10 ms·

Do you have any reason to believe that RMS hadn’t been the subject of several co platings, over several years, including several warning/remedial/probationary p

by c256 7y ago

Do you have any reason to believe that RMS hadn’t been the subject of several co platings, over several years, including several warning/remedial/probationary periods wherein people were working with him to try and improve the behavior that caused at least some of the multiple complaints over multiple years? In other words, what makes you think this process played out over 1 week, rather than this being the most recent of a long succession of events? I am personally saddened by RMS’ departure, and also saddened that this “final straw” seems likely to be caused by Richard attempting to defend the memory of a long-time, now deceased friend. That said, I also know people who interact with him far more often than I, and they almost unanimously say it was past time. It makes me sad, but it doesn’t make me think it was hasty.

roenxi 7y ago
It is kind of obvious that this isn't due to multiple anythings over multiple years. The timing is far too coincidental. There hasn't been enough time to work out what the actual community thinks about the current drama because it takes a month or two for word to percolate around a community; stable opinions over large groups don't form in a week. Even if it is a straw that broke the camels back there needs to be a few weeks of settling to work out if there is straw and where it landed. People like to think they can make snap decisions about what is good and what is bad. It just happens that that instinct is wrong and what fuels mob violence and other destructive actions; there are strong links between good decisions, long timeframes and moderate attitudes. This isn't so urgent that it couldn't wait a month to let everyone breath and take stock. Then Stallman can resign if enough people still think it is appropriate.
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  > stable opinions over large groups don't form in a week We know very well how they form: years of false propaganda. People still believes he's scared of plants.
  - herpes 7y ago
    This is hilarious, do you have a reference?
    - lostjohnny 7y ago
      I do! Thomas Lord, Arch creator and former FSF employee > p.s.: In the closet-sized "office" Bushnell, McGrath, and I shared for a time we did have some spider plants as part of a running silly joke. They did not actually scare RMS away OF COURSE and he usually had helpful criticism and advice of our efforts, from my point of view. https://archive.is/7qepC#selection-1591.1-1591.277 https://archive.is/7qepC#selection-1591.1-1591.277
      - herpes 7y ago
        Ha!
- watwut 7y ago
  I think that he does not talk about community as people who are around the world, but rather people working with him having to deal with him day to day. Those had their general opinions made long ago, whether pro-Stallman or anti-Stallman.
- CJefferson 7y ago
  I, and many other people, have disconnected from the FSF and GNU projects for years because of Stallman. Go look at GCC, you will find a bunch of PRs from me, which stopped. The reason I stopped was Stallman. Most people who I personally know who are closely involved in this stuff knew about the complaints about Stallman. This recent event seems to have been what finally pushed this to the mainstream, but I can assure you people have been complaining to get rid of him for over a decade.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - supportlocal4h 7y ago
    What is your actual complaint? People have been complaining about taxes for years and years. That doesn't mean we should get rid of them.
    - rsnor 7y ago
      Your analogy doesn’t work, because the general consensus is that there is no better alternative to taxation. It is a necessary evil - unlike Stallman, who, regardless of personal opinion, has others who are qualified to replace him.
      - supportlocal4h 7y ago
        How are the alternatives safer from the same complaints? I read on the internet that they beat up little old ladies.
    - pfranz 7y ago
      That's not how I read your analogy. If the tax situation made him move countries, is that country better off without their contribution? Would resolving the tax situation make that country more desirable to contribute to?
  - marvin 7y ago
    Was it controversial statements of Stallman’s that made you stop working with him, or was it because you feel he’s difficult to work with? Unless I’ve misinterpreted the situation, it seems like he was forced to resign due to the former rather than the latter. And if the official reason is unrelated to the actual reason, that’s a rather poor case of governance. If someone has been disliked due to poor interpersonal skills for years, it’s very weak when a politically-sensitive pretext is required to actually get rid of them. Better to take the fight head-on, and accept the outcome.
JackPoach 7y ago
This is a very interesting read https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallman-and-the-fall-of-the-clueless-nerd/ https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallman-and-the-fall-of...
lostjohnny 7y ago
> Do you have any reason to believe that RMS hadn’t been the subject of several co platings Why it always resolve to a comply or die situation? How many times people told you what to do, you didn't and in the end you were right? > by Richard attempting to defend the memory of a long-time, now deceased friend He wasn't even defending him, he was just saying "don't use a word that does not represent what really happened according to the sources".
- miopa 7y ago
  That last sentence is what caused the outrage in the wider public. It was amplified by the manipulative post of Selam Jie Gano and the media that parroted it, but his original claim did hit the nerve (that it shouldn't be called sexual assault if no physical force was used in the sexual act).
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    That was not his claim.
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    > Selam Jie Gano People should be outraged that a nobody working on automated vehicles for the US military (AKA drones) believes she on a higher moral ground than Stallman, that never hurt anybody. People should be outraged that said nobody wrote "Remove Stallman and all the other toxic people in tech" like if "removing" people is ok, like she knows who they are, 'cause she's the ultimate judge, and as if building weapons is not toxic... BTW RMS has been much more brave and clear than that. He wrote "if someone in csail says in this discussion group that Minsky was accused of sexual assault, a very serious accusation, and someone else in csail thinks that he was not, should the latter person refrain from saying so in this same discussion group out of concern that the conversation will leak and be misconstrued by the press?" The in stands for "science". The job of scientists is to evaluate evidence and seek truth. We have a social responsibility to do that as well. I hope that we scientists will never evade our social responsibility to seek and defend the truth out of fear that the press will misconstrue our search. That would not be a reputation I would like attached to my affiliation. I think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term "sexual assault" is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone. He did what he believed was the right thing to do. He was doing it to protect the movement and the protest from a - leaks to the press b - bad PR, if they used sexual assault people could spin it as "but he didn't assault her, it was consensual sex" like they usually do: they shoot the messenger or the form of the message to not address the real issue and divert the attention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) c - he was UNDOUBTEDLY right! nobody is talking about the protest against Epstein-MIT involvement. good job Selam, good job everybody
cotelletta 7y ago
"Past time" The only thing that's past time is that more people start to realize the real bullies and harassers are the ones who post medium posts saying "Remove $person"... in which they misrepresent or outright lie, which others in the press then launder, and then act like this is the height of speaking truth to power. The same way that Coraline Ada has hundreds of tweets of yelling, berating and denigrating people, even though "she's the woman bringing civility to open source" (wired) and wants to enforce a code of conduct. It's all a joke, except it has actually weakened the community, and given power and influence to people who mainly seem to care about themselves, no matter which bodies they have to step over. Diversity is a farce and geeks are useful idiots who believed it was ever about anything but narcissism. What is happening now is justification after the fact. If the accusers were expected to live up to the same standards of conduct they demand from others, these people wouldn't be taken seriously.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
dorfsmay 7y ago
I too felt uneasy about this. On one hand Stallman did something wrong on the other hand it smells like judgment by mob/hashtag/fashion, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, and downright repression of free speech. I have been thinking about it quite a bit, and this is my conclusion at this point: • What Stallman did is wrong, it was the wrong place, the wrong time and regardless of him feeling that way he speaks from a place of authority (more details at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20992124 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20992124) • This one incident should not be sufficient for firing a "visiting scientist" and the head of an organization he himself founded. • In the case of a repeat problematic behaviour it should be addressed as such. Both MIT and the FSF should have expressed their concerns years ago, followed by discussions and explanations of what constitute an acceptable behaviour and clear steps, ending in a dismissal, that would have been taken if his behaviour were not corrected. Not addressing a problematic behaviour for years or decades is wrong. A quick firing for one incident, because of past issues that have never been addresses, is wrong. Putting pressure on someone to resign rather than dismiss them is a cop out for either lack of courage or lack of arguments, or both and is wrong. Caving under mob/fashion pressure is another cop out and is wrong.

by c256 7y ago

roenxi 7y ago

It is kind of obvious that this isn't due to multiple anythings over multiple years. The timing is far too coincidental. There hasn't been enough time to work out what the actual community thinks about the current drama because it takes a month or two for word to percolate around a community; stable opinions over large groups don't form in a week. Even if it is a straw that broke the camels back there needs to be a few weeks of settling to work out if there is straw and where it landed. People like to think they can make snap decisions about what is good and what is bad. It just happens that that instinct is wrong and what fuels mob violence and other destructive actions; there are strong links between good decisions, long timeframes and moderate attitudes. This isn't so urgent that it couldn't wait a month to let everyone breath and take stock. Then Stallman can resign if enough people still think it is appropriate.

lostjohnny 7y ago
> stable opinions over large groups don't form in a week We know very well how they form: years of false propaganda. People still believes he's scared of plants.
- herpes 7y ago
  This is hilarious, do you have a reference?
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    I do! Thomas Lord, Arch creator and former FSF employee > p.s.: In the closet-sized "office" Bushnell, McGrath, and I shared for a time we did have some spider plants as part of a running silly joke. They did not actually scare RMS away OF COURSE and he usually had helpful criticism and advice of our efforts, from my point of view. https://archive.is/7qepC#selection-1591.1-1591.277 https://archive.is/7qepC#selection-1591.1-1591.277
    - herpes 7y ago
      Ha!
watwut 7y ago
I think that he does not talk about community as people who are around the world, but rather people working with him having to deal with him day to day. Those had their general opinions made long ago, whether pro-Stallman or anti-Stallman.
CJefferson 7y ago
I, and many other people, have disconnected from the FSF and GNU projects for years because of Stallman. Go look at GCC, you will find a bunch of PRs from me, which stopped. The reason I stopped was Stallman. Most people who I personally know who are closely involved in this stuff knew about the complaints about Stallman. This recent event seems to have been what finally pushed this to the mainstream, but I can assure you people have been complaining to get rid of him for over a decade.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- supportlocal4h 7y ago
  What is your actual complaint? People have been complaining about taxes for years and years. That doesn't mean we should get rid of them.
  - rsnor 7y ago
    Your analogy doesn’t work, because the general consensus is that there is no better alternative to taxation. It is a necessary evil - unlike Stallman, who, regardless of personal opinion, has others who are qualified to replace him.
    - supportlocal4h 7y ago
      How are the alternatives safer from the same complaints? I read on the internet that they beat up little old ladies.
  - pfranz 7y ago
    That's not how I read your analogy. If the tax situation made him move countries, is that country better off without their contribution? Would resolving the tax situation make that country more desirable to contribute to?
- marvin 7y ago
  Was it controversial statements of Stallman’s that made you stop working with him, or was it because you feel he’s difficult to work with? Unless I’ve misinterpreted the situation, it seems like he was forced to resign due to the former rather than the latter. And if the official reason is unrelated to the actual reason, that’s a rather poor case of governance. If someone has been disliked due to poor interpersonal skills for years, it’s very weak when a politically-sensitive pretext is required to actually get rid of them. Better to take the fight head-on, and accept the outcome.

JackPoach 7y ago

This is a very interesting read https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallman-and-the-fall-of-the-clueless-nerd/ https://www.wired.com/story/richard-stallman-and-the-fall-of...

lostjohnny 7y ago

> Do you have any reason to believe that RMS hadn’t been the subject of several co platings Why it always resolve to a comply or die situation? How many times people told you what to do, you didn't and in the end you were right? > by Richard attempting to defend the memory of a long-time, now deceased friend He wasn't even defending him, he was just saying "don't use a word that does not represent what really happened according to the sources".

miopa 7y ago
That last sentence is what caused the outrage in the wider public. It was amplified by the manipulative post of Selam Jie Gano and the media that parroted it, but his original claim did hit the nerve (that it shouldn't be called sexual assault if no physical force was used in the sexual act).
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  That was not his claim.
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  > Selam Jie Gano People should be outraged that a nobody working on automated vehicles for the US military (AKA drones) believes she on a higher moral ground than Stallman, that never hurt anybody. People should be outraged that said nobody wrote "Remove Stallman and all the other toxic people in tech" like if "removing" people is ok, like she knows who they are, 'cause she's the ultimate judge, and as if building weapons is not toxic... BTW RMS has been much more brave and clear than that. He wrote "if someone in csail says in this discussion group that Minsky was accused of sexual assault, a very serious accusation, and someone else in csail thinks that he was not, should the latter person refrain from saying so in this same discussion group out of concern that the conversation will leak and be misconstrued by the press?" The in stands for "science". The job of scientists is to evaluate evidence and seek truth. We have a social responsibility to do that as well. I hope that we scientists will never evade our social responsibility to seek and defend the truth out of fear that the press will misconstrue our search. That would not be a reputation I would like attached to my affiliation. I think the existence of a dispute about that supports my point that the term "sexual assault" is slippery, so we ought to use more concrete terms when accusing anyone. He did what he believed was the right thing to do. He was doing it to protect the movement and the protest from a - leaks to the press b - bad PR, if they used sexual assault people could spin it as "but he didn't assault her, it was consensual sex" like they usually do: they shoot the messenger or the form of the message to not address the real issue and divert the attention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) c - he was UNDOUBTEDLY right! nobody is talking about the protest against Epstein-MIT involvement. good job Selam, good job everybody

cotelletta 7y ago

"Past time" The only thing that's past time is that more people start to realize the real bullies and harassers are the ones who post medium posts saying "Remove $person"... in which they misrepresent or outright lie, which others in the press then launder, and then act like this is the height of speaking truth to power. The same way that Coraline Ada has hundreds of tweets of yelling, berating and denigrating people, even though "she's the woman bringing civility to open source" (wired) and wants to enforce a code of conduct. It's all a joke, except it has actually weakened the community, and given power and influence to people who mainly seem to care about themselves, no matter which bodies they have to step over. Diversity is a farce and geeks are useful idiots who believed it was ever about anything but narcissism. What is happening now is justification after the fact. If the accusers were expected to live up to the same standards of conduct they demand from others, these people wouldn't be taken seriously.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

dorfsmay 7y ago

I too felt uneasy about this. On one hand Stallman did something wrong on the other hand it smells like judgment by mob/hashtag/fashion, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, and downright repression of free speech. I have been thinking about it quite a bit, and this is my conclusion at this point: • What Stallman did is wrong, it was the wrong place, the wrong time and regardless of him feeling that way he speaks from a place of authority (more details at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20992124 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20992124) • This one incident should not be sufficient for firing a "visiting scientist" and the head of an organization he himself founded. • In the case of a repeat problematic behaviour it should be addressed as such. Both MIT and the FSF should have expressed their concerns years ago, followed by discussions and explanations of what constitute an acceptable behaviour and clear steps, ending in a dismissal, that would have been taken if his behaviour were not corrected. Not addressing a problematic behaviour for years or decades is wrong. A quick firing for one incident, because of past issues that have never been addresses, is wrong. Putting pressure on someone to resign rather than dismiss them is a cop out for either lack of courage or lack of arguments, or both and is wrong. Caving under mob/fashion pressure is another cop out and is wrong.