4 ms·

I think this post does RMS no justice, since it adds even more straw men to the ones already spread. > RMS started GNU so RMS decides what it is and what it ca

I think this post does RMS no justice, since it adds even more straw men to the ones already spread. > RMS started GNU so RMS decides what it is and what it can be. That would be in contradiction with the GNU principles RMS wrote himself. > I don't think RMS has the legitimacy to tell this group of largely volunteers what we should build or how we should organize ourselves. That would be in contradiction with the GNU principles. > the best thing that he could do for GNU is to stop pretending to run things Did he pretend he "run things"? > He does hold a role of accepting new projects into GNU That's one thing he says he does. > [link about the "_were_ Entirely Willing"] The part before "Entirely Willing" was not "were". It has been discussed several times that that's the opposite of what he actually wrote. > The great tragedy of RMS's tenure in the supposedly universalist FSF and GNU projects is that he behaves in a way that is particularly alienating to women. It doesn't take a genius to conclude that if you're personally driving away potential collaborators, that's a bad thing for the organization, and actively harmful to the organization's goals: software freedom is a cause that is explicitly for everyone. > The result, sadly, is that a significant proportion of those that have stuck with GNU don't see any problems with RMS. I don't see any problem with RMS because I plan to never interact with him nor with the many other people I don't like while still having the chance to give my (very) small contribution to GNU projects, which I consider a just cause. The reason I can do that is because I know that even if the author is a dick the contribution I'm making will be bound to the GNU principles. > it has also had the unfortunate effect of creating a cult of personality and a with-us-or-against-us mentality. For some, only a traitor would criticise the GNU project. It's laughable but it's a thing; I prefer to ignore these perspectives. Indeed it's laughable (and in contradiction with GNU principles, btw). > no gods! No masters! No chief!!! I agree, but seems like another straw man to me.

eesmith 7y ago
I think most of the statement you posted were not strawmen, but summaries of actual arguments made, followed by a response. Eg, you quoted "RMS started GNU so RMS decides what it is and what it can be", which is an argument I've heard, and which the author says "many (most?) GNU developers that still consider RMS to be GNU's rightful leader." You replied "That would be in contradiction with the GNU principles." The author seems to agree with you. So, what's the strawman? You write "Did he pretend he "run things"?" I believe that's what Stallman intended when he wrote "I am still the head of the GNU Project (the Chief GNUisance), and I intend to continue as such." at https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-09/msg00008.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-09/msg00008... .
- 9k2jdn4339sdt23 7y ago
  > So, what's the strawman? It was RMS that wrote those GNU principles so I'm assuming he agrees with us as well. I see the straw man in saying that it's RMS fault if "many (most?) GNU developers [...] still consider RMS to be GNU's rightful leader". That's the opposite of GNU's, and therefore his, objectives. > I believe that's what Stallman intended when he wrote "I am still the head of the GNU Project (the Chief GNUisance), and I intend to continue as such." When we agree between us that he does not fire people that do not consider him the head of the GNU project, does not code, does not design software and therefore does not "run things", Stallman also agrees. He never said he does these things. What RMS said instead is: - he would like to be called GNU's "head", whatever that means - the work he wants to do as GNU's "head" is to act as a guarantor for new projects to be included inside GNU and spend time advocating for free software I think the reason is he wants to contribute too and considers himself the better candidate for these tasks. I don't know if that's true, but the fact he believes to be indispensable to GNU it's probably not.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Where is the claim or implication that it's RMS's fault? Just because some people have a belief - which is what the author wrote - doesn't mean that RMS caused that belief.
    - 9k2jdn4339sdt23 7y ago
      > Where is the claim or implication that it's RMS's fault? Where he says Stallman is "pretending" to run things.
      - eesmith 7y ago
        I've been staring at the text trying to see the strawman argument, and have failed. The author asserts that many GNU developers consider RMS to be GNU's rightful leader. The author asserts that that Stallman is pretending to run things. I can see that the author can be wrong. I don't see where it's a strawman. BTW, "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" at https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm is relevant. A social group with "an apparent lack of structure too often disguise[s] an informal, unacknowledged and unaccountable leadership that [is] all the more pernicious because its very existence [is] denied." (quoting Hilary Wainwright at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne... ). If Stallman doesn't "run things" at least to some extent, then what decisions is is referring to when he writes at https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-10/msg00005.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-10/msg00005... : > "I would like to make incremental changes in how some decisions are made, because I won't be here forever and we need to ready others to make GNU Project decisions when I can no longer do so."

eesmith 7y ago

I think most of the statement you posted were not strawmen, but summaries of actual arguments made, followed by a response. Eg, you quoted "RMS started GNU so RMS decides what it is and what it can be", which is an argument I've heard, and which the author says "many (most?) GNU developers that still consider RMS to be GNU's rightful leader." You replied "That would be in contradiction with the GNU principles." The author seems to agree with you. So, what's the strawman? You write "Did he pretend he "run things"?" I believe that's what Stallman intended when he wrote "I am still the head of the GNU Project (the Chief GNUisance), and I intend to continue as such." at https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-09/msg00008.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-09/msg00008... .

9k2jdn4339sdt23 7y ago
> So, what's the strawman? It was RMS that wrote those GNU principles so I'm assuming he agrees with us as well. I see the straw man in saying that it's RMS fault if "many (most?) GNU developers [...] still consider RMS to be GNU's rightful leader". That's the opposite of GNU's, and therefore his, objectives. > I believe that's what Stallman intended when he wrote "I am still the head of the GNU Project (the Chief GNUisance), and I intend to continue as such." When we agree between us that he does not fire people that do not consider him the head of the GNU project, does not code, does not design software and therefore does not "run things", Stallman also agrees. He never said he does these things. What RMS said instead is: - he would like to be called GNU's "head", whatever that means - the work he wants to do as GNU's "head" is to act as a guarantor for new projects to be included inside GNU and spend time advocating for free software I think the reason is he wants to contribute too and considers himself the better candidate for these tasks. I don't know if that's true, but the fact he believes to be indispensable to GNU it's probably not.
- eesmith 7y ago
  Where is the claim or implication that it's RMS's fault? Just because some people have a belief - which is what the author wrote - doesn't mean that RMS caused that belief.
  - 9k2jdn4339sdt23 7y ago
    > Where is the claim or implication that it's RMS's fault? Where he says Stallman is "pretending" to run things.
    - eesmith 7y ago
      I've been staring at the text trying to see the strawman argument, and have failed. The author asserts that many GNU developers consider RMS to be GNU's rightful leader. The author asserts that that Stallman is pretending to run things. I can see that the author can be wrong. I don't see where it's a strawman. BTW, "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" at https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm is relevant. A social group with "an apparent lack of structure too often disguise[s] an informal, unacknowledged and unaccountable leadership that [is] all the more pernicious because its very existence [is] denied." (quoting Hilary Wainwright at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne... ). If Stallman doesn't "run things" at least to some extent, then what decisions is is referring to when he writes at https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-10/msg00005.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-10/msg00005... : > "I would like to make incremental changes in how some decisions are made, because I won't be here forever and we need to ready others to make GNU Project decisions when I can no longer do so."