21–30 of 123 posts
Can someone fill me in on the RMS drama/politics? Is this because he was cancelled due to (supposedly) defending Epstein and he's now trying to uncancel himself?
If you look at the results they link, the picture becomes clearer. They proposed 8 options. 2 directly called for resignations at FSF, 2 directly supported RMS, one said to stop working with FSF, one said to call for governance improvements at FSF, one was no comment, and one was discuss further. The two options in support of RMS were not majority held opinions, and were held by ~1/6-1/3 of voters. No comment beat "c…
> Debian will issue no comment, 2/3+ of voters in Debian supported calling for RMSs removal. It's clear which way the tide is moving, even if Debian says nothing. FWIW, some people didn’t want to vote because the results would be publicly with names. So the result of a secret vote might have been different.
Both of those feel like possibilities, but probably not in any significant number. In absence of evidence to the contrary, I'd say it's reasonable to look at the results of a vote as evidence of how people actually feel.
Edit: Vote numbers seem consistent with other votes in Debian's history, so it does not appear that a large number of people elected not to vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Debian will issue no comment, 2/3+ of voters in Debian supported calling for RMSs removal. It's clear which way the tide is moving, even if Debian says nothing. FWIW, some people didn’t want to vote because the results would be publicly with names. So the result of a secret vote might have been different.
They should have gated this vote with a yes/no vote on whether to vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Debian will issue no comment, 2/3+ of voters in Debian supported calling for RMSs removal. It's clear which way the tide is moving, even if Debian says nothing. FWIW, some people didn’t want to vote because the results would be publicly with names. So the result of a secret vote might have been different.
They should have gated this vote with a yes/no vote on whether to vote.
Either remove him according to the rules of the code of conduct, or leave him be. That's what COCs are for.
If you're not happy with the COC, push for changes.
Can someone fill me in on the RMS drama/politics? Is this because he was cancelled due to (supposedly) defending Epstein and he's now trying to uncancel himself?
He continues to do intolerant stuff: https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix
Can someone fill me in on the RMS drama/politics? Is this because he was cancelled due to (supposedly) defending Epstein and he's now trying to uncancel himself?
He continues to do intolerant stuff: https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix
It's the same implicit social shaming that socially awkward "nerds" and "geeks" receive in highschool, except turned up to 11 because of a vicious social movement which explicitly targets outliers. The open source community was far more tolerant when it was merit based and race/gender blind, before it was infested with ideologues and the social contagion that is the social [in]justice movement. Frankly, normies are ruining programming communities by demanding that the culture change to be inclusive of their norms, to the detriment of the very people who founded the movement. It's painfully ironic, and the people leading this charge are simply grabbing at power justified by self righteousness.
I don't get why organizations feel they need to weigh in on this so much. The FSF has a code of conduct ( https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct.en.html ), so it's pretty clear what the conditions are for removing someone. Either remove him according to the rules of the code of conduct, or leave him be. That's what COCs are for. If you're not happy with the COC, push for changes.
If you look at the results they link, the picture becomes clearer. They proposed 8 options. 2 directly called for resignations at FSF, 2 directly supported RMS, one said to stop working with FSF, one said to call for governance improvements at FSF, one was no comment, and one was discuss further. The two options in support of RMS were not majority held opinions, and were held by ~1/6-1/3 of voters. No comment beat "c…
If you look at the results they link, the picture becomes clearer. They proposed 8 options. 2 directly called for resignations at FSF, 2 directly supported RMS, one said to stop working with FSF, one said to call for governance improvements at FSF, one was no comment, and one was discuss further. The two options in support of RMS were not majority held opinions, and were held by ~1/6-1/3 of voters. No comment beat "c…
It's only clear that the way this is measured is heavily biased: 4 options out of 8 are against current FSF/RMS' statu quo. Only 2 are for supporting the statu quo. And 1 is for indifference, and the last one for more discussion needed.
If you overcharge the negative choices, it's kind of given most of the answers will fall in them. Survey design 101.
For reference:
- Option 1 "Call for the FSF board removal, as in rms-open-letter.github.io"
- Option 2 "Call for Stallman's resignation from all FSF bodies"
- Option 3 "Discourage collaboration with the FSF while Stallman is in a leading position"
- Option 4 "Call on the FSF to further its governance processes"
- Option 5 "Support Stallman's reinstatement, as in rms-support-letter.github.io"
- Option 6 "Denounce the witch-hunt against RMS and the FSF"
- Option 7 "Debian will not issue a public statement on this issue"
- Option 8 "Further Discussion"