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

An open letter in support of RMS being reinstated by the FSF

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 120 posts

Re: An open letter in support of RMS being reinstated by the FSF

#41

Post by smoldesu »

danans wrote: post #40
smoldesu wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this have to do with his tenure on the FSF?

Libre software, if it ever becomes the societal norm, is revolutionary in the traditional meaning of that word - turning over the societal order (vs. smartphones which haven't changed the existing societal order much at all), and if you are seeking to create a societal revolution, the words and actions of your leadership matter beyond the immediate domain of your movement. RMS may not have much in terms of money, but…

Not really. It's the Free Software Foundation, not the Free People Foundation. Stallman's only goal has been to develop an ecosystem of free and open software, and his political and personal opinions have never stood in the way of that. His belief that everyone should have access to quality, open software supersedes whatever personal agenda people perceive to be true.

Re: An open letter in support of RMS being reinstated by the FSF

#42

Post by nickthegreek »

jellicle wrote: post #37
nickthegreek wrote: post #34

What's going on with the stained glass/haloe deification of RMS in the profile photo? That alone turns me off from even reading the letter. Its visible in the HN RSS entry and on the main page: https://github.com/rms-support-letter

It's from Stallman himself: https://stallman.org/saint.html

I appreciate you providing the context instead of just downvoting. Alot of this RMS stuff can be difficult to follow for some of us who haven't followed the guys career and are trying to fully understand this story.

Re: An open letter in support of RMS being reinstated by the FSF

#43

Post by Corazoor »

tpush wrote: post #25
ndr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are, of course, free to choose who to support. Does "support RMS being on the FSF board for life" mean supporting him on everything he says, or even suggest supporting him for this quote?

Well, it means supporting the exclusion of every person that feels alienated by Stallman's behavior and publicly stated views. For as long as Stallman's alive. Irrespective of any moral or ethical concerns, keeping Stallman doesn't seem very pragmatic and forward-looking for an organization that is hurting for young blood anyway. A leader should be able to recognize when he's driving people away, and act accordingly.

This might be an unpopular opionion, but anyone who feels that Stallmans antics make him unfit for leading the FSF is also not someone I want have any say in that organizsation. It shows a lack of ability to discern between message and messanger, as well as private and professional opinion.

He is the single most consistent arbiter of open source, clinging to views we all here admire; With such a dedication that it is hard to imagine ANYONE, even fictional, who would be better suited for that particular position (head of FSF).

Aleniating people is in and of itself not a problem for a leader, it works the same way in any other area: Would you want to attract people to Black Lives Matter who would be alienated by Martin Luther King? Do you really find it problematic that the buddhists don't try to attract people who can't stand the Dalai Lama?

Is it really a Problem that the FSF didn't attract people who would critizise Stallman ONLY on points which have no bearing on the mission of the FSF?

And the article really makes a great point about how most of that criticism consists of misrepresentation, faulty analysis and double standards. Keeping people like that out of the FSF is not only fine by me, it is absolute paramount to keep it working.

Re: An open letter in support of RMS being reinstated by the FSF

#44

Post by danans »

smoldesu wrote: post #41
danans wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libre software, if it ever becomes the societal norm, is revolutionary in the traditional meaning of that word - turning over the societal order (vs. smartphones which haven't changed the existing societal order much at all), and if you are seeking to create a societal revolution, the words and actions of your leadership matter beyond the immediate domain of your movement. RMS may not have much in terms of money, but…

Not really. It's the Free Software Foundation, not the Free People Foundation. Stallman's only goal has been to develop an ecosystem of free and open software, and his political and personal opinions have never stood in the way of that. His belief that everyone should have access to quality, open software supersedes whatever personal agenda people perceive to be true.

> Stallman's only goal has been to develop an ecosystem of free and open software

Why is his goal the only one that matters? Is he a prophet, or is he just a guy who created a compelling idea? Should the movement continue to be centered on him as a personality? The FSF movement is by definition far bigger than him, and it can reasonably contain other related goals. Perhaps those with other goals can make peace with keeping him around, perhaps they can't.

Re: An open letter in support of RMS being reinstated by the FSF

#45

Post by gaws »

mikece wrote: post #2

I fully support RMS being on the FSF board for life. (I also think he would be fantastic making a cameo in a bit part in Disney's Mandalorian series, bitching about "damned proprietary code" used in imperial droids that makes them hard to reprogram but that's another topic for another message board...)

> I also think he would be fantastic making a cameo in a bit part in Disney's Mandalorian series

The fact you actually want this is beyond cringe.

Re: An open letter in support of RMS being reinstated by the FSF

#46

Post by happytoexplain »

gentleman11 wrote: post #6
majkinetor wrote: post #3

For those that are new to this topic this is quite a good read: - https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web

Does anybody else find it a little scary to comment on this topic in case they get called out and targeted as well? The well written link posted to “wetheweb” discusses this a bit. Some quotes: > According to the Atlantic, a full 80 percent of Americans believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” While today some smear the free speech movement as a “racist dog-whistle” or a “far-right talking po…

>somebody is flagging this story to keep people from even discussing the topic.

This applies to your entire comment, but the quoted line is most salient: Be careful not to fall into the victimized underdog mentality. There are legitimate concerns on both sides here, but there is a ton of noise in the form of pointing to imagined persons/crowds and accusing them of persecution. For example, submissions are frequently flagged for the poor quality of discussion they trigger - not simply because "somebody" is "trying to keep people from even discussing it", which is an easy sentiment to reach for, and falls under the category of fallacy that boils down to "our sociopolitical enemies are simply evil - don't you agree, fellow people on my side?".

Re: An open letter in support of RMS being reinstated by the FSF

#47

Post by phasnox »

smoldesu wrote: post #41
danans wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libre software, if it ever becomes the societal norm, is revolutionary in the traditional meaning of that word - turning over the societal order (vs. smartphones which haven't changed the existing societal order much at all), and if you are seeking to create a societal revolution, the words and actions of your leadership matter beyond the immediate domain of your movement. RMS may not have much in terms of money, but…

Not really. It's the Free Software Foundation, not the Free People Foundation. Stallman's only goal has been to develop an ecosystem of free and open software, and his political and personal opinions have never stood in the way of that. His belief that everyone should have access to quality, open software supersedes whatever personal agenda people perceive to be true.

Software is made by people.

Re: An open letter in support of RMS being reinstated by the FSF

#48

Post by tarboreus »

gaws wrote: post #45
mikece wrote: post #2

I fully support RMS being on the FSF board for life. (I also think he would be fantastic making a cameo in a bit part in Disney's Mandalorian series, bitching about "damned proprietary code" used in imperial droids that makes them hard to reprogram but that's another topic for another message board...)

> I also think he would be fantastic making a cameo in a bit part in Disney's Mandalorian series The fact you actually want this is beyond cringe.

Use of the word "cringe" is definitely the most "cringe" thing in this thread.

Re: An open letter in support of RMS being reinstated by the FSF

#49

Post by open-paren »

richrichardsson wrote: post #21
gentleman11 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anybody else find it a little scary to comment on this topic in case they get called out and targeted as well? The well written link posted to “wetheweb” discusses this a bit. Some quotes: > According to the Atlantic, a full 80 percent of Americans believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” While today some smear the free speech movement as a “racist dog-whistle” or a “far-right talking po…

> political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have It would be interesting to know what are these "important discussions". > 58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs I don't think it literally prevents them, more like it makes them scared to share their political beliefs for fear of being called out when those are not "acce…

Sure. During dinner with my in-laws (siblings and parents), my MIL brought up the now-removed phrase from the manifesto on BlackLivesMatter.com that says "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another...". She and the rest of the table interpreted it as "BLM wants to abolish the family as a societal unit." I suggested the alternate, "unacceptable" interpretation that they are expanding the definition of family to include non-blood relatives and encourage caring communities. This was not received well, and I ended up getting texts about the incorrectness of my belief even after we had left that day. So now I am scared to share my political beliefs for fear of being called out, even when I share something that I view as reasonable and "possibly acceptable". But maybe you're looking for a bigger example.

Re: An open letter in support of RMS being reinstated by the FSF

#50

Post by rpdillon »

gentleman11 wrote: post #6
majkinetor wrote: post #3

For those that are new to this topic this is quite a good read: - https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web

Does anybody else find it a little scary to comment on this topic in case they get called out and targeted as well? The well written link posted to “wetheweb” discusses this a bit. Some quotes: > According to the Atlantic, a full 80 percent of Americans believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” While today some smear the free speech movement as a “racist dog-whistle” or a “far-right talking po…

This entire approach of calling for resignations/firings (no matter the person) rejects careful, balanced thinking about the best way to proceed. Instead, it seems to feed on knee-jerk reactions to isolated statements and actions, often only heard second- or third-hand, that remind me more of a witch hunt than a thoughtful plan. I rarely see constructive discussion stemming from this approach. I'm curious about what characteristics the community really values in a leader of the FSF, but the discussion instead seems to overwhelmingly revolve around who can be forced to resign in disgrace, which leaves someone else to figure out how to actually improve the situation.

I think this can be appropriate when the situation is dire and all other courses of action have been exhausted. I'm just not sure this is such a situation.

In addition to not being particularly constructive, I agree with your point: the mob mentality means if I'm interested in discussing how to proceed _before_ everyone on the board of the FSF is fired, I open myself to the same mob that wants it done _now_. This makes discussing an already difficult problem significantly harder and more risky. Even if I bring myself to engage in conversation, many of the more deliberative folks I would like to hear from won't engage, likely for the same reasons that gave me pause. I encountered this to a surprising degree reading through comments on Ars Technica's coverage of this[0].

On the topic of the FSF, I really value that RMS has a very mature and well-considered understanding of the dynamics of computers and their software, and how those can shape society. But the points about him making others uncomfortable on a routine basis are concerning, and I think a more charismatic leader would certainly be an improvement. I would want that leader to have a similarly strong understanding of the core issues, though. I wonder if someone like Eben Moglen could perform in such a role. Come to think of it, it might be cool if Cory Doctorow could play a public-facing role for the FSF.

[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/03/free-software-ad...

Post reply on HN