Below, history of the FSF union and how it was intentionally created to overcome bad behavior and poor leadership from RMS (he didn’t believe in time of to mourn dead family members?!). A healthy and sustainable FSF is important for the free/libre software movement. And... It’s healthy to have constructive criticism. It shows trust and interest. FSF Can become better. And from this narrative, it sounds like several staff and board members struggled to make that happen, instead of simply denying grievances.
“RMS created non-safe spaces at both MIT & the FSF. When I was at the FSF, RMS had little to no empathy for the staff. The FSF was not a healthy, functional workplace. We formed a union to help protect ourselves from RMS — he controlled our pay, benefits, and workplace conditions. Everything was controlled by RMS — not the executive director, and not the board. The union helped turn FSF employment into what most people think of as a "normal" office job. It didn't fix everything. Some of the issues that we did fix: RMS did not believe in providing raises — prior cost of living adjustments were a battle and not annual. RMS believed that if a precedent was created for increasing wages, the logical conclusion would be that employees would be paid infinity dollars and the FSF would go bankrupt. RMS did not believe in providing bereavement leave. What if all your close friends and family die one after another? It's conceivable you would be gone from the office for days, or weeks, if not months. What if you lie about who is dying? RMS would often throw tantrums and threaten to fire employees for perceived infractions. FSF staff had to show up to work each day, not knowing if RMS had eliminated their position the night before. RMS has not apologized for the harm he's caused. Both MIT & the FSF successfully separated themselves from RMS in 2019. Why did the secret group of voting FSF members reelect him to the board? Why.“ From [1]https://twitter.com/paulnivin/status/1377079987950395393 On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 2:14 PM quiliro <[2][email protected]> wrote: Danny Spitzberg <[3][email protected]> writes: > Ali, I’m disappointed but not surprised you came to that conclusion yet > again. The history seems to be the opposite: FSF staff organized a union > because RMS was causing harm and dysfunction, and at best, RMS went along > and accepted it as a net positive state of affairs. Does all FSF support your view or is it just a hunch of yours? References 1. https://twitter.com/paulnivin/status/1377079987950395393 2. mailto:[email protected] 3. mailto:[email protected]
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
