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

Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

vote.debian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 123 posts

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#61

Post by zajio1am »

gerhardhaering wrote: post #45
zamalek wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He continues to do intolerant stuff: https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix

I fail to see how any of this is intolerant, or transphobic. You might not like these opinions. Or disagree that there is good reasoning behind some of this. This does not make the one you are disagreeing with intolerant.

> I fail to see how any of this is intolerant, or transphobic.

Yes. RMS argued for gender-neutral pronouns since more than twenty years ago. Just because it is a different set of neutral pronouns than is popular today, some people mark him transphobic. That is absurd.

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#62

Post by Pfhreak »

fighterpilot wrote: post #42
Pfhreak wrote: post #35

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.

Sure, but do you have evidence it would have moved the needle in the vote. There are many, many well documented phenomena that influence every vote. While they may influence a small number of voters, I've yet to see any evidence that these results are not the genuinely held belief of most folks.

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#63

Post by VectorLock »

Pfhreak wrote: post #17
umvi wrote: post #12

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/

Regardless of how abhorrent you might think RMS' actual views are, that letter really unfairly characterizes a lot of things they're claiming RMS said. I appreciate them throughly citing sources for their claims, so its easy to compare what the letter accuses him of saying and what the literal words he used are. Individual interpretation of the amount of twisting they do is left up to the reader.

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#64

Post by krastanov »

fsf4lyfe wrote: post #51

Good. RMS did nothing wrong really, and is the victim of a pile-on by people who can't tolerate others' opinions. I'm glad to see that Debian isn't caving to the ignorant masses here. The FSF under RMS's leadership has done more for computing freedom than any other organization. So what if RMS is outspoken about his beliefs? That's exactly the forthright attitude that enabled him to succeed in promoting the GPL so wi…

It is not enough to be "right" to promote a good idea. You need to be a charismatic leader to succeed at FSF's mission. Independently of whether RMS is an intolerant creep or a misunderstood visionary, I do not think it should be difficult to see that he would not be an efficient evangelist for FSF today.

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#65

Post by ghaff »

luckylion wrote: post #50
fighterpilot wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Except that's not Debian's agreed-to voting process.

I'd also point out that secret ballot is not universal in the US. Certainly the votes of elected officials are not secret. But neither are open votes at, say, a town hall meeting.

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#66

Post by [deleted] »

cbmuser wrote: post #13
Pfhreak wrote: post #6

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.

[deleted]

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#67

Post by swebs »

Pfhreak wrote: post #35
fighterpilot wrote: post #29

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.

Are you asking for evidence that secret ballots prevent voter intimidation? Or evidence that people are harassed online for their stance on this specific issue?

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#68

Post by fighterpilot »

Pfhreak wrote: post #62
fighterpilot wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but do you have evidence it would have moved the needle in the vote. There are many, many well documented phenomena that influence every vote. While they may influence a small number of voters, I've yet to see any evidence that these results are not the genuinely held belief of most folks.

No, I don't have specific evidence, and I won't have it until we see an anonymous poll.

I do believe I have a very plausible hypothesis, though, and I find it sufficiently plausible that I'm going to reserve judgement on the true beliefs of people until we see that anonymous poll.

Re: Debian votes to make no statement regarding RMS readmission to the FSF board

#69

Post by salawat »

Pfhreak wrote: post #6

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…

What in the hell is with that tabulation of data?

You don't even have raw vote counts. You have that weird floating relative representation going on, and no formula is given for the totals, or I'm not aware the procedures are that line that out. Example:

2 dimensional matrix Value at (x, y) coordinates should be read as option X received more votes than option Y. The diagonal is blank since it degenerates in this representation.

Row 1 column 2 would assert that option 1 beat option 2 by 113 votes.

Row 2, column 1 however asserts the opposite, that option 2 beat option 1 by 137. This is reading is articulated explicitly in those results.

I see no way that isn't an indication of contradiction unless their tallying method is so bloody exotic I can't even imagine. Nor can I find the where they define their dividend for the majority calculation, but I'm assuming there is a tally of nay/abstain votes somewhere?

What am I missing?

Post reply on HN