41–50 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?
Here's the letter that details the concerns about RMS: https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix It's significantly more detailed and complex than "allegedly defending Epstein". Here's the letter supporting RMS: https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was it an anonymous vote?
No. Do you have evidence that anonymity would have mattered? The vote totals seem in line with historical votes.
If you want to know what people really think without the possibile influence of preference falsification, it needs to be an anonymous poll.
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…
2/3+ is overestimate.
About 52% (228/439) preferred one option from 1-4 (anti-RMS) better than neutral options (7-8).
If we ignore winning option 7, then 63% preferred 1-4 to default option 8, while 20% preferred 5-6 (pro-RMS) to option 8.
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
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…
How do you get to 2/3rds? I am not familiar with Debian's voting system, but I get just under 1/2 in favor publically supporting removal. I define "support" as preferring an option over "Further Discussion". According to [0], there were 420 unique voters. Using 420 as the denominator, and collumn 8 [1] as the numerator, we get the following approval voting results: 1) Call for the FSF board removal, as in rms-open-le…
So it might be more correct to say ~3/5s?
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?
Here's the letter that details the concerns about RMS: https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix It's significantly more detailed and complex than "allegedly defending Epstein". Here's the letter supporting RMS: https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
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…
> 2/3+ of voters in Debian supported calling for RMSs removal 2/3+ is overestimate. About 52% (228/439) preferred one option from 1-4 (anti-RMS) better than neutral options (7-8). If we ignore winning option 7, then 63% preferred 1-4 to default option 8, while 20% preferred 5-6 (pro-RMS) to option 8.
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?
The FSF sadly functions as a cult of personality for RMS at this point. I do not believe either of them are doing anything to help the cause of FOSS at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Do you have evidence that anonymity would have mattered? The vote totals seem in line with historical votes.
It's a politically controversial topic, and preference falsification is a well-documented sociological phenomenon in such circumstances. If you want to know what people really think without the possibile influence of preference falsification, it needs to be an anonymous poll.
Which is exactly why we not only allow, but actually enforce it in elections. If your vote could have a strong impact on e.g. your future employment, you wouldn't be free to vote for what you think is best, you'd be compelled to vote for what you think is perceived best.