I wanted to vote on this but Twitter said, "You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets."
So... what's the point of having a poll?
Anyway, my feeling is "no" toward the "PSF making a statement in support of peace".
As Herve said, there's a lot of hypocrisy toward the PSF suddenly making a statement right now. As if the PSF has suddenly become ethical.
If we go down this path of making statements about matters that are outside of software, then I have a passionate list of things that I'd like the PSF to come out and make statements for. Please, just ask.
> > cheerio,
+1 Michael ... spit a list ;-)
Don't presume to speak for me. Ever. Period. :)
so if a stas should be done, let's begin from the beginning of
whayt is happening : 13 000 civilians killed in ukraine by
neo-nazzies (government) for 8 years... a statement today MUST
quote this. else it wouls be a bullshit thing.
the thing that point deaths by others and never deaths by us ?
that thing ?
Yes I agree, "making a statement for peace" is ambiguous. Which peace? Who's peace? "Peace" is meaningless without a context and so the main question in my mind is who gets to decide the context? Who gets to frame it? And by extension willfully ignore other contexts?
Because we're open source kind of people, do we make a decentralized polling system so we can all chip in our ideas of which peace contexts to "make a statement for"? I mean, that could be cool. Maybe irrelevant to the individuals we're supporting. But *we all* get to decide and vote on *which peace contexts* to "make a statement for". We could do this continuously and forever, and that way no one's pet peace context can be ignored by the PSF's platform.
Then we have to ask ourselves: if we make statements for peace, should we expand it to make statements for the environment, for the animals, for the marginalized?