Skip to main content
Sunday, I was happy to give a talk at the FSF #LibrePlanet, wearing the Tshirt I designed for them (photo). But later that day, Richard Stallman announced his return to the FSF's Board of Directors. In this situation, I'll no longer invest my energy for them... 😿
#fsf #rms
#fsf #rms #LibrePlanet
Elias
Elias  
•
Are you sure you are not falling for a smear campaign here? I recommend reading this: https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web
Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
This is textbook hero apologia and doesn't get across any solid point. It is actually possible to separate RMS's work and personality by celebrating his past contributions and at the same time not giving him any symbolic prominence like at the FSF anymore.
Andy H3
Andy H3  
•
Indeed, any credible source for these claims?
silverwizard
silverwizard  
•
Which claims? There's credible sources for lots of things.
Andy H3
Andy H3  
•
That Stallman's behaviour harms the FSF.
Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
If a grassroots campaign started by a student can lead to the resignation of RMS (and only him) from the FSF, then what more do you need to establish that RMS’s very existence is harmful to the FSF?

Either the allegations were flimsy and he shouldn’t have resigned in the first place, or they weren’t and the FSF shouldn’t have reinstated him. As it stands, the current situation can only be understood as the FSF paying lip service to the RMS resignation campaign and now they feel like they don’t have to anymore, and this is bad optics regardless of what RMS actually did or said.
silverwizard
silverwizard  
•
But do you believe the women who say that they have had to hide from RMS due to sexual harassment?
Andy H3
Andy H3  
•
I'm not aware of such claims.
Andy H3
Andy H3  
•
Sexual harassment is a serious issue.

I find it difficult to understand how something like this has allegedly been going on for decades with the public knowing about this.
This entry was edited (3 years ago)
Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
Because people at all levels have been covering him for decades as well. Even in this thread people are still trying to claim it is a "smear campaign" or "fake news", focusing solely on his past contributions or alleging autism even though RMS himself denied being autistic.
Hank G
Hank G  
•
They knew, they simply covered for it. It was not "just" sexual harassment either. It was perpetual and persistent unprofessional and unacceptable behavior that was at best overlooked and at worst cultured by people around him because he is/was an idol. See Debian Project Lead Sam Hartman's recent post on the topic: https://hartmans.livejournal.com/100652.html
Daniel
Daniel  
•
This "mea culpa" just talked about a person in position to address RMS behavior but on the contrary he preferred clean up his hands like "Pontio Pilato" and just raising up his head after joining a collective attack against one individual... Very inspiring...
Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
At this point RMS hardly is just "one individual". He wasn't picked at random.
Daniel
Daniel  
•
This is one of those situations where the method works against the good intentions. If RMS is really an unbearable issue for the whole community the lex talionis is not the right answer.
Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
This ancient rule about settling 1-on-1 disputes doesn't apply here either. RMS didn't do anything to me personally, and yet I believe based on his public words and the various accounts of people who have been around him in a public capacity that he shouldn't get the prominent public role of FSF board member. That's all there is to it.
Daniel
Daniel  
•
So do I but the people that publicly stood up against him aren't in a credible nor autonomous position.
Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
This is a very subjective stance. Although if you went over his public threads about controversial subjects and didn't see any problem with it regarding public representation, I understand why you would feel the need to discredit the people who publicly stood up to ask for his resignation from his public FSF role.
Daniel
Daniel  
•
I did not discredit anyone I just advanced reservation about their intellectual honesty; which I do not trust but you do.

Please don't raise up the topic of the sexual harassment cause there are plenty of real women's lawsuits against IBM, RH, M$, Google and more but none of those people stood up against those corporations... C'mon...
Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
Advancing reservation about someone's intellectual honesty without proof they lied is exactly what "discredit" is about.

I'm not sure why you're bringing a straw-man argument about private corporations into this conversation as they aren't anything like what the FSF is. Even if you were right that "none of those people stood up against those corporations" and you simply don't know that, it still wouldn't make their call for RMS to resign from the FSF again any less intellectually honest.

What you're doing is setting an impossible moral standard for people to reach and discredit them totally when they inevitably don't, which is textbook intellectual dishonesty.
This entry was edited (3 years ago)
Daniel
Daniel  
•
Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
You don't have to trust them personally for any reason, but as soon as you voice this reservation publicly like you're doing in this conversation, you better have substantial evidence/arguments to back this reservation otherwise you will expectedly be called out on it like I'm doing.

And no, "they work at a company I don't like the policies" isn't a substantial argument. Double measurement is actually a great part of having a good judgement. You need to be able to appreciate the context difference in order to be fair, otherwise, it'll go like this quote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

More importantly, we humans are extremely bad at appreciating other people's judgement based on our own biases and morals. This makes any accusation of "hypocrisy" like you've been doing pretty shallow for me since you just are showing you can't put your self in these people's shoes.
Daniel
Daniel  
•
Things are a little bit complex than the way your are laying them out; but basically because, I think, you are assuming that the previous resignation was fair and right.

On the contrary I think the former resignation was wrong while the mediatic campaign on top of that was a big mistification, but overall unrelated with the FSF, since happened in different place with a different role. -- Just to clarify RMS once again missed the opportunity to stay in silence -- and what is happened recently, for me, it is just the its prosecution, eventually are involved practically the same people using the same pattern.
Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
I tend to agree with you the first campaign was mostly unrelated to the FSF itself. However now the FSF is directly responsible since they privately elected to reinstate RMS as a member of the board after accepting his resignation. So now it actually is less about RMS than the FSF behavior.

If the initial resignation was wrong, they shouldn't have accepted it. Since they went forward with it for whatever reason, rolling it back now is just a terrible public move, and it has little to do with RMS's behavior and speech anymore.

So it really isn't the same issue anymore, although it isn't surprising the same people that were involved in the first campaign are involved in this one, after all RMS is on the FSF board, again.

Also I'd like you not to use any judiciary term about this event since this isn't a trial in a court of law.
Daniel
Daniel  
•
The FSF has been a disaster over last years, totally ineffective, a lot of the people against RMS don't follow it from centuries, no one actually follow him, but a lot of people have still a strong feeling against him.

I think the board should resign for the foolishness, who are those people? Anyone can change his mind but because the sensitive RMS' topic they demonstrated a complete lack of wisdom and communication.

I won't support the FSF anymore (I have been actually donate yearly), I engaged them on Fediverse and they never replied, I sent them a lot of emails and them never replied one.

FSF should be a beacon against some nefarious powers but at this point better crush it down and build something completely new. We cannot be anchored to him forever but so far someone with the guts and vision to go against the stream hasn't appear yet.
Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
I tend to agree with you about the FSF, however I don't agree with your dismissal of people who are against RMS despite not following him as I'm among them. Not following RMS is different from him being in a public representation position on the FSF board so regardless of what the FSF was and is now, I believe the initial calls for his resignation were justified. Since then the FSF has proven to be utterly terrible, and neither of these issues require to be actively following RMS to be relevant.
clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛
clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛  
•
@Daniel@Hypolite Petovan@Andy H3@silverwizard@David Revoy@Hank G ☑️ It's a pretty big difference between one of many individuals at a huge company being brought to justice for criminal behavior and the spokesperson, manager (back in 2019) and founder of a movement and two orgs being told he is not the best spokesperson and manager for the movement and the orgs.
@Hypolite Petovan @silverwizard @Andy H3 @David Revoy @Daniel @Hank G
silverwizard
silverwizard  
•
Is he claiming that the people who are saying RMS is bad because sexual harassment don't say other people are bad because sexual harassment?!
Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
Yes, and consequently they are unfairly targeting RMS for <unknown reason>.
Andy H3
Andy H3  
•
That's shocking. That says a lot about the board if that's true. What on earth are they doing?

Thanks @Hank G ☑️ I appricate the link.
@Hank G
Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
They are covering for a well-known creepy figure, this isn't a rare nor surprising behavior, unfortunately.
Andy H3
Andy H3  
•
But you see that's part if the problem. Reducing behaviour to creepiness is counter productive.

It has to be abound clear boundaries! Not about creeps and freaks!

Clearly unprofessional behaviour in the context of not-for-profit orgs and allegations of serious criminal deeds crosses the line.

There can be no excuse for this.
This entry was edited (3 years ago)
Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
What difference do you make between freaks and creeps? It is entirely possible to be freaky without being creepy, and the other way around.
Andy H3
Andy H3  
•
I'm sure there is a world of difference. But both are unhelpful reductions in this case.
Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
I don't think so, his creepy behavior is both what constitutes the unprofessional part, the sexual harassment part and the overall impropriety part. He isn't criticized because he is different (the usual "freak" definition), but because he is negatively affecting people around him (my "creepy" definition).
Andy H3
Andy H3  
•
He isn't criticized because he is different (the usual "freak" definition)

But don't you see my friend?

That's precisely what people have done. ' Oh he is just a freak...' That was the defense I assume by those who covered up.
Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
Ah yes, I see what you mean. That's exactly the dynamic at play pretending RMS is autistic and then casting any criticism of his as ableist.
⇧