Hi,
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:58:41PM +0200, Johannes Zarl-Zierl wrote:
Hallo,
Am Sonntag, 28. März 2021, 03:11:22 CEST schrieb Ilu:
Ich halte es für einen Fehler des FSFE Vorstands, sich überhaupt zu RMS zu äußern, man hätte ihn lieber totschweigen sollen. Personen kommen und gehen, nur Ideen bleiben. Nur mit den Ideen lohnt sich die Auseinandersetzung. Und von sinkenden Schiffen hält man sich am besten fern.
Wenn sich die FSFE zu den Vorgängen in ihrer Schwesternorganisation nicht äußert, ist das in diesem Fall auch eine Äußerung - nämlich, dass sie damit einverstanden ist. Darüber kann man intern natürlich lange und ausgiebig diskutieren, aber wie soll die Öffentlichkeit das sonst interpretieren?
Nicht äußern wäre nicht gut gewesen, nein. Direkt die Zusammenarbeit zu beenden und öffentlich die Spaltung der Community zur Schau zu stellen halte ich allerdings für wenig zielführend und potentiell schädlicher als ein paar Wochen mit rms zu leben.
Das schul-frei-Projekt (Teckids e.V., ziemlich frischer FSFE Associate) hat am Wochenende nach langer Abstimmung das Folgende dazu gesagt:
8><----------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Matthias, hi FSFE board, hi fellow associates,
thanks for notifying us about the FSFE statement converning Richard Stallman's reinstatement on the FSF Board of Directors.
Today, we discussed the topic within the schul-frei project and came to the conclusion that we do not fully support this statement. In particular, we consider the immediate termination of the cooperation with the FSF harmful to the Free Software movement as a whole.
Our thoughts on the topic surrounding Richard Stallman and the FSF are the following:
1. We recognise that Richard Stallman is a problematic person. His opinions, his behavioural traits and the ways he show-cases render him inappropriate for leadership roles, especially those where he is responsible for shaping or in charge of possibly weaker people.
2. We recognise that Richard Stallman's reinstatement on the FSF Board of Directors was intransparent and came to the unpleasant surprise to everyone who may have been harmed, or feels oppressed, by Richard Stallman's opinions or behaviour. The procedures of board member nomination that have, or have not, been followed have to be documented and probably changed.
3. During our research, we failed to find samples of misuse of Richard Stallman's role in the FSF, the GNU project, or other Free Software bodies. Therefore, while we do not agree with large parts of the opinion's expressed on Richard Stallman's blog, we do not see immediate danger for people working in these projects. Furthermore, we did not find proof that Richard Stallman has enough outreach to consider channels like his private website important enough to have an impact on average Free Software activists who do not actively search for his statements.
4. Richard Stallman plays an important role in the Free Software movement, and so does the FSF. The movement lacks another body that contends the Free Software ideology as vehemently as the FSF and Richard Stallman do. In constrast, there is a depressing number of organisations who should be defending Free Software values, but fail to do so in practice. This uniqueness, and the power it gives the FSF, needs to be broken in the long run. Neither Richard Stallman, nor the FSF, nor any other single person or organsiation should possess this power.
5. The Free Software movement is in a crucial era, as is the whole world. Fighting several global crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic hurrying digitisation and making proprietary software companies profiteers, an immediate declaration of war of one Free Software organisation towards another one causes immediate and obvious harm to the Free Software movement as a whole. Instead, while making the general positions about the problems with Richard Stallman and the FSF's procedures clear, all parties should seek a process that solves these issues in the long term, without risking the incapacity of the movement or reputational damage beyond that caused by Richard Stallman's opinions or behaviour.
Our proposal for a rational course of action would be along the lines of the following:
1. We condemn the procedure with which Richard Stallman was reinstated to the FSF Board of Directors. Therefore, we call the FSF to report on this procedure, answering the14 following questions:
* Which written procedures were followed, leading up to the reinstatement of Richard Stallman on the Board of Directors? * Which body voted for, or unilaterally decided for, the reinstatement of Richard Stallman? * Which problems, or requirements, that made changes to the Board of Directors necessary, were resolved by reinstating Ricahrd Stallman to the Board of Directors? * What is the exact role of Richard Stallman on the Board of Directors, including which parts of the FSF, the Free Software movement, and community will his impact stretch out to?
2. We recognise that Richard Stallman has problematic opinions and behavioural issues that are suitable to cause harm to the Free Software movement or people related to the Free Software community. Therefore, we call the FSF to report on and answer the following questions:
* Does the FSF recognise the issues with Richard Stallman that are named concerning his opinions about, but not limited to, abortion of disabled children, sexual acts involving minors, etc.? * How will the FSF ensure that Richard Stallman will not communicate such opinions while working for the FSF, especially on occasions where he addresses an audience susceptible for mistaking his opinions for an official statement or Richard Stallman as a Free Software idol? * Does the FSF explicitly support or condemn parts of the problematic opinions expressed by Richard Stallman, and if yes, which? * Does the FSF recognise that accusations of misconduct have been raised against Richard Stallman, in particular while serving the MIT? * How will the FSF ensure that any misconduct will be immediately perceived, prevented, and reported, should such acts ever come up during work for the FSF or in the Free Software movement? (This measure is explicitly not limited to Richard Stallman.)
3. Richard Stallman has great merits in the Free Software movement, and as such has had important roles in it. Therefore, we call the FSF to report on and answer the following questions:
* How does the FSF see Richard Stallman's current role in the Free Software movement? * Are there areas that depend on Richard Stallman personally, and if yes, which areas are this? * Which plans exist to remove the dependencies of such areas on Richard Stallman? * Which plans exist to prevent such dependencies, regardless of whether to Richard Stallman or to any other single person, in the future?
4. In case of failure to report on the aforementioned issues within 30 days, we consider the FSF wrecked beyond repair and request its members to follow any procedures necessary to liquidate it.
Directed at the FSFE, we ask the council to bring the topic to discussion with all associates and association members, and do so for all future statements with such scope.
Kind regards, for the schul-frei project and Teckids e.V., Dominik George / Kirill Schmidt / Benedict Suska 8><-----------------------------------------------------------------------