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

[Pau Amma]

Coming back to this after a few very busy weeks.

On 2022-03-07 21:34, S T wrote:
> Hi Pau

In case you're not the same person I already told this: My name is Pau 
Amma, not what you wrote. See
https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/
items 5, 19, and 20. (If you *are* that same person, you may want to ask 
yourself why you keep doing that after being asked not to.)

> > > The free software movement is a campaign for a moral goal:
> >
> > No. As long as you consider it acceptable to throw some people under 
> > the
> > bus, as long as you call not doing that a "feature", your goal, 
> > whatever
> > else it may be, is *not* moral and will never be, repeated claims to 
> > the
> > contrary notwithstanding.
> What people under the bus?

I answered that already, in my Feb 28 email. Relevant excerpt below:
> https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html clearly states "The 
> criteria emphasize [...] not rejecting any users." Without 
> accessibility, you *are* rejecting users, which is in direct violation 
> of your own criteria. Not owning to that is hypocrisy.

> > > to end an injustice.
> >
> > "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" (Martin Luther
> > King). Since you consider acceptable to perpetuate an injustice (and
> > arguably reinforce it, by giving it another stronghold), your approach
> > is flawed to the core, and you're defending the indefensible.
> What injustice?

The injustice I was referring to is the ableism the FSF is excusing or 
encouraging (not sure which) in others by not demanding full 
accessibility as a precondition to an "acceptable" repository evaluation 
and committing itself (see below).

> > Then, since you happily ignore and perpetuate one wrong while claiming
> > to fight to end another, you're not fighting to end wrongs, plural. 
> > That
> > would mean your own goal is not a moral one.
> What is being ignored?

See above.

> > Yes, software (like websites) that gives certain people, like the FSF,
> > power over the users, by letting it selectively deny access to some of
> > us (aka, people with disabilities), is indeed a matter of good vs. 
> > evil.
>
> Pau, since when is FSF website  unfriendly toward people with
> disabilities? I find it more useable than many other websites.

That's only tangentially related to the FSF criteria for evaluating 
repositories RMS and I were discussing, but 
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/take-the-next-step-in-living-liberation-watch-the-libreplanet-2022-videos-today 
(byline is "Free Software Foundation" linking to a page for "staff and 
board of directors of the Free Software Foundation") links to a number 
of videos as "picks". Of the first 5 (all I looked at) none had a text 
transcript or a text copy of the slides in prominent evidence. That's 
one example I was able to spot in under 5 minutes on the FSF website. 
But if you want a complete, detailed evaluation, you should ask WebAIM 
or another accessibility expert group for a quote. See 
https://webaim.org/services/evaluation/ or 
https://webaim.org/services/certification/.

(In addition, "more useable than many other websites" is setting the bar 
very low.)

--
#BlackLivesMatter #TransWomenAreWomen #AccessibilityMatters 
#StandWithUkrainians
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)