Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

fsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 139 posts

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#91

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

kmeisthax wrote: post #83
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They ignored the fact that people within the community had significant problems with his conduct, completely unrelated to the Epstein thing. Then you should have hounded him for those things, and not twisted the words he actually wrote (which was even more blatant since both what rms said and what Vice said is there in the public) and then tried to pin it onto him. Do you really think everyone is going to have a sh…

Well, the entire point of the FSF is to be an advocacy organization, which means that "making a show of things" is part of their job. They need to explain to people why Free Software is a thing people should value. Related to this is the need to defend why they themselves are worthwhile figureheads to continue the fight (as opposed to other organizations with similar stated goals, such as the EFF, Mozilla Foundation,…

> But if he had also just said nothing and quietly stopped being toxic, people would still be mad about his prior behavior. You need both messaging and action

Well, I thought we as humankind had spent almost a whole century to get wiser about these things, learn to read between the lines, to stop being overly judgmental and prejudiced, and oftentimes we the software developers consider ourselves to be somewhat wiser and intellectually advanced than the common folk, being able to reason on topics reaching way beyond our own field of expertise, as can be witnessed here on HN as well.

Guess these bits about wisdom and intellectual advancement are blatantly false. We're centuries away from being insightful by default.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#92

Post by mariusor »

danpalmer wrote: post #4

> He has sincere regrets, especially at how anger toward him personally has negatively impacted the reputation and mission of FSF In my opinion, "I'm sorry you were offended enough to stop supporting me" is not a sincere apology. In fact this whole announcement is one big "I'm sorry you were offended" statement. It doesn't apologise for the problem, it "apologises" for not managing to sneak the announcements past peo…

> In my opinion, "I'm sorry you were offended enough to stop supporting me" is not a sincere apology.

I'm surprised at the lack of empathy towards what seems a pretty genuine attempt at introspection.

To me it seems obvious that RMS is a person with a handicap and deserves at least a little understanding and support, especially since he is openly acknowledging his difference.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#93

Post by na85 »

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #67
danpalmer wrote: post #4

> He has sincere regrets, especially at how anger toward him personally has negatively impacted the reputation and mission of FSF In my opinion, "I'm sorry you were offended enough to stop supporting me" is not a sincere apology. In fact this whole announcement is one big "I'm sorry you were offended" statement. It doesn't apologise for the problem, it "apologises" for not managing to sneak the announcements past peo…

Am I the only one who simply doesn't care? The purpose of the FSF isn't protecting children. It's the promotion of free software. Some tone-deaf words by RMS are only even relevant because of the prevalence of cancel culture and the cult of wokeism. Software will still need to be free after the fad cult of wokeism has been left behind. What the media claimed was Stallman defended Epstein. That isn't true. The whole t…

>It's the promotion of free software.

Don't you think Free Software is best promoted by a guy who doesn't give women the creeps, and who has a modicum of social graces?

Politics is an inherently social arena; perhaps if the FSF wants to stop being a joke and actually succeed in its outreach they should pick someone who doesn't eat his toejam on live camera.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#94

Post by tsimionescu »

horsawlarway wrote: post #79
newacct583 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know that it didn't happen either. My understanding is that the relevant section of the deposition in question (which was part of a civil suit, not a criminal matter) is redacted. The unredacted contents were reported via a leak to a journalist. And it's not clear if Giuffre was even asked if sex occurred, as it wasn't relevant to this particular suit and the attorneys present weren't law enforcement or pros…

How fucking far we've fallen from "innocent until proven guilty".

Innocent until proven guilty is the standard for a trial, not for public opinion.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#95

Post by goodpoint »

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #67
danpalmer wrote: post #4

> He has sincere regrets, especially at how anger toward him personally has negatively impacted the reputation and mission of FSF In my opinion, "I'm sorry you were offended enough to stop supporting me" is not a sincere apology. In fact this whole announcement is one big "I'm sorry you were offended" statement. It doesn't apologise for the problem, it "apologises" for not managing to sneak the announcements past peo…

Am I the only one who simply doesn't care? The purpose of the FSF isn't protecting children. It's the promotion of free software. Some tone-deaf words by RMS are only even relevant because of the prevalence of cancel culture and the cult of wokeism. Software will still need to be free after the fad cult of wokeism has been left behind. What the media claimed was Stallman defended Epstein. That isn't true. The whole t…

> The purpose of the FSF isn't protecting children

The purpose of FSF and RMS as a spokeperson/leader is to represent a movement and the people behind it.

You cannot represent *me* if you:

- make all sort of "weird" remarks about age of consent

- brush off any sincere question or constructive criticism for decades

- systematically walk up to every young woman in a conference to ask her out

- throw temper tantrums for being offered a can of coke at a conference

- show up at conferences improperly dressed, barefoot, pick from your feet and eat some bits

- show up at public dinner with a strong body odor

> The purpose of the FSF is free software. Not people's feelings.

The behavior as a PUBLIC speaker affect the credibility of the WHOLE movement in the eyes of the world.

It's only rational not to support a bad public speaker.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#96

Post by xxxxxxx12 »

It's hard to see this in any other way but the standard bend-the-knee campaign to make every single person subservient to woke-ism.

It doesn't matter who. Everyone must be made to pledge allegiance with the usual creeds, and repeat the platitudes.

It's authoritarianism plain and simple.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#97

Post by goodpoint »

WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #7

One can't deny, sadly, that a software freedom geek with consistency and integrity as applied to that philosophy and insight therein of RMS's caliber doesn't yet exist. I'm afraid, for this reason alone quite a few people get to think that if you consistently apply software freedom principles in all parts of your life where you use or produce software, it must come with the baggage of all other flaws of RMS's charact…

> One can't deny, sadly, that a software freedom geek with consistency and integrity as applied to that philosophy and insight therein of RMS's caliber doesn't yet exist.

I can name at least 10 people that I find more suitable than RMS, including: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Sandler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_M._Kuhn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bdale_Garbee

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#98

Post by paulmd »

underseacables wrote: post #3

That is a really well written statement in my humble opinion. It’s almost like they’re trying to tell people “look we need this guy, and yeah for many it sucks, but for the betterment of the mission and the future of free software, we have to come together because he is simply too valuable to ignore“ I was intrigued at “ The announcement by RMS at LibrePlanet was a complete surprise to staff, all those who worked so…

> This sounds like RMS almost torpedoed his own board seat by announcing it on his own.

> bringing RMS was the right decision

The idea that he has such severe problems with social interactions that he almost torpedoed his chance at getting back his board seat suggests that he is not, in fact, the right person to be leading a large organization.

I get the hacker ethos that this is "his" organization but if the guy can't even hold it together for a week without nearly blowing it, he's not going to be an effective advocate for his views and isn't the right person to lead a large organization.

Long-term the organization needs to move past him anyway: he's 70, if the movement can't survive without him then it'd better figure out how that's going to work damned quickly because statistically they don't have that many more years.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#99

Post by goodpoint »

onli wrote: post #52
sthomas1618 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could not disagree more. This whole statement is "sorry, not sorry". If someone is known to be a toxic person (and currently still is), you do not let them on to your team. Ever.

There is no team without him, you are aware of that, right? The core purpose of the FSF is to defend his achievements and to follow the path he laid out decades ago. He is not accused to be a toxic person, he is attacked on various angles by a mismatch of FUD, puritan toxicity and simple hate against unconventional people. Sure, you can opt to distance from that, but what do you stand for then? Giving up against an i…

FSF could disappear today and FSFE, Conservancy, EFF and many other (saner) organizations would thrive.

Re: Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman

#100

Post by goodpoint »

semitones wrote: post #10
sthomas1618 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could not disagree more. This whole statement is "sorry, not sorry". If someone is known to be a toxic person (and currently still is), you do not let them on to your team. Ever.

Toxicity isn't a binary thing - there's levels to it. If the benefits one can bring to a team outweigh their negative attributes, then you should let them on your team. As far as how to determine whether the good outweighs the bad, that's a different topic. He brings a lot to the table, and I don't think he should have his work and life "cancelled" because some people disagree with his opinions...

> have his work and life "cancelled"

Nobody is erasing history. Nobody is deleting the wikipedia page on RMS.

Nobody is preventing RMS to write blogs, emails, show up to conferences and give speeches.

The letter is merely ASKING not to give him a position as public speaker after his countless blunders.

Post reply on HN