Richard Stallman Removed from the GCC Steering Committee • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Stallman Removed from the GCC Steering Committee

#91

Post by tptacek » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 7:40 PM UTC

xlwqnt wrote: post #87

tptacek wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I read this thread a day ago, it consisted of SC and project contributors unanimously agreeing to remove Stallman, and 3-4 extremely angry outsiders calling the SC traitors.

Unanimous? As always in 2021, only one side can speak up publicly. The SC itself only removed Stallman from the web page, stating that he was really not a member anyway. The message was pretty diplomatic and crafted to appease the fanatics while not actually doing much.

Which steering committee member opposed Stallman's removal?

Is your objection to the whole idea of a "steering committee" that gets more of a say than TempleOS Developer CrunkLord420? Because you might need to take that up with 1999, and the EGCS/GCC detente.

Re: Richard Stallman Removed from the GCC Steering Committee

#92

Post by tptacek » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 8:05 PM UTC

xlwqnt wrote: post #86

So, at least one pro-canceler has a cushy Facebook job and opens a tribunal against Stallman on flimsy evidence. There is no evidence at all that Stallman actually hurt a person. On the other hand Facebook hurts millions of teenagers every day by deliberately nurturing addictive behavior. Should we examine Zuckerberg on the gcc mailing list in the same manner?

I for one think Mark Zuckerberg should not be on the GCC Steering Committee. But I'm not on the GCC Steering Committee and have made no contributions to GCC of any sort, so my opinion on this matter doesn't count. I hope they don't add Mark Zuckerberg. One more thing to worry about now.

Re: Richard Stallman Removed from the GCC Steering Committee

#93

Post by jasonwatkinspdx » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 8:54 PM UTC

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #75

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually talked with anyone at MIT CS, particularly women? It's in no way innuendo to claim Stallman is a serial harasser towards women and behaves in an angry and abusive manner towards anyone he deems inferior, which is most people. Stallman and Free Software have been explicitly political from the start. Stallman hasn't made any technical contribution in decades, and honestly, hasn't been relevant coding…

> and behaves in an angry and abusive manner towards anyone he deems inferior, which is most people. This statements is simply not true. I had several exchanges and communications with Stallman, private and official. It was clear to him that I am less knowledgeable than him and less competent in the areas we discussed. But he never showed any of the traits you mention, the opposite was true. He was very patient and e…

That he treated you nicely, does not mean he does this universally. For him the contempt is less about intelligence or competence and more about his extremely rigid world view. When he's surrounded by his admirers of course he doesn't do it. But when someone turns down his lascivious advances or offends one of his random moral positions he behaves entirely differently.

But I mean, you can just go read the guys blog for content that would clearly bar him from ever holding a position of influence within most corporate businesses. No one wants an evangelist/spokesperson that is blogging about how "voluntary" pedophilia should not be a crime.

No one is canceling Stallman unfairly. What's getting canceled is a free pass he never should have been granted in the first place about this behavior.

Re: Richard Stallman Removed from the GCC Steering Committee

#94

Post by foobar33333 » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 9:46 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #79

roenxi wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no question that if Stallman had been hit by a bus then the project would be fine. He isn't a technical figure at this point. But it is a bit worrying if the GCC team feels that a man who has dedicated his life to software freedom is at odds with their objectives to the point where he doesn't even deserve a thankyou as they boot him off their webpage. Mailing lists are famous for their drama, but Stallman is…

There is a lengthy discussion among top contributors and steering committee members on the GCC mailing list and none of it favored retaining Stallman. Not one GCC participant on the "remove Stallman" thread spoke of him as an asset, and many described him as the opposite. From my reading, every single proponent of Stallman on that list was an outsider.

If one did, they would most likely keep it quiet as to not be the next target or seen as a stallman supporter. Anyone that speaks up for RMS under their real name will be blasted all over twitter.

Re: Richard Stallman Removed from the GCC Steering Committee

#95

Post by foobar33333 » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

foobiter wrote: post #43

disgruntled101 wrote: post #29

In order to be tolerant we must remove everyone that does not agree

tolerance generally excludes the intolerant, yes

Isn't the problem with RMS that he is too tolerant? He is tolerant of people we find bad.

Re: Richard Stallman Removed from the GCC Steering Committee

#96

Post by ballgames10 » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 10:17 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #91

xlwqnt wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unanimous? As always in 2021, only one side can speak up publicly. The SC itself only removed Stallman from the web page, stating that he was really not a member anyway. The message was pretty diplomatic and crafted to appease the fanatics while not actually doing much.

Which steering committee member opposed Stallman's removal? Is your objection to the whole idea of a "steering committee" that gets more of a say than TempleOS Developer CrunkLord420? Because you might need to take that up with 1999, and the EGCS/GCC detente.

Which comment are you replying to? What you write here has nothing to do with the parent comment.

Re: Richard Stallman Removed from the GCC Steering Committee

#97

Post by ballgames10 » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 10:18 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #92

xlwqnt wrote: post #86

So, at least one pro-canceler has a cushy Facebook job and opens a tribunal against Stallman on flimsy evidence. There is no evidence at all that Stallman actually hurt a person. On the other hand Facebook hurts millions of teenagers every day by deliberately nurturing addictive behavior. Should we examine Zuckerberg on the gcc mailing list in the same manner?

I for one think Mark Zuckerberg should not be on the GCC Steering Committee. But I'm not on the GCC Steering Committee and have made no contributions to GCC of any sort, so my opinion on this matter doesn't count. I hope they don't add Mark Zuckerberg. One more thing to worry about now.

Nice diversion. The actual message is of course that said Facebook developer should either quit or lead a similar campaign in Facebook.

Re: Richard Stallman Removed from the GCC Steering Committee

#98

Post by meowface » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 10:21 PM UTC

foobar33333 wrote: post #94

tptacek wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lengthy discussion among top contributors and steering committee members on the GCC mailing list and none of it favored retaining Stallman. Not one GCC participant on the "remove Stallman" thread spoke of him as an asset, and many described him as the opposite. From my reading, every single proponent of Stallman on that list was an outsider.

If one did, they would most likely keep it quiet as to not be the next target or seen as a stallman supporter. Anyone that speaks up for RMS under their real name will be blasted all over twitter.

Yeah, this is a worthy consideration. Anyone on the steering committee expressing support for him would probably be next to be voted out (or, more likely, privately encouraged to step down or harassed until they decide to themselves).

It'd be interesting to see the results of a totally anonymous vote among them. The majority would probably still vote him out, but not sure how close it'd be.

Re: Richard Stallman Removed from the GCC Steering Committee

#99

Post by bjourne » Fri, Apr 02, 2021, 11:34 PM UTC

fmajid wrote: post #80

bjourne wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stated reason for removing Stallman is the belief that he is "toxic". You may disagree with that but it has nothing to do with Stallman's political views.

I don't know him (only ever saw him speak once at a Wordpress conference 10 years ago or so, where he was a caricature of himself), and I can easily believe he is hard to work with. That said, I believe he was diagnosed as having Asperger's syndrome, which could explain his many personality quirks, and that makes the mention of "neurodiversity" as one of the many aspects of diversity they claim to protect rather disi…

Stallman has not been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome and he doesn't believe that he has it. Also, please don't put an equivalence between "difficult to work with" and Asperger's. Propagating the false belief that people with Asperger's are inherently "difficult to work with" increases the amount of prejudice and discrimination people with Asperger's have to face.

Re: Richard Stallman Removed from the GCC Steering Committee

#100

Post by tptacek » Sat, Apr 03, 2021, 1:08 AM UTC

foobar33333 wrote: post #94

tptacek wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lengthy discussion among top contributors and steering committee members on the GCC mailing list and none of it favored retaining Stallman. Not one GCC participant on the "remove Stallman" thread spoke of him as an asset, and many described him as the opposite. From my reading, every single proponent of Stallman on that list was an outsider.

If one did, they would most likely keep it quiet as to not be the next target or seen as a stallman supporter. Anyone that speaks up for RMS under their real name will be blasted all over twitter.

Ok, but, respectfully, "non-falsifiable argument is non-falsifiable".

At any rate, I'm mostly just here to say that contra the nerd-popular argument that Stallman's "cancellation" is perpetrated by people "outside" of free software, here it's pretty clearly the reverse: the people most vigorously advocating for Stallman's removal from the project have unimpeachable GCC credentials.