For those who support RMS staying with the FSF, the repo has been created.
What if RMS disawows this letter because it is hosted on GitHub?
Having Codeberg pages available and doing this.
Lol. I’ll sign it anyway even if he does, which will be hilarious.
I think it is worth comparing it to an initially very similar situation: Jordan Patterson. He too is a former professor with questionable views who got controversial to a larger public over his arguing semantics.
But where the story begins to differ is that Jordan Patterson doubled down, used his new found fame to spread his harmful world view and even massivly profitted financially from it.
RMS on the other hand stepped down from all public functions and largly kept to himself probably feeling miserable and misunderstood.
He could have very well took his not insignificant support base and created an alternative “real” FSF for his personal benefit, but he didn’t even try.
can anyone try to give me a reason “to not” AND “to” support rms?
The reasons not to: he’s a terrible person to have representing us, he’s stubborn and doesn’t have any self-discipline or respect. He’s also said lots of horrible things.
The reasons to: he genuinely cares about the cause, and historically founded and promoted the entire movement
Yes is not the right person to be a spokesperson, mainly also because he does not carry his discussion to ‘non-believers’ where they operate. We know he has no compromise, and he can be (no sorry is) unrelenting in what he believes is right or wrong for open source, but his heart is in the right place regarding OSS. The way he says anything, does not always come across well to everyone, and he has put the backs up of many especially commercial companies who want compromise.
But we can’t condemn him for that type of personality - he will typically argue the semantics of an issue (in his way) and if it is a very sensitive issue involving human beings, he is not going to see why that arguments needs some provisos and ensuring it is coming across correctly.
I still don’t know the full context of what was said and why (others are also asking I see). He probably thinks that trying to explain his angle would do further damage, and with him yes probably so, not because of why he said something, but he gets literally interpreted, and we have to be aware of his own way of thinking. I’m thinking he was putting a Devil’s Advocate point of view from a programmer’s perspective, and that is just not the way to approach such a situation. If your expertise is way more technical, on people matters you should just keep quiet and listen.
For the FSF Board maybe he has an important role to play (not being spokesperson or Chairperson), as long as he had no malicious intent. I get the feeling was really naive, and he should stick to topics that he is the expert in.
imo, I don’t want him on the board. I have a certain respect for him and what he represents but I also can’t stand him actually being given responsibility
I don’t think he has any responsibility. More like an advisor.
At least that’s what I’ve heard
To not: you don’t like his personality or personal views. You think this affects the FSF’s ability to advocate for free software and also develop new thought around free software as technology advances.
To: you can separate the person from the quality of their work and output as it relates to free software advocacy and leading thought around FOSS software. You can hold your nose for the (arguably left-leaning wing’s) FOSS community’s advancement.
