger <adamw at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > FreeBSD project as a whole (and I might indeed be prompted to inquire
> > about this because it is hard to believe that FreeBSD is now the thought
> > police), but certainly not in any way or shape a reason to retire a useful
> > perl module.
> 
> Ok. Well, thanks for taking the time. I'm not sure how you went from
> "please limit the module to objective checks"

Is that a quote? If yes, who said that? Certainly not you (or me), or can
you refer me to the place where you wrote it?

As such, since I never went from "there" to anywhere else, you seem to be
replying to some other mail by another person, because that's clearly not
what I did or say.

However, I can't fail to point out that you have not substantiated _any_
of your claims, despite me pointing out multiple times now that you would
need to do so for me to have anything actionable.

As such, your claim that the (perceived) personal opinions in my module
need fixing by the FreeBSD project and I should remove them is the only
thing I can talk about - you didn't give me *anything* else to talk about.

That's hardly my fault - I can only go by what you write.

PS: Can I publicy quote your mails (preferably in their's entirety to
avoid possibly misquoting)?

> to "FreeBSD wants to control your thoughts,"

Well, it clearly wants to police the public expression of my personal
opinions, as you have clarified in this mail, and this seems to be a FreeBSD
stance, or at least, it's ok to do that in the name of the project.

> and I doubt anything I say is going to change your mind. I sincerely
> regret sending the email.

Well, I am not sure how to take this - you send me a mail with a lot of
false and/or unsubstantiated claims, and when I ask for clarification,
you run away - indeed, it wasn't worth to write such an e-mail and then
not follow up and bring evidence - what do you think should an upstream
maintainer do when he or she gets a lot of made-up claims that are never
substantiated? That's a rather weird thing to do, don't you think so?

-- 
                The choice of a       Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
      -----==-     _GNU_              http://www.deliantra.net
      ----==-- _       generation
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __      Marc Lehmann
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /      schmorp at schmorp.de
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\