10 ms·

My problem with RMS is that "FSF" now stands for "Fierce Stallman Fanbase" rather than "Free Software Foundation". In the recent (may be still ongoing) process

by p4bl0 3y ago

My problem with RMS is that "FSF" now stands for "Fierce Stallman Fanbase" rather than "Free Software Foundation". In the recent (may be still ongoing) process of recruiting new members for the FSF board, while this process has been presented as an opportunity for the FSF to broaden its view and recruit more diverse people, candidates who did not want to give a complete allegiance to RMS were discarded in the first steps of the process. The FSF even demanded that people working with other free software defense groups around the world that at some point said anything not entirely positive about RMS to resign and distance themselves from those other groups to continue the process. I was extremely disappointed by this attitude. Anyway, I still think that the FSF is doing an important job and that it is necessary to have such groups. But I just don't think we need more RMS, really not, given what it appears to entail. Groups such as the FSF should really not be so tied to a single individual, whoever that is. And especially not with someone who's behavior has repeatedly been problematic while we need to tackle inclusivity issues in our communities. Even with the disclaimer at the beginning of the article, this title doesn't work for me. That said, I agree with most of the content of the article. The same article could have been titled "We need more copyleft", and it would be for the best. EDIT: to answer some comments: nobody's talking about diversity for diversity's sake here, nor specifically about diversity hiring. Inclusivity is also something to enjoy in public events for example, and we need public symbols to emphasizes that, which RMS (who, whether he wants it or not, is de facto a public symbol and a thought leader) is clearly incapable of.

Dalewyn 3y ago
[flagged]
- maxehmookau 3y ago
  > Nothing good comes from pursuing "diversity". Eesh. Nothing? Not one good thing comes from encouraging a diversity of people? > People should be judged for their character and merit, Yeah, they should. But they're not. Because humans are inherently biased, even when they don't mean to be.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    >Eesh. Nothing? Not one good thing comes from encouraging a diversity of people? Nope, why would I want to be deliberately racist, sexist, or whatever else discriminatory? Why would doing so lead to anything good? >Yeah, they should. But they're not. Because humans are inherently biased, even when they don't mean to be. That isn't an excuse, though.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - welshwelsh 3y ago
    I take issue with the idea that diversity is about things like skin color and gender. Even if a group is all of the same race, gender, language, income and nationality, they can still be incredibly diverse when it comes to their views and experiences related to free software. If we wanted to encourage diversity in the free software space, we should make sure every type of free software user feels welcome. Not just Linux users, but also BSD users, as well as folks who use Windows or MacOS but enjoy free software like Blender. Of course, free software naturally has a greater appeal to tech-savvy computer users and software developers, which is a group that is overrepresented by Americans, English speakers, men and white people, mostly due to economic reasons. But these characteristics have nothing to do with free software, and there is already a diverse range of viewpoints and user profiles within the free software space.
    - seabass-labrax 3y ago
      I agree that those groups are majorities, but I personally think it's more about language than money - or at least, it will be for the generation getting into computing now. You don't need too much money now to buy a computer capable of running modern software. If you can muster 50 US dollars you're basically there. However, English is so prevalent in software that Germans in the industry typically speak to each other in English rather than German!
- pydry 3y ago
  Diversity in tech as a wideapread social movement was kicked off about ~7-8 years ago purely as an attempt to force down wages. They (tech CEOs) didn't particularly care about having more girl or black developers. They didnt care about freedom or equality. They just wanted more developers - and lower wages. In the open source world big tech are trying to use the diversity as a way to cynically get representation for themselves. They hire people who hit their diversity quotas and then use them for open source outreach to get their voices amplified among the progressive minded who actually... write all that open source. The people who would be pushed as candidates for open source boards (e.g. black people doing dev outreach for Microsoft/Google) are blameless (they need a job!) but they are still being used by rich white men to serve a mostly corporate agenda. This isnt to say that we dont need more diversity, just that we should recognize when the shallow appearance of diversity is being cynically used as a corporate and political weapon by elites to push a regressive agenda. This strategy is very similar to the one employed by one of the most racist countries on earth, although theyre more blatant and less implicit about their accusations. The strategy works very well, too - progressive minded people can be easily manipulated through guilt.
  - iso1631 3y ago
    Most people in computing were women originally. Look up who programmed Eniac. Look up who created the early compilers and who programmed univac. Look at who programmed the flight software for Apollo The tech industry was built by women, then had their jobs stolen https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/19/women-built-tech-industry-then-they-were-pushed-out/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/19/women-buil...
    - anthk 3y ago
      Yes and no. Coding was a viewed as a "low skilled" job. Everything else, such as design and hard math was done by men. The problem is that today the supposed CS skills are atrocious. Most self called "engineers" would be laughed at the rest of the world. And, if they dared to stay in an actual engineering job in Europe (with civil accountability) without a proper degree, they would end in jail if something really bad happened. Literally.
arsome 3y ago
> we need to tackle inclusivity issues in our communities No, I'd much rather see the FSF's core principles defended and expressed better than see them "tackle inclusivity issues". Wasting time, resources and breath on this kind of thing is the problem.
- brookst 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - c4mpute 3y ago
    Free Software already speaks to everyone. There is no limitation around the use by anyone. This isn't womens' clothing, this is software.
    - dublinben 3y ago
      Clearly not, if you take a look at the demographics of the free software community and how it compares to tech more broadly.
      - c4mpute 3y ago
        Ah, so a white female cannot represent free software to a yellow male or a red trans? How incredibly racist, sexist and bigoted. The composition of a group does not limit what it can do or stand for. Anything else would imply that some humans are more valuable than others.
      - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
        Those are the demographics of "the software community", not "the free software community". Why did you think all those white guys got into the "free" one to begin with? > and how it compares to tech more broadly Big citation needed Attempting to socially engineer your way out of that is a potentially impossible road, lined with injustices. Fwiw, though, the creator of Bash is black: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Fox_(computer_programmer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Fox_(computer_programmer...
tekla 3y ago
Nope diversity for diversity sake is how we get shit like the ACLU losing its focus on civil rights issues, and instead going for dumb hot button takes that contradict its mission.
- krger 3y ago
  >how we get shit like the ACLU losing its focus on civil rights issues, and instead going for dumb hot button takes that contradict its mission [Citation needed]
  - tekla 3y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
    - krger 3y ago
      An excellent article that shows that these intramural fights are nothing new: >The A.C.L.U. has in fact often gloried in its internal contentions. It split over decisions to represent the Nazis in the 1930s, the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s, and the Nazis in the 1970s. After Skokie, a leader of the left-wing National Lawyers Guild complained of its “poisonous evenhandedness.”
  - zackees 3y ago
    [flagged]
- Eumenes 3y ago
  [flagged]
laputan_machine 3y ago
All of the inclusivity movements that have happened in my workplace have involved hiring people unfit to do their job. I don't care what your background is, I care what you bring to the table. The issue around unfettered inclusivity is that it enables grifters to gain positions of power based purely on superficial elements that they possess. The original meaning of diversity was "diversity of thought" -- it has been co-opted to mean something totally different.
- thumbuddy 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    I doubt they're anti-diversity, but bringing up this topic in context of RMS and FSF is a bit rich, given the high-profile character assassination attempt directed at RMS, in not so distant past. Free software ecosystem hasn't fully recovered from that yet.
    - sneak 3y ago
      The attacks on rms have been wholly based on what he actually said, not character assassination. rms seems to forget that people will read not the words you write, but what they interpret you to be driving at based on the words you write. They took this to mean he was defending pedophilia (when in fact he wrote no such thing, being both neurodivergent and precise). This is rms' fault for being bad at PR whilst being a public figure and leader.
      - bombolo 3y ago
        He said epstin is a serial rapist, but that wasn't really emphasized.
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        > The attacks on rms have been wholly based on what he actually said, not character assassination. They weren't. The things he actually said played a minor role in that kerfuffle - it all started with a lot of smears thrown at RMS by a person with some grudge. Additional quotes came later, as people started fishing for them. > rms seems to forget that people will read not the words you write, but what they interpret you to be driving at based on the words you write. They took this to mean he was defending pedophilia (when in fact he wrote no such thing, being both neurodivergent and precise). Why exactly are you defending people being irrational or engaging in power plays? You note yourself what the facts were, so why justify mistaking them? > This is rms' fault for being bad at PR whilst being a public figure and leader. RMS was doing fine until someone decided to destroy him for personal gain. Do you expect every person doing something interesting in a niche community should behave like a Hollywood celebrity or a politician, having their communications managed by teams of spindoctors, on the off chance someone wants to destroy them and picks mass media as their weapon of choice?
grumbel 3y ago
In theory I'd agree, but in practice people criticizing RMS were just hopping on the latest witchhunt train, all in the name of "inclusivity", which is just extremely hypocritical when people outside the norm are exactly the ones you should be protecting, not trying to get them kicked out. So I can very much understand why the FSF would want to keep their distance. That's not to say you can't criticize RMS, quite the opposite, but that criticism needs to be focused on his position in regards to Free Software, not the person and I really haven't heard much of that.
- p4bl0 3y ago
  My concern is not even so much with RMS himself but with how the FSF revolves around him. The FSF as a group need to not be so tied with a single individual. A "bus factor" of one is not admissible for such an important mission. Also, the FSF should be able to have someone on the board who will be able to criticize RMS if need be. Even for just that they're not ready.
  - fzeroracer 3y ago
    It's impossible to criticize RMS now because the cult has fully hardened. The moment anyone does, even if they were on the FSF, you will see the warriors come out with swords and axes ready to commit war against them. That was their #1 mistake when they brought him back and now it will forever plague their mission.
    - beedeebeedee 3y ago
      > It's impossible to criticize RMS now because the cult has fully hardened...you will see the warriors come out with swords and axes ready to commit war against them. Almost all I read is people criticizing him and repeating the idea that he is somehow unassailable.
safety1st 3y ago
People are understandably angry and concerned because Richard Stallman is a longtime supporter of trans people, women, and social justice[1][2], but was somehow canceled by a disinformation campaign claiming that he was the opposite of all of those things. The campaign was so intense and extreme it nearly destroyed the FSF. It continues to this day. Stallman has a 15 year written record of his commitment to these causes. If he and the FSF can be canceled in this way, how are any of us safe? [1] https://stallmansupport.org/richard-stallman-commitment-to-social-justice.html https://stallmansupport.org/richard-stallman-commitment-to-s... [2] https://stallmansupport.org/richard-stallman-is-not-transphobic-says-leah-rowe.html https://stallmansupport.org/richard-stallman-is-not-transpho...
raxxorraxor 3y ago
He can be arrogant and eccentric and I am not a fanboy at all, I am much more pragmatic in my views. But his fiercest detractors are much worse. But I somewhat agree that people that criticise Stallman should be vetted closely as many of the accusations were very dishonest. I agree that the FSF shouldn't tie itself to an individual, but the behavior of his distractors seem personal and much more "problematic". He has a strong opinion and isn't a people person, but that is certainly not a problem. We don't really need unqualified market researchers that believe they know what some blurry target group might want to support.
- p4bl0 3y ago
  The FSF refused people who explicitly said they were totally ok with RMS being here too, that they just wanted to be able to disagree with him if need be and don't think that he should not be seen as indispensable. They also refused people just because they wanted to continue to work with local free software group that at some point communicated their disagreement with RMS.
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
    Without any further info, I would file that under unfounded rumors. You have to understand that there was corporate influence that tried to topple him multiple times. So in that regard, yes, sadly his critics must be vetted closely. If that hits valid criticism, I am very sorry for that.
    - p4bl0 3y ago
      What you call unfounded rumors is what I and others have experienced first-hand. For my part, I still have the mails. Concerning the fact that it was or not valid criticism: it seems what I had to say was valid enough for some people from the current FSF board to insist that I apply to join the board, which I really did not intend to do in the first place. I wish I hadn't listen.
  - lovelyviking 3y ago
    >They also refused people just because they wanted to continue to work with local free software group that at some point communicated their disagreement with RMS. what kind of disagreement? hard to understand without knowing that.
thinkingemote 3y ago
The FSF has never had as many members as it has now, and most of the new members are from the fierce fanbase. They became members when there was an attack on RMS from inside and out. In a way I think one root cause is about professionalism. Corporates like sensible professional behaviour. Activists don't. Activist organisations could be seen as compromising by becoming clean. Perhaps it's about the hobby internet and big internet businesses via arguements about tone and attitude.
dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
>My problem with RMS is that "FSF" now stands for "Fierce Stallman Fanbase" rather than "Free Software Foundation". I cannot see it being any other way really. He is the founder. He sets the tone. He know exactly what he wants FSF to be. Maintaining the core principles (especially if they are uncommon) of an organization is really, really hard if you have ever attempted it. You have to actively avoid, or even let go of people who are not near totally aligned with the principles .
- acomjean 3y ago
  The organization and ideas should transcend an individual. The organization right now seems headed for irrelevance, when the ideas seem to be really more needed now that ever. Right now he’s and his camp are in charge, so if he and the group want to run it into the ground so be it. Hopefully the ideas live on and some group can carry it forward. I always thing back to media goblin as something that should be something more than it is. Though I’ll note it’s a “gnu” project which might mean it’s part of the FSF? It’s kinda a mess, but it seems whoever is running that is doing something different with the branding (I knew someone who was a big fan of Mediagoblin) https://mediagoblin.org/ https://mediagoblin.org/
  - dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
    >The organization and ideas should transcend an individual. It is never the case is my observation (as much as I want you to be correct). Any attempt to detach individual form the goals/idea of an organization leads to bureaucracy, incompetence, and perhaps most importantly authoritarianism of the evil kind. ( there are relatively benign versions of authoritarianism ) >when the ideas seem to be really more needed now that ever. Can agree here, but who really steps up? who really want to make that sacrifice at great cost to one's personal comfort? It's easy to criticize RMS, ( or similar people) when one is a arm chair philosopher. >https://mediagoblin.org/ https://mediagoblin.org/ Thanks, will have the look at it.
  - seabass-labrax 3y ago
    MediaGoblin was headed by Chris Lemmer-Webber. It hasn't been in very active development for quite a few years now, as most of the interest in this space has moved to PeerTube. PeerTube relies on a W3C standard protocol, called ActivityPub, that the very same Lemmer-Webber co-authored. MediaGoblin is officially part of GNU, but PeerTube isn't.
kamaal 3y ago
I think every one stands for thinks like diversity and inclusivity until they have to put some thing very personal on the line to lose. At some point in time you just have to be ok with the best people to the job, doing their jobs. This doesn't even have to be controversial. If you can't do open heart surgery, you can't do it. You shouldn't be allowed to do it. People shouldn't be asked to be ok with not wanting to be treated by sub-standard doctors. I wouldn't be happy with boarding an airplane built by bad engineers, or drive on a bridge built by bad engineers. This is where it gets controversial. In some places the best person to do the job might not necessarily have the same religious, political, social, racial, economical or whatever view you associate with. OTOH, you need some of these heroes to run things for you. Don't get me wrong, if everybody could be writing a emacs or gcc, they would already be writing it. Pretty much anything that anyone would need to do something awesome with a computer today is free. The barrier is you.
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  I'm genuinely interested to know how you would know if an airplane was built by bad engineers, and which ones you personally consider to be safe/unsafe. I think I would go on any aircraft if the pilot was good, as the basic principles of aerodynamics generally result in stable and predictable controls. Putting a twist in an elevator cable is probably the least obvious way for a bad/malicious engineer to make a good airplane dangerous. But I don't think any layperson could have predicted the Boeing 737 MAX 8 failures, as they were caused by invisible problems in the computer control systems; the physical appearance of the aircraft doesn't look too unusual.
  - kamaal 3y ago
    All the more reason to not compromise quality for other reasons. Nobody owes their life to you.

by p4bl0 3y ago

Dalewyn 3y ago

[flagged]

maxehmookau 3y ago
> Nothing good comes from pursuing "diversity". Eesh. Nothing? Not one good thing comes from encouraging a diversity of people? > People should be judged for their character and merit, Yeah, they should. But they're not. Because humans are inherently biased, even when they don't mean to be.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >Eesh. Nothing? Not one good thing comes from encouraging a diversity of people? Nope, why would I want to be deliberately racist, sexist, or whatever else discriminatory? Why would doing so lead to anything good? >Yeah, they should. But they're not. Because humans are inherently biased, even when they don't mean to be. That isn't an excuse, though.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- welshwelsh 3y ago
  I take issue with the idea that diversity is about things like skin color and gender. Even if a group is all of the same race, gender, language, income and nationality, they can still be incredibly diverse when it comes to their views and experiences related to free software. If we wanted to encourage diversity in the free software space, we should make sure every type of free software user feels welcome. Not just Linux users, but also BSD users, as well as folks who use Windows or MacOS but enjoy free software like Blender. Of course, free software naturally has a greater appeal to tech-savvy computer users and software developers, which is a group that is overrepresented by Americans, English speakers, men and white people, mostly due to economic reasons. But these characteristics have nothing to do with free software, and there is already a diverse range of viewpoints and user profiles within the free software space.
  - seabass-labrax 3y ago
    I agree that those groups are majorities, but I personally think it's more about language than money - or at least, it will be for the generation getting into computing now. You don't need too much money now to buy a computer capable of running modern software. If you can muster 50 US dollars you're basically there. However, English is so prevalent in software that Germans in the industry typically speak to each other in English rather than German!
pydry 3y ago
Diversity in tech as a wideapread social movement was kicked off about ~7-8 years ago purely as an attempt to force down wages. They (tech CEOs) didn't particularly care about having more girl or black developers. They didnt care about freedom or equality. They just wanted more developers - and lower wages. In the open source world big tech are trying to use the diversity as a way to cynically get representation for themselves. They hire people who hit their diversity quotas and then use them for open source outreach to get their voices amplified among the progressive minded who actually... write all that open source. The people who would be pushed as candidates for open source boards (e.g. black people doing dev outreach for Microsoft/Google) are blameless (they need a job!) but they are still being used by rich white men to serve a mostly corporate agenda. This isnt to say that we dont need more diversity, just that we should recognize when the shallow appearance of diversity is being cynically used as a corporate and political weapon by elites to push a regressive agenda. This strategy is very similar to the one employed by one of the most racist countries on earth, although theyre more blatant and less implicit about their accusations. The strategy works very well, too - progressive minded people can be easily manipulated through guilt.
- iso1631 3y ago
  Most people in computing were women originally. Look up who programmed Eniac. Look up who created the early compilers and who programmed univac. Look at who programmed the flight software for Apollo The tech industry was built by women, then had their jobs stolen https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/19/women-built-tech-industry-then-they-were-pushed-out/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/19/women-buil...
  - anthk 3y ago
    Yes and no. Coding was a viewed as a "low skilled" job. Everything else, such as design and hard math was done by men. The problem is that today the supposed CS skills are atrocious. Most self called "engineers" would be laughed at the rest of the world. And, if they dared to stay in an actual engineering job in Europe (with civil accountability) without a proper degree, they would end in jail if something really bad happened. Literally.

arsome 3y ago

> we need to tackle inclusivity issues in our communities No, I'd much rather see the FSF's core principles defended and expressed better than see them "tackle inclusivity issues". Wasting time, resources and breath on this kind of thing is the problem.

brookst 3y ago
[flagged]
- c4mpute 3y ago
  Free Software already speaks to everyone. There is no limitation around the use by anyone. This isn't womens' clothing, this is software.
  - dublinben 3y ago
    Clearly not, if you take a look at the demographics of the free software community and how it compares to tech more broadly.
    - c4mpute 3y ago
      Ah, so a white female cannot represent free software to a yellow male or a red trans? How incredibly racist, sexist and bigoted. The composition of a group does not limit what it can do or stand for. Anything else would imply that some humans are more valuable than others.
    - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
      Those are the demographics of "the software community", not "the free software community". Why did you think all those white guys got into the "free" one to begin with? > and how it compares to tech more broadly Big citation needed Attempting to socially engineer your way out of that is a potentially impossible road, lined with injustices. Fwiw, though, the creator of Bash is black: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Fox_(computer_programmer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Fox_(computer_programmer...

tekla 3y ago

Nope diversity for diversity sake is how we get shit like the ACLU losing its focus on civil rights issues, and instead going for dumb hot button takes that contradict its mission.

krger 3y ago
>how we get shit like the ACLU losing its focus on civil rights issues, and instead going for dumb hot button takes that contradict its mission [Citation needed]
- tekla 3y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
  - krger 3y ago
    An excellent article that shows that these intramural fights are nothing new: >The A.C.L.U. has in fact often gloried in its internal contentions. It split over decisions to represent the Nazis in the 1930s, the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s, and the Nazis in the 1970s. After Skokie, a leader of the left-wing National Lawyers Guild complained of its “poisonous evenhandedness.”
- zackees 3y ago
  [flagged]
Eumenes 3y ago
[flagged]

laputan_machine 3y ago

All of the inclusivity movements that have happened in my workplace have involved hiring people unfit to do their job. I don't care what your background is, I care what you bring to the table. The issue around unfettered inclusivity is that it enables grifters to gain positions of power based purely on superficial elements that they possess. The original meaning of diversity was "diversity of thought" -- it has been co-opted to mean something totally different.

thumbuddy 3y ago
[flagged]
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  I doubt they're anti-diversity, but bringing up this topic in context of RMS and FSF is a bit rich, given the high-profile character assassination attempt directed at RMS, in not so distant past. Free software ecosystem hasn't fully recovered from that yet.
  - sneak 3y ago
    The attacks on rms have been wholly based on what he actually said, not character assassination. rms seems to forget that people will read not the words you write, but what they interpret you to be driving at based on the words you write. They took this to mean he was defending pedophilia (when in fact he wrote no such thing, being both neurodivergent and precise). This is rms' fault for being bad at PR whilst being a public figure and leader.
    - bombolo 3y ago
      He said epstin is a serial rapist, but that wasn't really emphasized.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      > The attacks on rms have been wholly based on what he actually said, not character assassination. They weren't. The things he actually said played a minor role in that kerfuffle - it all started with a lot of smears thrown at RMS by a person with some grudge. Additional quotes came later, as people started fishing for them. > rms seems to forget that people will read not the words you write, but what they interpret you to be driving at based on the words you write. They took this to mean he was defending pedophilia (when in fact he wrote no such thing, being both neurodivergent and precise). Why exactly are you defending people being irrational or engaging in power plays? You note yourself what the facts were, so why justify mistaking them? > This is rms' fault for being bad at PR whilst being a public figure and leader. RMS was doing fine until someone decided to destroy him for personal gain. Do you expect every person doing something interesting in a niche community should behave like a Hollywood celebrity or a politician, having their communications managed by teams of spindoctors, on the off chance someone wants to destroy them and picks mass media as their weapon of choice?

grumbel 3y ago

In theory I'd agree, but in practice people criticizing RMS were just hopping on the latest witchhunt train, all in the name of "inclusivity", which is just extremely hypocritical when people outside the norm are exactly the ones you should be protecting, not trying to get them kicked out. So I can very much understand why the FSF would want to keep their distance. That's not to say you can't criticize RMS, quite the opposite, but that criticism needs to be focused on his position in regards to Free Software, not the person and I really haven't heard much of that.

p4bl0 3y ago
My concern is not even so much with RMS himself but with how the FSF revolves around him. The FSF as a group need to not be so tied with a single individual. A "bus factor" of one is not admissible for such an important mission. Also, the FSF should be able to have someone on the board who will be able to criticize RMS if need be. Even for just that they're not ready.
- fzeroracer 3y ago
  It's impossible to criticize RMS now because the cult has fully hardened. The moment anyone does, even if they were on the FSF, you will see the warriors come out with swords and axes ready to commit war against them. That was their #1 mistake when they brought him back and now it will forever plague their mission.
  - beedeebeedee 3y ago
    > It's impossible to criticize RMS now because the cult has fully hardened...you will see the warriors come out with swords and axes ready to commit war against them. Almost all I read is people criticizing him and repeating the idea that he is somehow unassailable.

safety1st 3y ago

People are understandably angry and concerned because Richard Stallman is a longtime supporter of trans people, women, and social justice[1][2], but was somehow canceled by a disinformation campaign claiming that he was the opposite of all of those things. The campaign was so intense and extreme it nearly destroyed the FSF. It continues to this day. Stallman has a 15 year written record of his commitment to these causes. If he and the FSF can be canceled in this way, how are any of us safe? [1] https://stallmansupport.org/richard-stallman-commitment-to-social-justice.html https://stallmansupport.org/richard-stallman-commitment-to-s... [2] https://stallmansupport.org/richard-stallman-is-not-transphobic-says-leah-rowe.html https://stallmansupport.org/richard-stallman-is-not-transpho...

raxxorraxor 3y ago

He can be arrogant and eccentric and I am not a fanboy at all, I am much more pragmatic in my views. But his fiercest detractors are much worse. But I somewhat agree that people that criticise Stallman should be vetted closely as many of the accusations were very dishonest. I agree that the FSF shouldn't tie itself to an individual, but the behavior of his distractors seem personal and much more "problematic". He has a strong opinion and isn't a people person, but that is certainly not a problem. We don't really need unqualified market researchers that believe they know what some blurry target group might want to support.

p4bl0 3y ago
The FSF refused people who explicitly said they were totally ok with RMS being here too, that they just wanted to be able to disagree with him if need be and don't think that he should not be seen as indispensable. They also refused people just because they wanted to continue to work with local free software group that at some point communicated their disagreement with RMS.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  Without any further info, I would file that under unfounded rumors. You have to understand that there was corporate influence that tried to topple him multiple times. So in that regard, yes, sadly his critics must be vetted closely. If that hits valid criticism, I am very sorry for that.
  - p4bl0 3y ago
    What you call unfounded rumors is what I and others have experienced first-hand. For my part, I still have the mails. Concerning the fact that it was or not valid criticism: it seems what I had to say was valid enough for some people from the current FSF board to insist that I apply to join the board, which I really did not intend to do in the first place. I wish I hadn't listen.
- lovelyviking 3y ago
  >They also refused people just because they wanted to continue to work with local free software group that at some point communicated their disagreement with RMS. what kind of disagreement? hard to understand without knowing that.

thinkingemote 3y ago

The FSF has never had as many members as it has now, and most of the new members are from the fierce fanbase. They became members when there was an attack on RMS from inside and out. In a way I think one root cause is about professionalism. Corporates like sensible professional behaviour. Activists don't. Activist organisations could be seen as compromising by becoming clean. Perhaps it's about the hobby internet and big internet businesses via arguements about tone and attitude.

dennis_jeeves1 3y ago

>My problem with RMS is that "FSF" now stands for "Fierce Stallman Fanbase" rather than "Free Software Foundation". I cannot see it being any other way really. He is the founder. He sets the tone. He know exactly what he wants FSF to be. Maintaining the core principles (especially if they are uncommon) of an organization is really, really hard if you have ever attempted it. You have to actively avoid, or even let go of people who are not near totally aligned with the principles .

acomjean 3y ago
The organization and ideas should transcend an individual. The organization right now seems headed for irrelevance, when the ideas seem to be really more needed now that ever. Right now he’s and his camp are in charge, so if he and the group want to run it into the ground so be it. Hopefully the ideas live on and some group can carry it forward. I always thing back to media goblin as something that should be something more than it is. Though I’ll note it’s a “gnu” project which might mean it’s part of the FSF? It’s kinda a mess, but it seems whoever is running that is doing something different with the branding (I knew someone who was a big fan of Mediagoblin) https://mediagoblin.org/ https://mediagoblin.org/
- dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
  >The organization and ideas should transcend an individual. It is never the case is my observation (as much as I want you to be correct). Any attempt to detach individual form the goals/idea of an organization leads to bureaucracy, incompetence, and perhaps most importantly authoritarianism of the evil kind. ( there are relatively benign versions of authoritarianism ) >when the ideas seem to be really more needed now that ever. Can agree here, but who really steps up? who really want to make that sacrifice at great cost to one's personal comfort? It's easy to criticize RMS, ( or similar people) when one is a arm chair philosopher. >https://mediagoblin.org/ https://mediagoblin.org/ Thanks, will have the look at it.
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  MediaGoblin was headed by Chris Lemmer-Webber. It hasn't been in very active development for quite a few years now, as most of the interest in this space has moved to PeerTube. PeerTube relies on a W3C standard protocol, called ActivityPub, that the very same Lemmer-Webber co-authored. MediaGoblin is officially part of GNU, but PeerTube isn't.

kamaal 3y ago

I think every one stands for thinks like diversity and inclusivity until they have to put some thing very personal on the line to lose. At some point in time you just have to be ok with the best people to the job, doing their jobs. This doesn't even have to be controversial. If you can't do open heart surgery, you can't do it. You shouldn't be allowed to do it. People shouldn't be asked to be ok with not wanting to be treated by sub-standard doctors. I wouldn't be happy with boarding an airplane built by bad engineers, or drive on a bridge built by bad engineers. This is where it gets controversial. In some places the best person to do the job might not necessarily have the same religious, political, social, racial, economical or whatever view you associate with. OTOH, you need some of these heroes to run things for you. Don't get me wrong, if everybody could be writing a emacs or gcc, they would already be writing it. Pretty much anything that anyone would need to do something awesome with a computer today is free. The barrier is you.

seabass-labrax 3y ago
I'm genuinely interested to know how you would know if an airplane was built by bad engineers, and which ones you personally consider to be safe/unsafe. I think I would go on any aircraft if the pilot was good, as the basic principles of aerodynamics generally result in stable and predictable controls. Putting a twist in an elevator cable is probably the least obvious way for a bad/malicious engineer to make a good airplane dangerous. But I don't think any layperson could have predicted the Boeing 737 MAX 8 failures, as they were caused by invisible problems in the computer control systems; the physical appearance of the aircraft doesn't look too unusual.
- kamaal 3y ago
  All the more reason to not compromise quality for other reasons. Nobody owes their life to you.