4 ms·

The argument isn't that he contributed nothing or that his contributions are worthless. Few people are advocating for burning everything he built to the ground

by hnbad 6y ago

The argument isn't that he contributed nothing or that his contributions are worthless. Few people are advocating for burning everything he built to the ground simply to exorcise his lingering influence once he is gone or whatever and even fewer are doing so in good faith. The argument is that by retaining his position he is actively alienating people. Do you think he is such a phenomenal genius that keeping him is worth ten good people quitting or not joining in the first place? A hundred? A thousand? Where is the break-even point where it becomes more beneficial to keep a "genius" than being welcoming to new people who feel deeply uncomfortable around his behavior. And are you measuring him by what he has created in the past, or are you really considering his present value and likelihood of future contributions? What if he's not so brilliant after all and you're allowing one "genius" to cost you equivalent or even superior "geniuses" with less abrasive personalities? We like to tell stories about individual heroes, but if there is one recurring pattern in history it's that we're always standing on the shoulders of giants -- and even that imagery is misleading as it is not really just a handful of giants but armies of them, mutually supporting each other as they carry your weight.

rscoots 6y ago
>Do you think he is such a phenomenal genius that keeping him is worth ten good people quitting or not joining in the first place? A hundred? A thousand? Unless the people at the FSF calling for his ousting are privately acknowledging that this is only because of the 'bottom line' (I don't think that's the case), then it becomes necessary to judge the actual reasoning of those hundred/thousands of people's decision to avoid RMS. Put simply, when is it okay to just implement a blind appeal to popularity?
- hnbad 6y ago
  When I say "worth it", I'm not simply talking about finances. He's a drain on the organization's reputation. People don't join the FSF because of the great working hours and phenomenal pay, they mostly join it for ideological reasons. We're not talking about retiring a beloved mascot because people don't like it anymore, we're talking about removing an individual holding a position of power who's actively keeping people away by being a sex pest.
  - rscoots 6y ago
    But agnostic to this specific situation, you would acknowledge that there could be a situation in which the people kept away are morally confused to the point in which it's actually better to do without them from a moral (and long-term business) perspective. "Having a CEO in favor of Data Privacy/Product Safety/Responsible Bank Lending will lead to thousands of potential employees avoiding our company!" I'm sure you'll disagree with the particulars on the FSF case, but I'm just saying popularity is not the slam-dunk you're implying.
    - hnbad 6y ago
      You're being intentionally reductive by pivoting to "popularity" when we're talking about someone who has a history of sexual misconduct, highly inappropriate behavior and outright abuse. Women don't avoid RMS because they think he's a bit of a prick. Women avoid RMS because he's making them feel unsafe. And this comes on top of him being a massive prick to people in general. Also not actively alienating people who work for the FSF is literally part of the job description. He's unqualified to lead a development team let alone the entire organization.
      - rscoots 6y ago
        Then why invoke the "hundreds or thousands" point at all? Seems irrelevant and sort of crass given the gravity of the other qualms you have.
andrewzah 6y ago
> Do you think he is such a phenomenal genius that keeping him is worth ten good people quitting or not joining in the first place? There are no numbers here, so this is literally impossible to debate. You can say X, I can say Y, and it's all completely subjective. I personally don't think that he's driving away people like people claim. RMS is involved with the gnu project, fsf, and free software (now renamed open source), but those projects are each far bigger than he is. > What if he's not so brilliant after all and you're allowing one "genius" to cost you equivalent or even superior "geniuses" with less abrasive personalities? Again, this is impossible to debate in good faith. There are infinite hypothetical alternate realities, what good does it do for any of us to muse over them? Maybe a "super genius" exists and is being held back by RMS' continued existence. Maybe not.

by hnbad 6y ago

rscoots 6y ago

>Do you think he is such a phenomenal genius that keeping him is worth ten good people quitting or not joining in the first place? A hundred? A thousand? Unless the people at the FSF calling for his ousting are privately acknowledging that this is only because of the 'bottom line' (I don't think that's the case), then it becomes necessary to judge the actual reasoning of those hundred/thousands of people's decision to avoid RMS. Put simply, when is it okay to just implement a blind appeal to popularity?

hnbad 6y ago
When I say "worth it", I'm not simply talking about finances. He's a drain on the organization's reputation. People don't join the FSF because of the great working hours and phenomenal pay, they mostly join it for ideological reasons. We're not talking about retiring a beloved mascot because people don't like it anymore, we're talking about removing an individual holding a position of power who's actively keeping people away by being a sex pest.
- rscoots 6y ago
  But agnostic to this specific situation, you would acknowledge that there could be a situation in which the people kept away are morally confused to the point in which it's actually better to do without them from a moral (and long-term business) perspective. "Having a CEO in favor of Data Privacy/Product Safety/Responsible Bank Lending will lead to thousands of potential employees avoiding our company!" I'm sure you'll disagree with the particulars on the FSF case, but I'm just saying popularity is not the slam-dunk you're implying.
  - hnbad 6y ago
    You're being intentionally reductive by pivoting to "popularity" when we're talking about someone who has a history of sexual misconduct, highly inappropriate behavior and outright abuse. Women don't avoid RMS because they think he's a bit of a prick. Women avoid RMS because he's making them feel unsafe. And this comes on top of him being a massive prick to people in general. Also not actively alienating people who work for the FSF is literally part of the job description. He's unqualified to lead a development team let alone the entire organization.
    - rscoots 6y ago
      Then why invoke the "hundreds or thousands" point at all? Seems irrelevant and sort of crass given the gravity of the other qualms you have.

andrewzah 6y ago

> Do you think he is such a phenomenal genius that keeping him is worth ten good people quitting or not joining in the first place? There are no numbers here, so this is literally impossible to debate. You can say X, I can say Y, and it's all completely subjective. I personally don't think that he's driving away people like people claim. RMS is involved with the gnu project, fsf, and free software (now renamed open source), but those projects are each far bigger than he is. > What if he's not so brilliant after all and you're allowing one "genius" to cost you equivalent or even superior "geniuses" with less abrasive personalities? Again, this is impossible to debate in good faith. There are infinite hypothetical alternate realities, what good does it do for any of us to muse over them? Maybe a "super genius" exists and is being held back by RMS' continued existence. Maybe not.