Joint Statement on the GNU Project • Hacker News Board

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#101

Post by dx87 » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #62

starik36 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet somehow, Linux is arguably the most successful open source project in the world.

Perhaps, but we do not know how much better it could be today if potential contributors were not dissuaded by the politics and behavior of the existing participants. Popularity is only one gauge of success. There are other metrics, such as personal satisfaction, missing features, or other things that the project may have failed or scored less well on.

But you don't know which contributors you'll lose if you change the project. I remember when FreeBSD added in their controversial new code of conduct, and some existing maintainers left. People keep acting like getting rid of a divisive leader will either result in improvements, or the status quo, but it could also cause the project to get worse.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#102

Post by gfosco » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

kennywinker wrote: post #78

falcolas wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We, as a society, have established due process in the government and courts because we believe it's the right thing - the moral thing - to do. If it's the right thing to do for the most powerful entity in our land, what makes it not the right thing to do in all venues?

If I come to your house for dinner, and am an asshole to you and your family, do we need to get the law involved or should you just not invite me over for dinner again?

They shouldn't invite you over for dinner again, but it ends there. They don't get to come for your job, your career, your legacy.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#103

Post by falcolas » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #22

bitwize wrote: post #15

If I believed for a second that any successor candidate to lead the GNU project gave as much of a fuck about software and personal freedom as Stallman did/does, I might support them. My confidence that this will transpire, however, is not high.

There are lots of us who care. We can preserve software freedom with the same stubborn, uncompromising attitude without having to also alienate the very people we wish to help.

Question then. Why has it taken the airing Stallman's dirty laundry to step forward? What has stopped you (that is, the "we" and "us" from your statement) from standing out on your own merits before now?

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#104

Post by dtornabene » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #91

Back when we collectively ousted Brandon Eich from Mozilla, I thought we were doing the right thing. However, that slope is awfully slippery, and we are now ousting people from their own projects for sins that have no real bearing on the project. This isn't making our community better, for there is nobody that exists that doesn't have skeletons in their closets. People are claiming here that they can have just as muc…

the ability for women to be able to contribute and simply be a part of the free software community without harrassment does not fall under "no real bearing on the project", just so we're clear here.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#105

Post by dx87 » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #71

ilikehurdles wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be valuable to see your group put up a statement articulating the specific actions taken by Stallman and how they have caused "those who [you] want to reach out to" to be alienated. You may think that some collective consciousness is both aware of these actions and fully in agreement with this statement, but as the comments here will indicate, it's entirely possible that either one of these or both isn't tru…

That's already been publicized ad nauseum by others in the past few weeks. I don't think the authors owe anyone any duty to reiterate it.

Considering that a big chunk of what was publicized was lies and deliberate misquotes, I think it'd be best if the GNU project said specifically what their issues are.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#106

Post by coleifer » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

I see this as an essentially "internet" reaction. It is cowardly in the extreme. I doubt any of these people would say to Stallmans face the things their letter implies. Furthermore twitter etc act as an amplifier for whatever words you throw in it, and as the news networks and talk show hosts figured out years ago, outrage sells. There's also white-knighting, probably a consequence of social awkwardness and discomfort, because nerds grow up but they may not grow out of it.

Sad and cowardly, hardly surprising.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#107

Post by simion314 » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #87

simion314 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your article is fake news, RMS did not defended Epsein and the pedophilia thing is an opinion that he changed his mind about. From what I read about this topic the legal age for sex is not topic where 95% people agree one and RMS had a different view then the majority and he was convinced to change his mind (proving he is open minded) I did not read the rest since it probably is as fake or exaggerated as the beginnin…

If you didn't read it, you failed to read the part about "Richard Stallman has been contributing to a negative environment for women at MIT for over thirty years," with citations.

Then the anti RMS group could create a blog post that is 100% factual and fake. You can put facts and testimonials with names and time period when it happen, bonus points if you can mention any conflict of interest or personal biases this people may have.

I read in other places about RMS pathetic way of asking for a date so I know he was and is not perfect.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#108

Post by zafiro17 » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

This conversation went down the rabbit hole. I read the statement, and interpreted it to mean the GNU project should also be a safe place for women programmers. I'm a bit sad the comment that's risen to the top has taken us in a different direction.

The fact that this statement remains vague hasn't helped anyone to interpret it with precision.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#109

Post by simion314 » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 6:24 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #97

simion314 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of those people that wrote against RMS are not in good relations with him so you need to consider those memories as biased.

I'm not sure that means something is necessarily biased.

Our memories are always biased, now if you add some grudge in the mix I am sure you will remember the bad parts as extreme and ignore the good parts.

Re: Joint Statement on the GNU Project

#110

Post by dtornabene » Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 6:24 PM UTC

choeger wrote: post #75

badrequest wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've whipped up quite a strawman to get angry at, do you have any proof of this conspiracy?

Well he is empirically right about the code of conducts, the public attacks on free software figures, and the denial of free speech. I would call it typical radical leftist behavior instead of a conspiracy, but everything else checks out. You, for instance, mentioned above that it would be impossible for a minor to engage in consensual sexual behavior without even considering for a moment that there are more liberal…

"absolutist enforcement" of not fucking children, oh for sure man. Real "particular pov", that.