I think this really hurts the FSF. Open source software is one of those communities that gets really toxic and countless talented people have been turned away because they didn’t feel welcome.
I understand stalman was very important to the movement but can’t board members just maintain a relationship with him outside of the organization if he really still has an important vision? I think putting him back on the board really sends the wrong message.
Pointing out toxic behavior is not toxic behavior.
Its not a holy crusade to hold people accountable and realize that reinstating stalman sends a bad message to the kinds of people that stalman has made feel unwelcome.
Pointing out toxic behavior is not toxic behavior.
It is when the folks doing it are doing so out of bad faith. Nearly half the authors of the OP are OSI/Debian folks, and I haven’t seen a single one of them call out Raymond or Perens for the nearly-identical misogyny they’re shedding crocodile tears over in this letter. Both of them were in leadership positions at the OSI more recently than Stallman at the FSF (until this week I guess).
RMS needs to go, but I will not put my name on their cooption of feminism in service of a long-held grudge towards the FSF.
Issue is that people outside of that beef are going to see this as the FSF being reactionary. And who can blame them? The guy got metoo’d, the position is utterly ceremonial and does nothing but voice support for a grown man that had to be told the issue with “but what if the child consents.”
This benefits no one but Stallman himself. That it so clearly doesn’t even benefit the FSF makes it seem as though it’s a move meant to spite women in FOSS for saying anything. If he was at least going into a position to do actual work then arguments about him showing remorse would be relevant, but instead the FSF’s credibility among non-chuds is getting questioned so that Stallman can try to salvage the legacy he tarnished himself.
If it were a “resonable peace offering” there would be no controversy. What you’re describing is just pandering to reactionaries and then acting surprised anyone with a modicum of genuine concern about women in tech takes issue with that.
If people were mad RMS had to leave over his decades of sexual harassment, then good. They need to self-crit, not demand the FSF make a gesture to signal that they never really wanted to condemn his actions.
It would honestly be more of a compromise if RMS was going to do actual work, but it’s a ceremonial position, it exists purely as a fuck you. FSF did very little with RMS in actual positions of power and it’ll accomplish nothing by associating with him now when RMS hasn’t even demonstrably done anything to address his previous harm other than let people know he had to be convinced that “but what if the child consents” was a shit take.
FSF entirely brought this down upon itself trying to appease a faction that has no place in the free software movement, and now it is endangering its fundamental goals as people associate the movement with that faction.
My rationale above is why I’m not signing the OSI’s open letter. But RMS needs to go, there’s no way in hell you’ll see my signature on the other one. So I wrote my own.
I think this really hurts the FSF. Open source software is one of those communities that gets really toxic and countless talented people have been turned away because they didn’t feel welcome.
I understand stalman was very important to the movement but can’t board members just maintain a relationship with him outside of the organization if he really still has an important vision? I think putting him back on the board really sends the wrong message.
deleted by creator
Pointing out toxic behavior is not toxic behavior.
Its not a holy crusade to hold people accountable and realize that reinstating stalman sends a bad message to the kinds of people that stalman has made feel unwelcome.
It is when the folks doing it are doing so out of bad faith. Nearly half the authors of the OP are OSI/Debian folks, and I haven’t seen a single one of them call out Raymond or Perens for the nearly-identical misogyny they’re shedding crocodile tears over in this letter. Both of them were in leadership positions at the OSI more recently than Stallman at the FSF (until this week I guess).
RMS needs to go, but I will not put my name on their cooption of feminism in service of a long-held grudge towards the FSF.
Hey, thank you for the response. I would like to educate myself on this more, do you have any links to read about the behavior of raymond or perens?
There’s some rabbit holes in the response I wrote to the OP.
Issue is that people outside of that beef are going to see this as the FSF being reactionary. And who can blame them? The guy got metoo’d, the position is utterly ceremonial and does nothing but voice support for a grown man that had to be told the issue with “but what if the child consents.”
This benefits no one but Stallman himself. That it so clearly doesn’t even benefit the FSF makes it seem as though it’s a move meant to spite women in FOSS for saying anything. If he was at least going into a position to do actual work then arguments about him showing remorse would be relevant, but instead the FSF’s credibility among non-chuds is getting questioned so that Stallman can try to salvage the legacy he tarnished himself.
deleted by creator
If it were a “resonable peace offering” there would be no controversy. What you’re describing is just pandering to reactionaries and then acting surprised anyone with a modicum of genuine concern about women in tech takes issue with that.
If people were mad RMS had to leave over his decades of sexual harassment, then good. They need to self-crit, not demand the FSF make a gesture to signal that they never really wanted to condemn his actions.
It would honestly be more of a compromise if RMS was going to do actual work, but it’s a ceremonial position, it exists purely as a fuck you. FSF did very little with RMS in actual positions of power and it’ll accomplish nothing by associating with him now when RMS hasn’t even demonstrably done anything to address his previous harm other than let people know he had to be convinced that “but what if the child consents” was a shit take.
FSF entirely brought this down upon itself trying to appease a faction that has no place in the free software movement, and now it is endangering its fundamental goals as people associate the movement with that faction.
1000% agreed.
My rationale above is why I’m not signing the OSI’s open letter. But RMS needs to go, there’s no way in hell you’ll see my signature on the other one. So I wrote my own.