7 ms·

There are lots of us who care. We can preserve software freedom with the same stubborn, uncompromising attitude without having to also alienate the very people

There are lots of us who care. We can preserve software freedom with the same stubborn, uncompromising attitude without having to also alienate the very people we wish to help.

bitwize 7y ago
And when it's your head that Sarah Mei and Sage Sharp are calling for, will you hold the line?
- badrequest 7y ago
  They'll never call for my head because I wouldn't suggest that minor-aged victims of sexual assault could have been engaging consensually.
  - bitwize 7y ago
    Neither did Stallman. What he said was that it likely appeared that she was engaging consensually. And he was certainly no fan of Epstein, whom he called a serial rapist. Lest you think this is a niggling distinction, Sage Sharp pronounced Linus guilty of inciting violence by making a humorous comment about his friend Greg Kroah-Hartman's height. (Something like: "Greg is a giant; watch out or he might squish you.") That's how they operate. They go digging to find the six words that will hang you, and if you don't capitulate they go to your boss (read: corporate sponsors if you have your own project).
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      "They." You'll have to be clearer which conspiracy you're talking about; I don't have a binding for that pronoun.
      - bitwize 7y ago
        By "they" I mean the principals involved in social-justice entryism into free software. None that I know of are signatories to that list. They include: * Coraline Ada Ehmke * Sage Sharp * Aurynn Shaw * Valerie Aurora * Sarah Mei * Matthew J. Garrett * Steve Klabnik These are some of the loudest voices calling for the removal and systematic reputational destruction of key free-software developers based on behavior which ranges from bad but not worth a purge to downright innocuous. The list signatories, near as I can tell, are doing damage control on the optics of being affiliated with Stallman and are, to my knowledge, not themselves calling for purges the way the above named individuals and their fellow travellers are. (Edited to include Klabnik. He expressed the need for a "tech antifa" and approved of the use of violence by the same. I think he counts.)
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        So, * Former GitHub Community Management senior developer * Linux kernel contributor * Eiara Limited founder * ext2 dirty bit, ChunkFS developer * Chief consultant at DevMynd * Linux contributor and winner of the FSF Free Software Award * Frequent Hacker News contributor, author of "The Rust Programming Language," member of Rust core team. Seems like some solid contributors to the ecosystem and people who have earned a seat at the table defining what the community looks like; not sure why we're singling them out. Or should we also disapprove of the time rms founded an entire Free Software Foundation for the purposes of putting political pressure on various institutions, organizations, and people to respect the Four Freedoms? Are you sure you disagree with the methods of the people you listed? Or do you merely disagree on what behaviors someone's reputation should suffer for?
        bitwize 7y ago
        Yes, I'd say that there's a world of difference between setting up a project and a foundation to attract people with like-minded goals and practice advocacy while always showing your hand and keeping a focused scope for your activism on the one hand, and a long march through the existing open source institutions on the other with the aim of subverting and controlling them and assuming their moral authority to redefine what open source is and what our values are, and to drive out all dissenters, on the other. It is literally the difference between a startup and a hostile takeover.
  - simion314 7y ago
    But you will maybe have an unpopular opinion in private and is leaked to the public(like it happened with Mozilla CEO) or you used some bad words 20 years ago or made someone uncomfortable and they will remeber it tomorrow.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Private opinions of CEOs have repercussions. But in Eich's case, it went beyond "private opinion;" he contributed $1,000 to support Proposition 8. Eich didn't get forced out for having a "bad private opinion;" he got forced out for supporting something materially that would cause material harm to Mozilla staff, then making clear his opinion on the topic was unchanged. Staff that had a lack of confidence in his continued leadership were entirely justified.
      - simion314 7y ago
        It is complex situation but as a CEO or project leader or random open source developer that I am not that well informed with the latest social media culture how do I know what is a controversial opinions? I am legitimately asking this, say maybe I think that X feature is nature not nurture, and there is a discussion at an event about X , what do I Google to know if I should talk about X or not. The problem is more complicated if my opinion today would be controversial in the future.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        I think you're looking for guarantees in the social world. There are no such guarantees (much as there are no guarantees in the tech space... That, say, your favorite language today won't be obsolete in five years and therefore diminish the value of all the time and effort you invested in memorizing its quirks). There are some useful heuristics, such as "try and be a good person, minimize your judgement of others, avoid speculating on things that other people have concrete experience with." Also, be informed about the latest social media culture; Proposition 8 was huge in California (and around the U.S.) and it should have been self-evident to Eich that supporting it was a bad call (I'm a lot less forgiving of Eich than some people are, because it's real hard for me to see his behavior and interpret it as anything other than "He put money behind his convictions and mis-estimated how much political power homosexual people and their allies had in his company to hold him accountable to putting money behind his convictions," which isn't exactly a stellar review of his behavior). We in tech seem to like to believe that the technical world is above politics. It's not; technology serves people, so politics is, of course, part of the story. Politics is just what happens when people interact.
ilikehurdles 7y ago
It would be valuable to see your group put up a statement articulating the specific actions taken by Stallman and how they have caused "those who [you] want to reach out to" to be alienated. You may think that some collective consciousness is both aware of these actions and fully in agreement with this statement, but as the comments here will indicate, it's entirely possible that either one of these or both isn't true. It may only be a court of public opinion, but I believe the accused deserves to know what they're accused of.
- otterley 7y ago
  That's already been publicized ad nauseum by others in the past few weeks. I don't think the authors owe anyone any duty to reiterate it.
  - dx87 7y ago
    Considering that a big chunk of what was publicized was lies and deliberate misquotes, I think it'd be best if the GNU project said specifically what their issues are.
    - otterley 7y ago
      At this point the truth or falsity of the minutiae, or whether the conclusions are fair or not are irrelevant. Once a former leader no longer has the political capital to be seen as effective, or their involvement proves to be a greater distraction than it's worth, no more needs to be said.
      - dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
        Have we really stopped being human beings at this point? Does even truth even matter anymore or just the shouts getting most retweets?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
simion314 7y ago
And when one of you will make someone uncomfortable(without even realizing it) will you resign?
- al_form2000 7y ago
  That may never, ever happen. Don't you know that only old awkward male hippy sin^H^H^H (are reported to) make/say unacceptable things?
falcolas 7y ago
Question then. Why has it taken the airing Stallman's dirty laundry to step forward? What has stopped you (that is, the "we" and "us" from your statement) from standing out on your own merits before now?
- dtornabene 7y ago
  I'm going to go with: So women can participate without having to be asked out on dates? So they don't feel harassed? You want to run cover for people do it in your own org man. This is beyond obtuse.
  - falcolas 7y ago
    This answer has nothing to do with the questions I proposed. I'm asking why these people who proclaim to be as good as or better than Stallman are only now stepping up. What Stallman's dirty laundry is has been thoroughly discussed.
    - dtornabene 7y ago
      "these people" have been in free software for decades champ. I met Chris Webber in chicago, at free software events literally 10 years ago. Andy Wingo is similarly long term involved. Keep eliding everything actually about this to throw up straw men. Its clarifying, as I noted in another thread. And, his "dirty laundry" is driving women out of spaces supposedly dedicated to freedom. Not sure why thats so difficult.
  - zabzonk 7y ago
    > So women can participate without having to be asked out on dates? What is so wrong about being asked by a man for a date? I (a man) have been asked lots of times for a date by women I worked with, some of them my superiors. Mostly I said "no", because I generally don't like mixing love life with work life, but the best relationship I've ever had was the time I said "yes". I don't see why RMS couldn't look for such a relationship.
    - 7y ago
maximente 7y ago
you are reframing (weakening) the OP's standard. the standard is not "care", it's "gave as much of a fuck about software and personal freedom as Stallman did/does". RMS used an absolute garbage computer because it was, in his words: > the only laptop one could buy that could run a free initialization program and a free operating system. i'm certainly not taking it on some contributor's word that these 20 or so odd people are as principled as RMS that i trust the project to be led by them. my guess is a large fraction are pragmatists (like most normal people) who use a nonfree BIOS setup for productivity, or have an iPhone/android because "normal", etc. so, while certainly more like normal people, they aren't as principled. and what you want in a position like RMS's is someone so principled that they basically are immune to attack and inspire others to take on those principles. nobody's taking RMS seriously if he's giving talks from his macbook air. as far as i can tell, RMS is so principled that it actually hindered the long term success of GCC. it would have behooved the long term strategic goals to make GCC the best/"only" compiler by making a BSD/MIT style version, so as to accept more liberal contributions, but he didn't. he seems to be principled to a fault. is this group of 20 or so people as consistent as he was? i sincerely doubt it.
- dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
  I completely agree with you. Moreover, I witnessed the same scenario in other projects, and it always ended the same way: once the charismatic leader was eliminated, people gradually lost motivation and everything dwindled. When people realized it was not worth it, it was already too late. Now that we lost Stallman it will be extremely hard to find a person even remotely as principled as he was.
  - bitwize 7y ago
    One of Eric Raymond's innovations was to establish clear principles for the OSI at its outset, and then retire from the board out of a desire not to become one such "Jesus nut" for the movement. The entryists have a response for this too: call for the removal and replacement of all the leadership of relevant organizations, as they have already done with the FSF.
enriquto 7y ago
> We can preserve software freedom with the same stubborn, uncompromising attitude without having to also alienate the very people we wish to help. You have already failed. I, for one, feel extremely alienated by your "joint statement".

There are lots of us who care. We can preserve software freedom with the same stubborn, uncompromising attitude without having to also alienate the very people we wish to help.

bitwize 7y ago

And when it's your head that Sarah Mei and Sage Sharp are calling for, will you hold the line?

badrequest 7y ago
They'll never call for my head because I wouldn't suggest that minor-aged victims of sexual assault could have been engaging consensually.
- bitwize 7y ago
  Neither did Stallman. What he said was that it likely appeared that she was engaging consensually. And he was certainly no fan of Epstein, whom he called a serial rapist. Lest you think this is a niggling distinction, Sage Sharp pronounced Linus guilty of inciting violence by making a humorous comment about his friend Greg Kroah-Hartman's height. (Something like: "Greg is a giant; watch out or he might squish you.") That's how they operate. They go digging to find the six words that will hang you, and if you don't capitulate they go to your boss (read: corporate sponsors if you have your own project).
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    "They." You'll have to be clearer which conspiracy you're talking about; I don't have a binding for that pronoun.
    - bitwize 7y ago
      By "they" I mean the principals involved in social-justice entryism into free software. None that I know of are signatories to that list. They include: * Coraline Ada Ehmke * Sage Sharp * Aurynn Shaw * Valerie Aurora * Sarah Mei * Matthew J. Garrett * Steve Klabnik These are some of the loudest voices calling for the removal and systematic reputational destruction of key free-software developers based on behavior which ranges from bad but not worth a purge to downright innocuous. The list signatories, near as I can tell, are doing damage control on the optics of being affiliated with Stallman and are, to my knowledge, not themselves calling for purges the way the above named individuals and their fellow travellers are. (Edited to include Klabnik. He expressed the need for a "tech antifa" and approved of the use of violence by the same. I think he counts.)
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        So, * Former GitHub Community Management senior developer * Linux kernel contributor * Eiara Limited founder * ext2 dirty bit, ChunkFS developer * Chief consultant at DevMynd * Linux contributor and winner of the FSF Free Software Award * Frequent Hacker News contributor, author of "The Rust Programming Language," member of Rust core team. Seems like some solid contributors to the ecosystem and people who have earned a seat at the table defining what the community looks like; not sure why we're singling them out. Or should we also disapprove of the time rms founded an entire Free Software Foundation for the purposes of putting political pressure on various institutions, organizations, and people to respect the Four Freedoms? Are you sure you disagree with the methods of the people you listed? Or do you merely disagree on what behaviors someone's reputation should suffer for?
        bitwize 7y ago
        Yes, I'd say that there's a world of difference between setting up a project and a foundation to attract people with like-minded goals and practice advocacy while always showing your hand and keeping a focused scope for your activism on the one hand, and a long march through the existing open source institutions on the other with the aim of subverting and controlling them and assuming their moral authority to redefine what open source is and what our values are, and to drive out all dissenters, on the other. It is literally the difference between a startup and a hostile takeover.
- simion314 7y ago
  But you will maybe have an unpopular opinion in private and is leaked to the public(like it happened with Mozilla CEO) or you used some bad words 20 years ago or made someone uncomfortable and they will remeber it tomorrow.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Private opinions of CEOs have repercussions. But in Eich's case, it went beyond "private opinion;" he contributed $1,000 to support Proposition 8. Eich didn't get forced out for having a "bad private opinion;" he got forced out for supporting something materially that would cause material harm to Mozilla staff, then making clear his opinion on the topic was unchanged. Staff that had a lack of confidence in his continued leadership were entirely justified.
    - simion314 7y ago
      It is complex situation but as a CEO or project leader or random open source developer that I am not that well informed with the latest social media culture how do I know what is a controversial opinions? I am legitimately asking this, say maybe I think that X feature is nature not nurture, and there is a discussion at an event about X , what do I Google to know if I should talk about X or not. The problem is more complicated if my opinion today would be controversial in the future.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        I think you're looking for guarantees in the social world. There are no such guarantees (much as there are no guarantees in the tech space... That, say, your favorite language today won't be obsolete in five years and therefore diminish the value of all the time and effort you invested in memorizing its quirks). There are some useful heuristics, such as "try and be a good person, minimize your judgement of others, avoid speculating on things that other people have concrete experience with." Also, be informed about the latest social media culture; Proposition 8 was huge in California (and around the U.S.) and it should have been self-evident to Eich that supporting it was a bad call (I'm a lot less forgiving of Eich than some people are, because it's real hard for me to see his behavior and interpret it as anything other than "He put money behind his convictions and mis-estimated how much political power homosexual people and their allies had in his company to hold him accountable to putting money behind his convictions," which isn't exactly a stellar review of his behavior). We in tech seem to like to believe that the technical world is above politics. It's not; technology serves people, so politics is, of course, part of the story. Politics is just what happens when people interact.

ilikehurdles 7y ago

It would be valuable to see your group put up a statement articulating the specific actions taken by Stallman and how they have caused "those who [you] want to reach out to" to be alienated. You may think that some collective consciousness is both aware of these actions and fully in agreement with this statement, but as the comments here will indicate, it's entirely possible that either one of these or both isn't true. It may only be a court of public opinion, but I believe the accused deserves to know what they're accused of.

otterley 7y ago
That's already been publicized ad nauseum by others in the past few weeks. I don't think the authors owe anyone any duty to reiterate it.
- dx87 7y ago
  Considering that a big chunk of what was publicized was lies and deliberate misquotes, I think it'd be best if the GNU project said specifically what their issues are.
  - otterley 7y ago
    At this point the truth or falsity of the minutiae, or whether the conclusions are fair or not are irrelevant. Once a former leader no longer has the political capital to be seen as effective, or their involvement proves to be a greater distraction than it's worth, no more needs to be said.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
      Have we really stopped being human beings at this point? Does even truth even matter anymore or just the shouts getting most retweets?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]

simion314 7y ago

And when one of you will make someone uncomfortable(without even realizing it) will you resign?

al_form2000 7y ago
That may never, ever happen. Don't you know that only old awkward male hippy sin^H^H^H (are reported to) make/say unacceptable things?

falcolas 7y ago

Question then. Why has it taken the airing Stallman's dirty laundry to step forward? What has stopped you (that is, the "we" and "us" from your statement) from standing out on your own merits before now?

dtornabene 7y ago
I'm going to go with: So women can participate without having to be asked out on dates? So they don't feel harassed? You want to run cover for people do it in your own org man. This is beyond obtuse.
- falcolas 7y ago
  This answer has nothing to do with the questions I proposed. I'm asking why these people who proclaim to be as good as or better than Stallman are only now stepping up. What Stallman's dirty laundry is has been thoroughly discussed.
  - dtornabene 7y ago
    "these people" have been in free software for decades champ. I met Chris Webber in chicago, at free software events literally 10 years ago. Andy Wingo is similarly long term involved. Keep eliding everything actually about this to throw up straw men. Its clarifying, as I noted in another thread. And, his "dirty laundry" is driving women out of spaces supposedly dedicated to freedom. Not sure why thats so difficult.
- zabzonk 7y ago
  > So women can participate without having to be asked out on dates? What is so wrong about being asked by a man for a date? I (a man) have been asked lots of times for a date by women I worked with, some of them my superiors. Mostly I said "no", because I generally don't like mixing love life with work life, but the best relationship I've ever had was the time I said "yes". I don't see why RMS couldn't look for such a relationship.
  - 7y ago

maximente 7y ago

you are reframing (weakening) the OP's standard. the standard is not "care", it's "gave as much of a fuck about software and personal freedom as Stallman did/does". RMS used an absolute garbage computer because it was, in his words: > the only laptop one could buy that could run a free initialization program and a free operating system. i'm certainly not taking it on some contributor's word that these 20 or so odd people are as principled as RMS that i trust the project to be led by them. my guess is a large fraction are pragmatists (like most normal people) who use a nonfree BIOS setup for productivity, or have an iPhone/android because "normal", etc. so, while certainly more like normal people, they aren't as principled. and what you want in a position like RMS's is someone so principled that they basically are immune to attack and inspire others to take on those principles. nobody's taking RMS seriously if he's giving talks from his macbook air. as far as i can tell, RMS is so principled that it actually hindered the long term success of GCC. it would have behooved the long term strategic goals to make GCC the best/"only" compiler by making a BSD/MIT style version, so as to accept more liberal contributions, but he didn't. he seems to be principled to a fault. is this group of 20 or so people as consistent as he was? i sincerely doubt it.

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
I completely agree with you. Moreover, I witnessed the same scenario in other projects, and it always ended the same way: once the charismatic leader was eliminated, people gradually lost motivation and everything dwindled. When people realized it was not worth it, it was already too late. Now that we lost Stallman it will be extremely hard to find a person even remotely as principled as he was.
- bitwize 7y ago
  One of Eric Raymond's innovations was to establish clear principles for the OSI at its outset, and then retire from the board out of a desire not to become one such "Jesus nut" for the movement. The entryists have a response for this too: call for the removal and replacement of all the leadership of relevant organizations, as they have already done with the FSF.

enriquto 7y ago

> We can preserve software freedom with the same stubborn, uncompromising attitude without having to also alienate the very people we wish to help. You have already failed. I, for one, feel extremely alienated by your "joint statement".