3 ms·

> RMS is, in my view, a completely innocent man Note that the Joint Statement does not take a position on the statements that the most recent controversy has b

> RMS is, in my view, a completely innocent man Note that the Joint Statement does not take a position on the statements that the most recent controversy has been about. Instead, it speaks about "behavior over the years"[0]. Of course, the recent controversy doubtless played a role in bringing all this to a head, but it is possible for someone to believe both that RMS is "completely innocent" of wrongful conduct and that he has engaged in behavior that harms the cause of Free Software. [0]: > Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users.

Smithalicious 7y ago
Hence why I followed up with saying that that supposed behaviour over the years does not justify this either. But I don't think that behaviour is what this is about to begin with. Everything about this smells of "well, what about that time you ..."; reaching back in time when they can't justify their outrage. A problem is being manufactured to justify bowing to public outrage caused by yellow journalism.
virgilp 7y ago
I could respect the signatories of the joint statement if thy sent it to RMS; Like this, what are they hoping to achieve? Ponder it for a second. They're calling for the lynch mob, they're disapointed that the lynch mob seems to have "stopped too soon". These are not people who honestly want to quit over principles... if they were, they'd send this in private to RMS. These are people who want RMS out for their own personal agenda (which they may even believe is the "common good" agenda... but, that's presumptuous on their part).
- rekado 7y ago
  What makes you think this wasn't sent to RMS privately? Or that there haven't been personal discussions with RMS in the past years?
  - virgilp 7y ago
    What's the purpose of making this public? Discuss this in private circles within GNU. If it doesn't go anywhere, and you care so much about it, just leave. What they did will fracture the community anyway. You can bet there are Stallman supporters in GNU, too. If the undersigned have it their way, others will leave (or disengage), in protest. There's no winning in this. From my pov, what they did has only downsides, and no upsides whatsoever. You don't like GNU? Fork their software, make your own GNU with vodka and hookers. Just, don't throw a public tantrum. Use official channels and due process. If the organization doesn't respond, and doesn't match your values - just leave.
    - totony 7y ago
      I think your post summarizes my view of the whole situation. Stallman created that movement and has a lot of community support. Outing him to the public without discussing in private or even giving something actionable is just inviting outrage. If you disagree with an organization, quitting and/or forking (and announcing your reasons) is less damaging to the cause than this.
    - hvis 7y ago
      I agree. Or at least it could have been worded better. "behavior over the years" sounds like scolding a child. Either way, I think a lot of it is social posturing, as part of individual distancing from the transpired scandal. E.g. some of the friends/relatives of the signatories now view RMS strictly negatively, so they try their best to distance themselves (or, interpreting charitably, the corresponding GNU subprojects) to try to salvage some reputation.

Smithalicious 7y ago

Hence why I followed up with saying that that supposed behaviour over the years does not justify this either. But I don't think that behaviour is what this is about to begin with. Everything about this smells of "well, what about that time you ..."; reaching back in time when they can't justify their outrage. A problem is being manufactured to justify bowing to public outrage caused by yellow journalism.

virgilp 7y ago

I could respect the signatories of the joint statement if thy sent it to RMS; Like this, what are they hoping to achieve? Ponder it for a second. They're calling for the lynch mob, they're disapointed that the lynch mob seems to have "stopped too soon". These are not people who honestly want to quit over principles... if they were, they'd send this in private to RMS. These are people who want RMS out for their own personal agenda (which they may even believe is the "common good" agenda... but, that's presumptuous on their part).

rekado 7y ago
What makes you think this wasn't sent to RMS privately? Or that there haven't been personal discussions with RMS in the past years?
- virgilp 7y ago
  What's the purpose of making this public? Discuss this in private circles within GNU. If it doesn't go anywhere, and you care so much about it, just leave. What they did will fracture the community anyway. You can bet there are Stallman supporters in GNU, too. If the undersigned have it their way, others will leave (or disengage), in protest. There's no winning in this. From my pov, what they did has only downsides, and no upsides whatsoever. You don't like GNU? Fork their software, make your own GNU with vodka and hookers. Just, don't throw a public tantrum. Use official channels and due process. If the organization doesn't respond, and doesn't match your values - just leave.
  - totony 7y ago
    I think your post summarizes my view of the whole situation. Stallman created that movement and has a lot of community support. Outing him to the public without discussing in private or even giving something actionable is just inviting outrage. If you disagree with an organization, quitting and/or forking (and announcing your reasons) is less damaging to the cause than this.
  - hvis 7y ago
    I agree. Or at least it could have been worded better. "behavior over the years" sounds like scolding a child. Either way, I think a lot of it is social posturing, as part of individual distancing from the transpired scandal. E.g. some of the friends/relatives of the signatories now view RMS strictly negatively, so they try their best to distance themselves (or, interpreting charitably, the corresponding GNU subprojects) to try to salvage some reputation.