4 ms·

The problem is (in my mind), the FSF doesn't matter, and RMS is a major part of that. He pushed away the vast majority of the leading voices in open source over

The problem is (in my mind), the FSF doesn't matter, and RMS is a major part of that. He pushed away the vast majority of the leading voices in open source over the years (I don't se meant major open source coders / project leaders defending or supporting him. Most dislike him).

ddingus 6y ago
This is simple: Are the ideas worth it or not? To me, they are worth some effort. How likable RMS happens to be is an entirely different matter. And, frankly an excuse I have seen used to dodge a meaningful discussion about the ideas. My only interest in RMS is related to those ideas, put another way.
- detaro 6y ago
  RMS came to speak at my university. He probably did more damage to general student perception of anything associated with the FSF than industry-ass-kissing professors did in the 3 years prior in that one day. Thus if you want the ideas to succeed, you want to make them matter independently of the "brands" of RMS and FSF, especially now the FSF has decided it wants to continue to tie its "brand" to RMS going forward. ("brand" in quotes because it's not quite what we usually mean with that term, but I can't think of a better English word right now)
  - ddingus 6y ago
    RMS literally created the thing. Others can and should be doing active, mass outreach. Leader does not have to mean public figure. Someone has to really mean it. RMS has no peers in this regard. Maybe the right thing to do here is firm up a 5 year plan, go on a donation drive and fund organizers, who can work the crowds.
    - detaro 6y ago
      I'd not bet anything on the FSF being capable or even just willing to commit to anything like that and seeing it through without sabotaging it or cancelling it because it stepped on someones toes internally. They do not appear to have a culture that would permit doing so, but rather one of focusing to much on backing RMS and driving people who might succeed at new ways of doing outreach away. Even if they didn't have RMS around anymore for whatever reason, it'd be far from given they'd migrate away from that culture successfully, there's more to this than him. > Leader does not have to mean public figure. > Someone has to really mean it. RMS has no peers in this regard. This IMHO conflicts, you can't have a leader that you view as "has no peers in this regard" but has no public presence. Having the "weird extremists" (=really mean it) in some corner has some value, but negative perception of other traits hurts their usefulness in that role too. Which is overall why I think supporting the ideas behind Free Software is best done outside that. Times have changed. If I'm wrong, I'll be positively surprised.
      - ddingus 6y ago
        I didn't say no public presence. What I did suggest what's a standard effort well-trodden ground to go out and do the public advocacy and Outreach. And in terms of the ideas the leadership and all of that, I put that in my first comment. I sincerely hope people can keep the focus on the ideas. Regarding the rest of your comments, they're valid, and solidarity on ideas is hard. Software Freedom really matters to me. I'm willing to act with others to advance those ideas. I don't have to like some of the people all that much. Neither does anybody else. And if we map this stuff onto well known politics, political organizing activities, what we've got here is a fight on our hands. There's an awful lot of money very interested in letting some of these ideas prevail and the really important ones fall by the wayside or be co-opted. Looking around at our side, the software freedom side, it looks kind of grim. We've got work to do. And frankly, if enough of us don't prioritize this, do not value it highly, that work won't get done, these ideas die. All of that is why I could give two shits who is likable or not. What I want to know is who's behind the ideas, who believes in them, who's willing to do work, and what that means, and how I can help. And on that note, speaking of leadership, those are the things that need solid answers. Or, again, these ideas die.
ddingus 6y ago
So, let us frame it all up another way: Forget RMS. Does the FSF matter to you personally? Why or why not? If it does matter, I submit the best course of action is to help others better understand. If it does not matter? ...
- CJefferson 6y ago
  The FSF did matter. I was a member, I signed copyright papers and submitted a decent amount of patches to GCC, I went to see Stallman talk. It became clear to me that while I agreed with many of Stallman's aims, I disagreed with how he treated people, particularly women. Also, he actively made decisions that, in my opinion, seriously hurt GCC. So I left.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    Again, are we talking about the ideas or Stallman? None of that even moves the needle on how high value the ideas are for me. What we are basically talking about here is solidarity on software freedom. Acting in solidarity means priorities. This is why I am focused on ideas. Liking people is not as high of a priority as the software freedom is. To put it bluntly: even my enemies, "those other people" benefit from greater software freedoms. Having a strong anchor matters. Stallman is not going to dilute things down or be co-opted. Great. Given the last decade, I definitely value those things highly. You appear to have other priorities. That is fine, but it is also not about software freedom anymore too.
    - CJefferson 6y ago
      I'll be honest, I'm a bit annoyed you think I care less about software freedom, because I don't like Stallman. I'd like to separate two things out. I believe it severely hurts the cause of software freedom to have Stallman at the helm. I think software freedom is bigger than any one person, and Stallman has been, for many years, damaging to the cause. Do you think "the ideas or Stallman" are more important?
      - 6y ago

ddingus 6y ago

This is simple: Are the ideas worth it or not? To me, they are worth some effort. How likable RMS happens to be is an entirely different matter. And, frankly an excuse I have seen used to dodge a meaningful discussion about the ideas. My only interest in RMS is related to those ideas, put another way.

detaro 6y ago
RMS came to speak at my university. He probably did more damage to general student perception of anything associated with the FSF than industry-ass-kissing professors did in the 3 years prior in that one day. Thus if you want the ideas to succeed, you want to make them matter independently of the "brands" of RMS and FSF, especially now the FSF has decided it wants to continue to tie its "brand" to RMS going forward. ("brand" in quotes because it's not quite what we usually mean with that term, but I can't think of a better English word right now)
- ddingus 6y ago
  RMS literally created the thing. Others can and should be doing active, mass outreach. Leader does not have to mean public figure. Someone has to really mean it. RMS has no peers in this regard. Maybe the right thing to do here is firm up a 5 year plan, go on a donation drive and fund organizers, who can work the crowds.
  - detaro 6y ago
    I'd not bet anything on the FSF being capable or even just willing to commit to anything like that and seeing it through without sabotaging it or cancelling it because it stepped on someones toes internally. They do not appear to have a culture that would permit doing so, but rather one of focusing to much on backing RMS and driving people who might succeed at new ways of doing outreach away. Even if they didn't have RMS around anymore for whatever reason, it'd be far from given they'd migrate away from that culture successfully, there's more to this than him. > Leader does not have to mean public figure. > Someone has to really mean it. RMS has no peers in this regard. This IMHO conflicts, you can't have a leader that you view as "has no peers in this regard" but has no public presence. Having the "weird extremists" (=really mean it) in some corner has some value, but negative perception of other traits hurts their usefulness in that role too. Which is overall why I think supporting the ideas behind Free Software is best done outside that. Times have changed. If I'm wrong, I'll be positively surprised.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      I didn't say no public presence. What I did suggest what's a standard effort well-trodden ground to go out and do the public advocacy and Outreach. And in terms of the ideas the leadership and all of that, I put that in my first comment. I sincerely hope people can keep the focus on the ideas. Regarding the rest of your comments, they're valid, and solidarity on ideas is hard. Software Freedom really matters to me. I'm willing to act with others to advance those ideas. I don't have to like some of the people all that much. Neither does anybody else. And if we map this stuff onto well known politics, political organizing activities, what we've got here is a fight on our hands. There's an awful lot of money very interested in letting some of these ideas prevail and the really important ones fall by the wayside or be co-opted. Looking around at our side, the software freedom side, it looks kind of grim. We've got work to do. And frankly, if enough of us don't prioritize this, do not value it highly, that work won't get done, these ideas die. All of that is why I could give two shits who is likable or not. What I want to know is who's behind the ideas, who believes in them, who's willing to do work, and what that means, and how I can help. And on that note, speaking of leadership, those are the things that need solid answers. Or, again, these ideas die.

ddingus 6y ago

So, let us frame it all up another way: Forget RMS. Does the FSF matter to you personally? Why or why not? If it does matter, I submit the best course of action is to help others better understand. If it does not matter? ...

CJefferson 6y ago
The FSF did matter. I was a member, I signed copyright papers and submitted a decent amount of patches to GCC, I went to see Stallman talk. It became clear to me that while I agreed with many of Stallman's aims, I disagreed with how he treated people, particularly women. Also, he actively made decisions that, in my opinion, seriously hurt GCC. So I left.
- ddingus 6y ago
  Again, are we talking about the ideas or Stallman? None of that even moves the needle on how high value the ideas are for me. What we are basically talking about here is solidarity on software freedom. Acting in solidarity means priorities. This is why I am focused on ideas. Liking people is not as high of a priority as the software freedom is. To put it bluntly: even my enemies, "those other people" benefit from greater software freedoms. Having a strong anchor matters. Stallman is not going to dilute things down or be co-opted. Great. Given the last decade, I definitely value those things highly. You appear to have other priorities. That is fine, but it is also not about software freedom anymore too.
  - CJefferson 6y ago
    I'll be honest, I'm a bit annoyed you think I care less about software freedom, because I don't like Stallman. I'd like to separate two things out. I believe it severely hurts the cause of software freedom to have Stallman at the helm. I think software freedom is bigger than any one person, and Stallman has been, for many years, damaging to the cause. Do you think "the ideas or Stallman" are more important?
    - 6y ago