Re: You rate savannah.gnu.org at A? AYFKM?

[Pau Amma]

On 2022-02-20 04:30, Richard Stallman wrote:
> We are the free software movement.

False. You are *a part of* the free software movement, but nowhere near 
all of it, and whether you're currently a major part of it (or ever 
were) is debatable.

> We demand that web sites respect
> the freedom of their ueers,

False. You demand that web sites respect the freedom of *some of* their 
users (basically ones who can easily and comfortably read print by 
sight), but you're entirely comfortable with them throwing all others 
under the bus.

> and act in ways that encourage freedom and

False. You dont act in a way that encourages freedom to *access and use* 
web sites at all, without which all other freedoms are pointless.

> free software.  Our repo criteria reflect our views.

Only true if by "our views" you mean the ones you demonstrate you hold, 
not the ones you disingenuously claim to.

> When a repo
> works against users' freedom, we give it a bad rating.

False. Yours does work against users' freedom, because what you call 
"freedom" is actually a gated community, free to those you let in and to 
them only. So giving it a high rating is just a self-serving lie.

> It is no coincidence that our forge merits a pretty high rating.

Only true because you're using using self-serving ad-hoc criteria 
*designed to make it look good*.

> It is because we practice what we preach.

Only true because you both preach and practice disingenuousness and 
bareface lying.

> Those are our priorities.  Do you have different priorities?  I think
> so.

Finally, after four outright false statements and two that are partially 
true with qualifications, comes one that's true without qualifications. 
My priorities are:

- not lying
- not being disingenuous
- wanting everyone to have the freedom to *use* web sites
- calling others on their ableist bullshit.

Yours, as I explained above, are nothing of the kind. Just about 
opposite ones, in fact.

> I believe you are sincere about your priorities -- please
> recognize that we are sincere about ours.

If you are indeed sincere about yours (a claim I have no way to evaluate 
since I don't know any of the people you refer to as "we", beyond the 
public image of yourself (singular) you try to project), then you are 
sincere (or should that be "smug"?) about being disingenuous, 
self-serving, ableist liars. If *that* is what you want to be sincere 
about, you should own to it and acknowledge it publicly instead of 
making grandiose, empty claims to the moral high ground.

--
English: he/him/his (singular they/them/their/theirs OK)
French: il/le/lui (iel/iel and ielle/ielle OK)
Tagalog: siya/niya/kaniya (please avoid sila/nila/kanila)