Re: On the reappointment of Richard Stallman as a director of the FSF

[Bernie Innocenti]

On 25/03/2021 06.15, Sven Brauch wrote:

Hi Aleix,

On 3/24/21 11:26 PM, Aleix Pol wrote:

We have tried to sum up our thoughts in the following announcement
with the hope to foster collectively the Free Software leadership we
need.
https://ev.kde.org/2021/03/24/on-the-reappointment-of-rms-fsf/


good work, this is a much more appropriate way to voice the concerns of 
the KDE community than the kindergarten ad-hominem screaming style of 
the open letter discussed before.


It also addresses a matter that is objectively a concern, and maybe even 
relevant to us, which is how the FSF elects its board. That the 
directors themselves can elect new board members seems kind of 
undemocratic.


In contrast, engaging with a mud-fight about who said what mean thing 
about which marginalized group is something that is highly polarizing, 
happens way too much these days, and often leads to division, anger and 
fear instead of improving things. I don't intend to defend Stallman in 
any way -- I'm merely saying, publicly debating his personality isn't 
going to achieve much good, and I'm supportive of KDE choosing not to be 
part of that.


Best,
Sven


I agree. The KDE e.V.'s statement points at the right issues: 
governance, transparency and representation.


The FSF also seems to be conscious of this, and wanting to take 
corrective steps:

https://www.fsf.org/news/preliminary-board-statement-on-fsf-governance

Let's hold our mud slings, and give them some space for self-reflection.

--
_ // Bernie Innocenti
\X/  https://codewiz.org/

Re: On the reappointment of Richard Stallman as a director of the FSF

[Alexander Potashev]

Thanks for the effort Aleix!

It would be nice to clarify whose opinions this linked message represents.
If this is something that the KDE e.V. Board voted for, then probably a
signature "KDE e.V. Board of Directors" on the bottom of the page would
make sense.

-- 
Alexander Potashev


On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, 23:27 Aleix Pol  wrote:

> Dear community,
> From the KDE e.V. we followed closely the discussions on the last few
> days regarding this recent decision within the Free Software
> Foundation's leadership.
>
> We have tried to sum up our thoughts in the following announcement
> with the hope to foster collectively the Free Software leadership we
> need.
> https://ev.kde.org/2021/03/24/on-the-reappointment-of-rms-fsf/
>
> Looking forward to a more inclusive discussion that will shape the
> Free Software movement of tomorrow.
>
> Best regards,
> Aleix Pol with the KDE e.V. Board of Directors
>

Re: RMS and open letter

[Bernie Innocenti]

On 24/03/2021 21.19, Marco Martin wrote:

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 2:58 PM Nate Graham  wrote:

Accordingly, I feel that this letter ought to be revised to target the
FSF board specifically, without so much of a focus on RMS himself or
calling for blanket boycotts of the FSF (what would this even entail?).
I think probably everyone could get behind that.


Couldn't have said it better no matter how hard I had tried <3


I didn't sign because I found that letter unnecessarily inflammatory.

I would sign a revised version as proposed by Nate, without demanding 
the entire FSF board to resign or step back on their decision.


The best action we could take, individually, is canceling our FSF 
memberships and redirect our donations to organizations which are more 
directly beneficial to the cause of Free Software. Like, for example... 
KDE :-)


--
_ // Bernie Innocenti
\X/  https://codewiz.org/

Re: On the reappointment of Richard Stallman as a director of the FSF

[Sven Brauch]

Hi Aleix,

On 3/24/21 11:26 PM, Aleix Pol wrote:

We have tried to sum up our thoughts in the following announcement
with the hope to foster collectively the Free Software leadership we
need.
https://ev.kde.org/2021/03/24/on-the-reappointment-of-rms-fsf/


good work, this is a much more appropriate way to voice the concerns of 
the KDE community than the kindergarten ad-hominem screaming style of 
the open letter discussed before.


It also addresses a matter that is objectively a concern, and maybe even 
relevant to us, which is how the FSF elects its board. That the 
directors themselves can elect new board members seems kind of undemocratic.


In contrast, engaging with a mud-fight about who said what mean thing 
about which marginalized group is something that is highly polarizing, 
happens way too much these days, and often leads to division, anger and 
fear instead of improving things. I don't intend to defend Stallman in 
any way -- I'm merely saying, publicly debating his personality isn't 
going to achieve much good, and I'm supportive of KDE choosing not to be 
part of that.


Best,
Sven

Re: On the reappointment of Richard Stallman as a director of the FSF

[Uli Klinkhammer]

Dear Aleix,

we all should know, that masses are a result of mass media. They just
follow what they see. The monkey repeats what he perceives.

Understanding this, I am in a very doubt that democratic structures as
they exist today, are really reflecting a democratic system.

Under this assumption, nowadays, a democratic election of a person for
leadership, is IMHO in a very doubt.

Lets see this guy as a big figure, and let us pursue him this position,
regardless of any possible extreme statements. Great people was always
some kind of polarizing. :)

Greets.

Uli

(KDE supporting member)



On 24/03/2021 23:26, Aleix Pol wrote:
> Dear community,
> From the KDE e.V. we followed closely the discussions on the last few
> days regarding this recent decision within the Free Software
> Foundation's leadership.
>
> We have tried to sum up our thoughts in the following announcement
> with the hope to foster collectively the Free Software leadership we
> need.
> https://ev.kde.org/2021/03/24/on-the-reappointment-of-rms-fsf/
>
> Looking forward to a more inclusive discussion that will shape the
> Free Software movement of tomorrow.
>
> Best regards,
> Aleix Pol with the KDE e.V. Board of Directors

-- 
KONTENT GmbH
Geschäftsführung
Winkelhauser Str. 63
47228 Duisburg
Deutschland

https://kontent.com

Fon: +49 203 3094-300
Fax: +49 203 3094-310

HRB 8762 / Amtsgericht Duisburg
UID: DE 2107 83977

On the reappointment of Richard Stallman as a director of the FSF

[Aleix Pol]

Dear community,
>From the KDE e.V. we followed closely the discussions on the last few
days regarding this recent decision within the Free Software
Foundation's leadership.

We have tried to sum up our thoughts in the following announcement
with the hope to foster collectively the Free Software leadership we
need.
https://ev.kde.org/2021/03/24/on-the-reappointment-of-rms-fsf/

Looking forward to a more inclusive discussion that will shape the
Free Software movement of tomorrow.

Best regards,
Aleix Pol with the KDE e.V. Board of Directors

Re: RMS and open letter

[Marco Martin]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 2:58 PM Nate Graham  wrote:
> Accordingly, I feel that this letter ought to be revised to target the
> FSF board specifically, without so much of a focus on RMS himself or
> calling for blanket boycotts of the FSF (what would this even entail?).
> I think probably everyone could get behind that.

Couldn't have said it better no matter how hard I had tried <3

-- 
Marco Martin

Re: RMS and open letter

[Marco Martin]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 1:53 PM Niccolò Ve  wrote:
> In answer to notm...@gmail.com:
> > and i don't really have anything against RMS per se...
> Even after reading the appendix? The part where he justifies child sex? or 
> underplayed rape? Or that saying that
> children with Down's syndrome are pets? Intentionally using the wrong 
> pronoun? Anything? I mean...

Actually (mea culpa) I did read the letter but not the appendix, so I
have to partly retract, sorry.
yes, his views on those sensitive matters *are* downright disgusting.
I still stand on the fact that the bottom of the matter is the lack of
transparency on how he was reinstated there without any community
driven process.

So, is not about asking to remove him with the same opaque process he
got in again, but about having a new board that gets actually voted in
by members.

-- 
Marco Martin

Re: RMS and open letter

[Nate Graham]

Hello all,

I would like to re-frame the discussion a little bit into terms we may 
all be more familiar with.


This letter we are being asked to sign is a lot like a controversial and 
flawed merge request: it contains elements that probably all of us agree 
with, elements that are controversial, and methods the address the 
problem that are controversial.


Thus many people who agree with the goal or some of the claims cannot 
approve the merge request (i.e. sign the letter) because of legitimate 
concerns about the implementation. This is a situation many of us run 
into daily, and we are familiar with the solution: revise the merge 
request (letter) so that it is less controversial but still accomplishes 
its stated aims. This way more people will be comfortable signing it and 
the discussion doesn't become a referendum on people's personal views on 
extremely sensitive subjects, which cannot end well.



So how would we revise this letter? We'd find the common ground that I 
hope all of us can agree on:


1. RMS is polarizing figure with close to zero social skills who has 
repeatedly put his foot in his mouth over a long period of time, making 
him a terrible ambassador for the movement he created.


2. The FSF board has exercised poor judgment and acted inappropriately 
both in reinstating RMS, and in even considering him for a public-facing 
leadership position in the first place.



Thus, the real problem here is the FSF's institutional structure and the 
judgment of its current members. A healthy body would have discarded RMS 
long ago due to his total lack of fitness for a public-facing leadership 
role. The fact that the opposite has happened shows that the FSF board 
does not function properly. The details of RMS's objectionable 
viewpoints are only relevant in that they serve to illustrate the 
board's poor judgment.


Accordingly, I feel that this letter ought to be revised to target the 
FSF board specifically, without so much of a focus on RMS himself or 
calling for blanket boycotts of the FSF (what would this even entail?). 
I think probably everyone could get behind that.


Nate

Re: RMS and open letter

[Niccolò Ve]

In answer to ren...@kde.org:
> It is quite clear that we are very far from a consensus on this
> question. So please, don't try to push KDE as an organization to sign
> such a letter. Each people can choose to sign it under its own name or
not.

Three or four people against a proposal hardly count as very far from a
consensus, just like
three or four people for it doesn't. And this is probably eV matters?
I guess an email should be sent to the ev ml and a vote should happen there.
I'd happily support such vote.

In answer to notm...@gmail.com:
> and i don't really have anything against RMS per se...
Even after reading the appendix ?
The part where he justifies child sex? or underplayed rape? Or that saying
that
children with Down's syndrome are pets? Intentionally using the wrong
pronoun? Anything? I mean...
I'm also not a big fan of the wording of the open letter; still, I feel
like we should kind of all agree that RMS did
and said extremely inappropriate things (to say the least).
Yes, I do agree on the "kinda misses the point" part. But I do not think
that saying "We don't want to have *anything*
to do with him or the org. that supports him, he's terrible" is on par with
what he said.

In answer to aben...@kde.org:
> If we would judge the legacy of a human being by his/her behaviour, there
would be no rock
We are not judging the legacy of RMS based on his behaviour, afaic. We are
saying that - given his behaviour - he is unfit
for such a position in the free software movement.

In answer to valorie.simmer...@gmail.com:
> Valorie, [...] against supporting pedophilia and pedophiles
I'm also very much against supporting offending pedophiles / pedophiles who
act on their desire.
I'm instead happy to support non-offending pedophiles / pedophiles who *do
not* act on their desire and never would.
Quite OT, but I think it's an important distinction to be made. Sorry for
nitpicking.

In answer to j...@vandenoever.info:
> The accusations are very broad and mostly are about opinions that
> he has
Accusations are quite specific and are about his behaviour and opinions.
Specific examples of opinions that make you
unfit for such a position are: justifying child sex, comparing down's
sindrome to being a pet. Specific examples of
behaviours that make un unfit for such a position: intentionally using a
wrong pronoun, mistreating women.
If all the above is to be forgotten because "it's not related to free
software", then we truly live in a sick world,
what can I say. But it certainly not "broad" nor "only about opinions".
> Is it sensible of FSF to reinstate Stallman? I've no idea.
*sigh*
> The letter talks about 'his hurtful and dangerous ideology'. If RMS is
known
> for any ideology, it's Free Software
and the whole pedophilia thing. You know, it's not like people did not
notice at all.
There are videos and articles about it. And I'm really not sure we want to
associate free software image with *that*.

[/rant]
Niccolò

Il giorno mer 24 mar 2021 alle ore 10:59 Marco Martin 
ha scritto:

> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 9:52 PM Eike Hein  wrote:
> >
> > With the dot-org hat on, I wish the Open Letter had a little bit more of
> a dot-org focus instead of focusing on the individual.
> >
> > What the current controversy highlights is that FSF board changes occur
> without an election and without significant transparency.[1]
> >
> > This is not KDE e.V.'s organizational setup, and it's also not the setup
> we would like to see in an organization that aims to centrally represent
> Free Software. It's also likely that the current and other situations would
> have been prevented by a healthier, more participatory board setup.
> >
> > I think the discussion of where to take the FSF (or representation for
> Free Software communities in general) next is what matters beyond the
> current moment in time. This is worth thinking about in the coming days,
> and also discussing with our partner dot-orgs.
>
> So much this!
> asking to remove rms because he had toxic behaviors is really a
> strawman argument and completely misses the point.
> RMS *is* unfit for that position, yes.
> He *did* say horrible horrible things, yes.
>
> but the question is: why didn't he have to run for election (and such,
> probably lose) in order to enter the board again?
>
> --
> Marco Martin
>


-- 
Niccolò Venerandi

Re: RMS and open letter

[Marco Martin]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 9:52 PM Eike Hein  wrote:
>
> With the dot-org hat on, I wish the Open Letter had a little bit more of a 
> dot-org focus instead of focusing on the individual.
>
> What the current controversy highlights is that FSF board changes occur 
> without an election and without significant transparency.[1]
>
> This is not KDE e.V.'s organizational setup, and it's also not the setup we 
> would like to see in an organization that aims to centrally represent Free 
> Software. It's also likely that the current and other situations would have 
> been prevented by a healthier, more participatory board setup.
>
> I think the discussion of where to take the FSF (or representation for Free 
> Software communities in general) next is what matters beyond the current 
> moment in time. This is worth thinking about in the coming days, and also 
> discussing with our partner dot-orgs.

So much this!
asking to remove rms because he had toxic behaviors is really a
strawman argument and completely misses the point.
RMS *is* unfit for that position, yes.
He *did* say horrible horrible things, yes.

but the question is: why didn't he have to run for election (and such,
probably lose) in order to enter the board again?

-- 
Marco Martin

Re: RMS and open letter

[Marco Martin]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 9:27 PM Jos van den Oever  wrote:
> "I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been
> advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept
> that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the
> same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming
> from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the
> mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally offensive."
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26535390

very much this! (wether or not he says being on the spectrum doesn't
say much about his condition)

and i don't really have anything against RMS per se...
the real problem here is what Eike says:
his reinstatement should have happened after an actual election, is
the inner workings and transparency of FSF that's the problem

That open letter however completely misses the point, is at least as
toxic as any of the most unfortunate statements by rms and is
something that i would never ever want to see my name in the
signatures.

If anything it should ask and pressure for an open process for the
election of a new board, in which RMS or anybody else is free to put
forward their candidacy, and either get elected or rejected by the
election process


-- 
Marco Martin

Re: RMS and open letter

[renard]

Le 24/03/2021 à 07:36, Sune Vuorela a écrit :

On 2021-03-24, Valorie Zimmerman  wrote:

Thanks, Carl. I would like to point out that Carl posted his suggestion to
the individual people on this list. He did not propose that the KDE e.V.
officially take a stand.


Then I'd like to propose that KDE signs it.

/Sune


Hello;

It is quite clear that we are very far from a consensus on this 
question. So please, don't try to push KDE as an organization to sign 
such a letter. Each people can choose to sign it under its own name or not.


regards

--
Sébastien

Re: RMS and open letter

[Agustin Benito (toscalix)]

Hello,

If we would judge the legacy of a human being by his/her behaviour, there
would be no rock

Best Regards

Agustin Benito (toscalix)
KDE eV member
Profile: http://www.toscalix.com


On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:17 AM Jos van den Oever 
wrote:

> On woensdag 24 maart 2021 07:36:22 CET Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > On 2021-03-24, Valorie Zimmerman  wrote:
> > > Thanks, Carl. I would like to point out that Carl posted his
> suggestion to
> > > the individual people on this list. He did not propose that the KDE
> e.V.
> > > officially take a stand.
> >
> > Then I'd like to propose that KDE signs it.
>
> I propose that KDE does not sign it. KDE can make its own statement.
>
> It's easy to press 'like' or 'i agree' without carefully reading what you
> are
> agreeing to. And consider that by agreeing to this letter you are creating
> ammunition by which FOSS can be attacked.
>
> The statement that is currently proposed is an unproductive and divisive
> statement and has been engineered to be. Or it was written in a rage
> without
> much thought. At any rate, when you sign it, consider the full text.
>
> If you intend to sign that letter, please read it carefully and consider
> the
> blanket statements against Free Software in it. The letter was initiated
> by a
> former President of OSI [1].
>
> The GitHub organization that initiated the letter is anonymous:
>https://github.com/rms-open-letter
> The texts "We, the undersigned, believe in the necessity of digital
> autonomy"
> and "We believe in a present and a future where all technology empowers –
> not
> oppresses – people." sound hollow if it is hosted on GitHub, an
> undemocratic
> website where only the owners have influence on how it is run.
>
> Why is the letter hosted there? It it because no FOSS organization wanted
> to
> host a letter worded like that? I think so. Instead of getting a nuanced
> opinion this letter cherry-picks signatures from across communities.
>
> The letter says:
>
> "It is time for RMS to step back from the free software, tech ethics,
> digital
> rights, and tech communities"
>
> So sign this letter, you agree that he's an outcast.
>
> "We ask for contributors to free software projects to take a stand against
> bigotry and hate within their projects."
>
> So everyone that signs this bigoted and hateful letter should step away?
>
> In the coming days, there'll be statements by FOSS organizations, public,
> or
> directly to the board of the FSF about this surprising board addition. But
> let's make them better than the letter that is proposed here.
>
> ⤳Jos
>
> [1] https://opensource.org/node/1028
>

Re: RMS and open letter

[Jos van den Oever]

On woensdag 24 maart 2021 07:36:22 CET Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2021-03-24, Valorie Zimmerman  wrote:
> > Thanks, Carl. I would like to point out that Carl posted his suggestion to
> > the individual people on this list. He did not propose that the KDE e.V.
> > officially take a stand.
> 
> Then I'd like to propose that KDE signs it.

I propose that KDE does not sign it. KDE can make its own statement.

It's easy to press 'like' or 'i agree' without carefully reading what you are 
agreeing to. And consider that by agreeing to this letter you are creating 
ammunition by which FOSS can be attacked.

The statement that is currently proposed is an unproductive and divisive 
statement and has been engineered to be. Or it was written in a rage without 
much thought. At any rate, when you sign it, consider the full text.

If you intend to sign that letter, please read it carefully and consider the 
blanket statements against Free Software in it. The letter was initiated by a 
former President of OSI [1].

The GitHub organization that initiated the letter is anonymous:
   https://github.com/rms-open-letter
The texts "We, the undersigned, believe in the necessity of digital autonomy" 
and "We believe in a present and a future where all technology empowers – not 
oppresses – people." sound hollow if it is hosted on GitHub, an undemocratic 
website where only the owners have influence on how it is run.

Why is the letter hosted there? It it because no FOSS organization wanted to 
host a letter worded like that? I think so. Instead of getting a nuanced 
opinion this letter cherry-picks signatures from across communities.

The letter says:

"It is time for RMS to step back from the free software, tech ethics, digital 
rights, and tech communities"

So sign this letter, you agree that he's an outcast.

"We ask for contributors to free software projects to take a stand against 
bigotry and hate within their projects."

So everyone that signs this bigoted and hateful letter should step away?

In the coming days, there'll be statements by FOSS organizations, public, or 
directly to the board of the FSF about this surprising board addition. But 
let's make them better than the letter that is proposed here.

⤳Jos

[1] https://opensource.org/node/1028


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: RMS and open letter

[Halla Rempt]

On Tuesday, 23 March 2021 20:49:36 CET Carl Schwan wrote:
> Hello all,
> like you probably heard already RMS was reinstatement to the
> Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation. RMS has
> always been a negative force to the Free Software movement due
> to his toxic behavior. There is an open letter asking for his
> and the current board FSF resignation available at
> https://rms-open-letter.github.io/.
> 
> It was already signed by many other Free Software contributors
> from many organizations (GNOME, OSI, Apache, ...) and it would be
> a good idea for some us to sign it too.
> 
> This can be done by either sending a email digitalautonomy at riseup.net
> or by submitting a pull request at 
> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/pulls.

I signed -- by email, since I didn't want to use github's infrastructure -- 
because I felt that everyone who worked on LibrePlanet, including David Revoy, 
has been betrayed by the FSF board.

-- 
https://www.krita.org

Re: RMS and open letter

[Sune Vuorela]

On 2021-03-24, Valorie Zimmerman  wrote:
> Thanks, Carl. I would like to point out that Carl posted his suggestion to
> the individual people on this list. He did not propose that the KDE e.V.
> officially take a stand.

Then I'd like to propose that KDE signs it.

/Sune