• Helmic
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 years ago

    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.

    • poVoq
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      deleted by creator

      • Helmic
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        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.

    • ndarwincorn
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      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.