8 ms·

I think this comes down to people having differences of opinion on what is important. I read these complaints and don’t think they are very important. Especial

I think this comes down to people having differences of opinion on what is important. I read these complaints and don’t think they are very important. Especially over a period of decades. If this is the worse that people can bring up, then I just don’t get it. In the future will we have two kinds of organizations, one where people file complaints about “ such as taking over sessions through loud disruptions” and one where people don’t care? I suppose that people care about different things, but then for people who don’t care will we all end up being in one end, and everyone who wants “ Safe Space Policy” I partially applied in other orgs. The challenge I face is that I don’t want the Postel’s law group full of only jerks. But I also don’t want to be part of an org that spends so much time on what I see as administrative bikeshedding. Of course people are free to do whatever they like, but I certainly won’t donate to FSF if they go the way I disagree with. And I don’t think a safe FSF will further free software in the best way.

jpttsn 6y ago
I don’t think we’ll see an (even) split. It’s more likely that all (most) orgs will have safe spaces. Like how all fruit juice is kosher: it makes no difference to people who don’t keep kosher.
- prepend 6y ago
  I think that will lead to ineffectual orgs as these safe spaces seem to be in conflict with stuff like ejecting RMS. I don’t see myself stop supporting free software, but I’ll want some way to participate to fill that FSF shaped community hole.
- logifail 6y ago
  > Like how all fruit juice is kosher: it makes no difference to people who don’t keep kosher I don't believe this approach has only positive outcomes. Taleb wrote[0] "It suffices for an intransigent minority –a certain type of intransigent minorities –to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences" To say this leaves me feeling deeply uncomfortable would be putting it mildly. [0] The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
  - anaerobicover 6y ago
    This rule only applies when the majority don't care about the outcome, though. Halal meat: small minority cares deeply, majority doesn't care or even notice; therefore it's easiest for all meat to be halal. If the minority preference actually impinged on something the majority wanted, like "no meat at all", then the minority would certainly not have this influence (and there might be conflict). Notice that vegans, a small and passionate minority, have not imposed their preference on society at large. If it's a "dictatorship", it's a very, very soft one.
    - logifail 6y ago
      > This rule only applies when the majority don't care about the outcome "Don't care" or "aren't told" ? > Halal meat: small minority cares deeply, majority doesn't care or even notice I suspect this - as in so many cases - comes down to a labelling issue. Are consumers able to make an informed judgement if they're unable to see what product they're buying? "Leading [UK] supermarkets [said] some of the meat they sell could qualify as halal but is not labelled as such"[0] [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27402428 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27402428
      - pessimizer 6y ago
        "Don't care." If there is a large constituency that refuses to eat halal meat, it's just out of hostility towards the minority, not because of any quality of the meat. Your quote is evidence for this.
        u801e 6y ago
        Not really. What if people thought the method used for slaughtering was inhumane and they preferred a different method. Then the motivation is not based on hostility towards a minority.
      - anaerobicover 6y ago
        This is exactly the point. If no-one even notices without being explicitly told, then it's a completely innocuous distinction from the point of view of the non-halal majority.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  But one key reason all fruit juice is kosher is that it's pretty easy to get it certified as kosher. You don't have to use any special ingredients or add any special processing steps, and the rabbi won't insist that you personally keep kosher convert to Judaism. That isn't true in this context, where most advocates of "safe spaces" are quite open about the fact that they expect everyone to follow their cultural practices, and that the purpose of a safe space is to help them coordinate this. So pillarization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarisation) seems like a more likely outcome.
  - jpttsn 6y ago
    Interesting——we’ll find out. So far I see evidence in e.g. the much-discussed switch from “master” to “main” on GitHub and the now omnipresent community codes of conduct. To my mind this is a cheap kosher certification that the vast majority of organizations comply with. Do you have contrary examples of pillarization to date?
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      I'd point to the Coinbase kerfluffle as a clear example, where the CEO explicitly staked out a position as a "mission focused company" that wouldn't deal with "societal issues" or "political causes". Whether it's a trend or an outlier... yeah, I'm less sure as I think about it.
josephg 6y ago
I think it’s reasonable for people who care about free software to dislike their figurehead being the brash, toe lint eating RMS. I met him in person once and he was rude to serving staff and he stank. Does this make him a bad person, or imply he has bad technical judgement? No. I don’t think someone less opinionated could have started the free software movement like he did. I’m glad I met him and I have appreciation for the work he did. But I don’t want him to represent me or the work I do. Most software engineers in the opensource / free software world are polite, well read, practical and shower from time to time. And, especially in leadership we accept that at the end of the day it’s critically important that we follow our own rules and decision processes, no matter our own opinions. To me it’s not about cancelling rms. (I hate cancel culture). I just think the FSF (and opensource as a whole) would be more successful with someone other than RMS as the figurehead. He’s a bad role model. And claiming he’s above the rules undermines the very organisation he’s trying to run. If the federal government wants to call up the “leaders” of the opensource community to decide if Linux is good fit, I don’t want RMS to be the person they talk to. He’s a great visionary type person. But the FSF needs dependable, stable and mature. RMS just isn’t that guy.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It seems like the obvious strategy there is to just make someone else the figurehead, and I'd argue that's largely already happened. When I first learned about the free software movement, I was taught that Linus Torvalds is the spiritual figurehead because he wrote the Linux operating system we all use; it was only years after that that I learned about rms and the whole GNU/Linux argument.
- rich_sasha 6y ago
  I’m not sure he represents you, or even free software. He represents, in this instance, the FSF, an organisation he himself set up. It’s now one of many promotors of open software (broadly speaking), and frankly quite a fringe one. I’m an Emacs user, and despite that, FSF’s articles fill me with cringe. I think your argument would apply in its entirety if he was representing some kind of umbrella organisation for FOSS, but that’s not the case. It would also then be reasonable for members of such an umbrella to pressure the FSF into who should be on its board. But it is not the case. Perhaps this argument shows that we need such an organisation, with RMS not heading it.

jpttsn 6y ago

I don’t think we’ll see an (even) split. It’s more likely that all (most) orgs will have safe spaces. Like how all fruit juice is kosher: it makes no difference to people who don’t keep kosher.

prepend 6y ago
I think that will lead to ineffectual orgs as these safe spaces seem to be in conflict with stuff like ejecting RMS. I don’t see myself stop supporting free software, but I’ll want some way to participate to fill that FSF shaped community hole.
logifail 6y ago
> Like how all fruit juice is kosher: it makes no difference to people who don’t keep kosher I don't believe this approach has only positive outcomes. Taleb wrote[0] "It suffices for an intransigent minority –a certain type of intransigent minorities –to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences" To say this leaves me feeling deeply uncomfortable would be putting it mildly. [0] The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
- anaerobicover 6y ago
  This rule only applies when the majority don't care about the outcome, though. Halal meat: small minority cares deeply, majority doesn't care or even notice; therefore it's easiest for all meat to be halal. If the minority preference actually impinged on something the majority wanted, like "no meat at all", then the minority would certainly not have this influence (and there might be conflict). Notice that vegans, a small and passionate minority, have not imposed their preference on society at large. If it's a "dictatorship", it's a very, very soft one.
  - logifail 6y ago
    > This rule only applies when the majority don't care about the outcome "Don't care" or "aren't told" ? > Halal meat: small minority cares deeply, majority doesn't care or even notice I suspect this - as in so many cases - comes down to a labelling issue. Are consumers able to make an informed judgement if they're unable to see what product they're buying? "Leading [UK] supermarkets [said] some of the meat they sell could qualify as halal but is not labelled as such"[0] [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27402428 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27402428
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      "Don't care." If there is a large constituency that refuses to eat halal meat, it's just out of hostility towards the minority, not because of any quality of the meat. Your quote is evidence for this.
      - u801e 6y ago
        Not really. What if people thought the method used for slaughtering was inhumane and they preferred a different method. Then the motivation is not based on hostility towards a minority.
    - anaerobicover 6y ago
      This is exactly the point. If no-one even notices without being explicitly told, then it's a completely innocuous distinction from the point of view of the non-halal majority.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
But one key reason all fruit juice is kosher is that it's pretty easy to get it certified as kosher. You don't have to use any special ingredients or add any special processing steps, and the rabbi won't insist that you personally keep kosher convert to Judaism. That isn't true in this context, where most advocates of "safe spaces" are quite open about the fact that they expect everyone to follow their cultural practices, and that the purpose of a safe space is to help them coordinate this. So pillarization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarisation) seems like a more likely outcome.
- jpttsn 6y ago
  Interesting——we’ll find out. So far I see evidence in e.g. the much-discussed switch from “master” to “main” on GitHub and the now omnipresent community codes of conduct. To my mind this is a cheap kosher certification that the vast majority of organizations comply with. Do you have contrary examples of pillarization to date?
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I'd point to the Coinbase kerfluffle as a clear example, where the CEO explicitly staked out a position as a "mission focused company" that wouldn't deal with "societal issues" or "political causes". Whether it's a trend or an outlier... yeah, I'm less sure as I think about it.

josephg 6y ago

I think it’s reasonable for people who care about free software to dislike their figurehead being the brash, toe lint eating RMS. I met him in person once and he was rude to serving staff and he stank. Does this make him a bad person, or imply he has bad technical judgement? No. I don’t think someone less opinionated could have started the free software movement like he did. I’m glad I met him and I have appreciation for the work he did. But I don’t want him to represent me or the work I do. Most software engineers in the opensource / free software world are polite, well read, practical and shower from time to time. And, especially in leadership we accept that at the end of the day it’s critically important that we follow our own rules and decision processes, no matter our own opinions. To me it’s not about cancelling rms. (I hate cancel culture). I just think the FSF (and opensource as a whole) would be more successful with someone other than RMS as the figurehead. He’s a bad role model. And claiming he’s above the rules undermines the very organisation he’s trying to run. If the federal government wants to call up the “leaders” of the opensource community to decide if Linux is good fit, I don’t want RMS to be the person they talk to. He’s a great visionary type person. But the FSF needs dependable, stable and mature. RMS just isn’t that guy.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It seems like the obvious strategy there is to just make someone else the figurehead, and I'd argue that's largely already happened. When I first learned about the free software movement, I was taught that Linus Torvalds is the spiritual figurehead because he wrote the Linux operating system we all use; it was only years after that that I learned about rms and the whole GNU/Linux argument.
rich_sasha 6y ago
I’m not sure he represents you, or even free software. He represents, in this instance, the FSF, an organisation he himself set up. It’s now one of many promotors of open software (broadly speaking), and frankly quite a fringe one. I’m an Emacs user, and despite that, FSF’s articles fill me with cringe. I think your argument would apply in its entirety if he was representing some kind of umbrella organisation for FOSS, but that’s not the case. It would also then be reasonable for members of such an umbrella to pressure the FSF into who should be on its board. But it is not the case. Perhaps this argument shows that we need such an organisation, with RMS not heading it.