4 ms·

But the FSF's raison d'être is to have an opinion. It's a strongly principled organization that exists to advocate for the things it believes. In the context

But the FSF's raison d'être is to have an opinion. It's a strongly principled organization that exists to advocate for the things it believes. In the context of someone joining a board of an organization like that, their expressed opinions absolutely matter.

lelanthran 6y ago
> But the FSF's raison d'être is to have an opinion. Sure, but not an opinion on every issue in the world - their mission has always been to promote the user's freedom to use and modify software as the user sees fit. Other issues, whether important or not, may not be relevant to preserving software freedoms. > It's a strongly principled organization that exists to advocate for the things it believes. Correct, so why is everyone up in arms when they are refusing to advocate for things that are not of interest to them? > In the context of someone joining a board of an organization like that, their expressed opinions absolutely matter. Only as far as the organisation's mission statement. I would be (rightly) kicked out of my organisation should I publicly mobilise a mob against my employer for the company's lack of interest in abused puppies at the SPCA. People disagreeing with RMS's expressed opinions on (for example) what constitutes a legal age of consent disqualify themselves as leadership material for an organisation committed to software freedoms. The people who support software freedoms know where to go to get lectures on legal age of consent should they want to hear it. Injecting unrelated political ideology into a group committed to software freedoms is as welcome as posting SPAM for ED to a mailing list for cryptography.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Correct, so why is everyone up in arms when they are refusing to advocate for things that are not of interest to them? “Everyone” is not. Of the people up in arms, some (including at least one FSF board member who resigned, and many individuals and entities that contribute—or did until recently—to the FSF and it's projects) are part of the “they” and clearly so have an interest. And others are just on the outside advocating for things they care about, just as vociferously as FSF partisans do (and no more—though also no less—annoyingly to people who aren't concerned about the same issues.)

lelanthran 6y ago

> But the FSF's raison d'être is to have an opinion. Sure, but not an opinion on every issue in the world - their mission has always been to promote the user's freedom to use and modify software as the user sees fit. Other issues, whether important or not, may not be relevant to preserving software freedoms. > It's a strongly principled organization that exists to advocate for the things it believes. Correct, so why is everyone up in arms when they are refusing to advocate for things that are not of interest to them? > In the context of someone joining a board of an organization like that, their expressed opinions absolutely matter. Only as far as the organisation's mission statement. I would be (rightly) kicked out of my organisation should I publicly mobilise a mob against my employer for the company's lack of interest in abused puppies at the SPCA. People disagreeing with RMS's expressed opinions on (for example) what constitutes a legal age of consent disqualify themselves as leadership material for an organisation committed to software freedoms. The people who support software freedoms know where to go to get lectures on legal age of consent should they want to hear it. Injecting unrelated political ideology into a group committed to software freedoms is as welcome as posting SPAM for ED to a mailing list for cryptography.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Correct, so why is everyone up in arms when they are refusing to advocate for things that are not of interest to them? “Everyone” is not. Of the people up in arms, some (including at least one FSF board member who resigned, and many individuals and entities that contribute—or did until recently—to the FSF and it's projects) are part of the “they” and clearly so have an interest. And others are just on the outside advocating for things they care about, just as vociferously as FSF partisans do (and no more—though also no less—annoyingly to people who aren't concerned about the same issues.)