Yes. Every "movement"-type organization I have ever associated with
goes through period of time when people come and try to divide and
conquer, drumming up false complaints, trying to impose new rules that
will, gosh, give themselves power over others, trying to discredit the
most effective movement members.
This is no different - we are just getting endless repetition of the
same accusations that don't stand up to scrutiny.
It is the people spreading those lies who distract us from hacking for
liberation and teaching others why software freedom matters and how they
can help create it. Hopefully, after yet another of their failures to
sustain a case, some of them will find the door and find something else
to do.
-t
On 2021-03-26 11:00, Ali Reza Hayati wrote:
So basically some people are claiming RMS helped to set up a union to
protect people from himself and that's one reason not to support RMS.
You guys are making me support him more.
On March 26, 2021 5:51:57 PM UTC, Thomas Lord <[email protected]>
wrote:
"It is union to try to protect people from RMS. / That's it. That's
the
reason."
As a matter of history that is simply and purely a lie.
I don't see any of that kind of complaint, at this point, as anything
less or more than direct attempts to sabotage the FSF, the FSM, and
GNU.
It has no place here. You are free not to associate with the FSF
and you should, it would seem, take that option.
-t
On 2021-03-26 10:46, Danny Spitzberg wrote:
A union certainly helped everyone set and keep healthy boundaries. I
have no doubt RMS was supportive. Like Paul suggested, a set of
community agreements or a code of conduct or a contributor covenant
or whatever is generally a good thing.
But as for the reason why staff organized the union -- you may call
it silly, but here is the testimony in their own words:
" I think that many people do not know that the FSF is a union shop,
or why.
It is union to try to protect people from RMS.
That's it. That's the reason.
Knowing some of the story about how this came to be, it really
informed my own thinking about what a union can do, and can't do.
Unionizing provided protections and standard benefits (like
berievement leave) for workers at FSF. It could not remove RMS from a
position of power.
I think the issue for workers at the time was that RMS held unchecked
authority. It did not matter that there was a board of FSF: you could
not tell RMS what to do.
Using the power that the law provides to force negotiations on a
written contract was the only option.
That is just... Not normal. Right?"
From
https://twitter.com/_msw_/status/1374538607982088197
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 10:40 AM Thomas Lord <[email protected]>
wrote:
That's silly. The FSF was unionized with the encouragement and
support of the FSF executives and board, including RMS, because
unions are good, at least while the injustice of wage labor still
exists.
he also caused harm to people and to the FSF organization and the
free software movement.
I regard that as a straight up lie because none of the derogatory
things said about him have supported that conclusion.
Once again, you are free not to associate with the FSF or the
movement, but pretending to be an ally while repeating slanders
should not be tolerated here or anywhere.
-t
On 2021-03-26 10:32, Danny Spitzberg wrote:
Consider the fact that several FSF staff are going public for having
organized and joined a union in order to protect themselves against
the whims and wills of RMS, like if he suddenly decided to take away
health insurance for everyone or other workplace dysfunction.
Forming a union and finally talking about it isn't "whistleblowing"
because obviously the staff and board chose to contain the problem
rather than solve or eliminate it.
However, I think we can agree that it's compelling nonetheless and
adds to the view that while RMS contributed good things, he also
caused harm to people and to the FSF organization and the free
software movement.
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 10:25 AM Thomas Lord <[email protected]>
wrote: It's wrong to describe people as "whistle blowers" when they
have not produced a complaint that stands up to scrutiny.
-t
On 2021-03-26 08:54, Aaron Wolf wrote:
I really appreciate seeing the perspective from Georgia. Thanks also
deeply to Deb Nicholson for engaging here in this space. Obviously,
these negative reports about RMS being presented *here* amounts to
the
opposite of an echo-chamber. These voices are bring extremely
valuable
perspective -- the sort we *lose* if we aren't careful to assure
that
our
spaces are not only open to anyone but actually in *practice* have
them
feel welcome and stay.
The Free Software movement is weaker for every loss of perspective.
We
have a duty to be not only gracious but appreciative of people like
Deb
for engaging and staying with us despite the tensions.
Georgia's line is exceptionally important: "...the fact that he
faced
consequences for his creepy Epdtein-adjacent comments and not the
decades of shitty behavior..."
These are not people who are dogpiling on hearsay or gotcha online
statements or whatever else. Those anti-patterns do indeed happen,
and
they polluted and harmed the credibility of the recent open letter
against RMS. But here we have people who fully understand the
unfairness
and yet can express from extensive personal experience the *actual*
reasons why RMS's leadership is problematic.
As someone who deeply and profoundly respects RMS for various
reasons,
I
still don't just simply support his leadership role. I do not want
him
banished, I want him to learn and do better on his pain points. I
don't
want to be naive though, efforts in this direction have obviously
been
done for years and not been enough.
I would like to continue to get RMS' insightful and pointed
perspectives
without having him lead the organization. I would like him to live
in
the zone where his genius most thrives and he contributes the most,
and
I suggest that the other roles he has had would be better filled by
others.
If we want a resilient movement, we need to be really open to
engaging
with complaints. An organization that defends the status quo
against
such critics is like the NSA attacking Ed Snowden and people
insinuating
that Snowden is working for Russia (similar to people talking about
how
Deb now works for the OSI and the OSI is connected to
corporations).
I'm not suggesting deference to the outside unfair critics, the
people
who do indeed levy unfair attacks, mine quotes, spread FUD, etc.
That
stuff can be real, and we need to defend against it.
But people like Deb are our whistleblowers, they are insiders who
are
bringing attention to serious issues. If we ignore or attack
whistleblowers, we will fail to learn important lessons. This
attitude
can be fatal to a movement.
In solidarity,
Aaron Wolf
(FSF member since 2014, co-founder of Snowdrift.coop)
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
