The conclusion of the FSF board review [LWN.net]

The Free Software Foundation has announced the completion of the review of its board of directors; the process resulted in the reconfirmation of all five sitting board members.

The review examined board members Ian Kelling, Geoffrey Knauth, Henry Poole, Richard Stallman, and Gerald Sussman. The process generated detailed philosophical and policy discussions between board members and the FSF's global associate members on topics ranging from the firmness of the Free Software Definition, developments in machine learning, to the board's president position.

to post comments

What even was the point of this?

Posted Apr 30, 2025 15:58 UTC (Wed) by chexo4 (subscriber, #169500) [Link] (32 responses)

“We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong”

What even was the point of this?

Posted Apr 30, 2025 17:06 UTC (Wed) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link] (11 responses)

It was an opportunity for them to do a mea culpa. They failed to do so.

What even was the point of this?

Posted Apr 30, 2025 17:13 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (1 responses)

Reminds me of the recent OSI election retrospective covered in https://lwn.net/Articles/1019215/. It all feels very superficial. I am not sure what purpose this serves.

What even was the point of this?

Posted Apr 30, 2025 17:44 UTC (Wed) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]

It's the same thing. OSI *could* have said "we were flying by the seat of our pants and we made a bad call, we're sorry, here's how we're fixing it". They didn't. That's disappointing.

What even was the point of this?

Posted Apr 30, 2025 19:51 UTC (Wed) by intelfx (subscriber, #130118) [Link] (7 responses)

> It was an opportunity for them to do a mea culpa. They failed to do so.

What exactly were they supposed to claim themselves culpable of?

What even was the point of this?

Posted Apr 30, 2025 20:52 UTC (Wed) by algesten (subscriber, #153363) [Link] (6 responses)

Stallman made what seems like a fake resignation from the board, only to come back 18 months later when the media cycle around him slowed down. As far as I know he never backed down from claiming that Epstein's/Minsky's victim was "presented herself as entirely willing".

What even was the point of this?

Posted Apr 30, 2025 21:19 UTC (Wed) by fwyzard (subscriber, #90840) [Link] (2 responses)

And one person's private opinions have exactly what to do with their institutional role in a foundation ?

Let's pause

Posted Apr 30, 2025 21:28 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (1 responses)

I'd like to ask everybody involved in this conversation to pause for just a moment and be sure that you are not just replaying the discussions that have happened over the years on this topic. There is not much point in going through all of that again.

Let's pause

Posted May 1, 2025 14:16 UTC (Thu) by anarcat (subscriber, #66354) [Link]

On the other hand, this is a fantastic opportunity to build a good block list, thanks to that nice little "mute" button you added there. :P Going to save myself a lot of pain in future similar threads, thanks!

What even was the point of this?

Posted Apr 30, 2025 22:13 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (1 responses)

> As far as I know he never backed down from claiming that Epstein's/Minsky's victim was "presented herself as entirely willing".

How can he back down from something he never said?

The actual quote:

"We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.
Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates."

Stallman is nothing but excessively pedantic. So pillory him for what he actually wrote, not something that's been through numerous rounds of deliberate outrage telephony.

What even was the point of this?

Posted May 19, 2025 13:32 UTC (Mon) by sheepdestroyer (guest, #54968) [Link]

It must tiring to always, necessarily, have to be excessively pedantic, given the alternative (mea culpa, and all)

What even was the point of this?

Posted May 6, 2025 21:04 UTC (Tue) by amarao (guest, #87073) [Link]

Why this is important for free software?

If I farted in church, do I ineliggle for free software activities?

What even was the point of this?

Posted Apr 30, 2025 19:53 UTC (Wed) by Shiba (guest, #151620) [Link]

Too bad they didn't ask some deranged Fediverse community for their opinion.

What even was the point of this?

Posted Apr 30, 2025 20:48 UTC (Wed) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link] (19 responses)

Indeed. The "problem" was bowing to the witch-hunting mob that had neither interest nor good faith in free software and parting company for a time with Stallman. They had already recovered from that, and this process verified it.

Those looking now merely to stir the pot further are the usual critics of the FSF who would rather it dissolve itself into the OSI and liquidate the GPL into pilferable licenses for the interests of their corporate sponsors.

Disappointment in all directions

Posted Apr 30, 2025 21:06 UTC (Wed) by dkg (subscriber, #55359) [Link] (18 responses)

Please don't insult your fellow free software developers who actually prefer our organizations to be principled, inclusive, and community-oriented by accusing us of being shills for vultures on top of the collapse of these once-proud institutions. We have enough grief to process this year as it is.

It's entirely possible to wish that both the OSI and the FSF were more ethical and responsible organizations, and to be disappointed with the shenanigans from both of them, without hoping to "pilfer" anything that was dependent on either of them, or being aligned with any corporate sponsors.

Indeed, any vulture-like "corporate sponsors" lurking in the wings will surely be pleased that both organizations are all too willing to squander the good will and community focus that they once had, leaving any dependent projects easier pickings.

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 1, 2025 11:20 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (17 responses)

"free software developers who actually prefer our organizations to be principled, inclusive"

FSF's staff has gender parity. The LGBT community is also well represented and this has been true for many years.

FSF has been doing the "inclusive" work long before others began.

And of course they're principled. Many find them too principled. That's why "open source" was coined. To talk about the software without leading anyone to hear about the principles of the free software movement.

FSF is exactly who we need.

Some of their interesting work right now is about the criteria for approving AI in a free software system. Here's a recent presentation: https://fosdem.org/2025/schedule/event/fosdem-2025-4818-f...

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 1, 2025 12:05 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (16 responses)

As someone who's seen more of how the sausage is made than you: no. Absolutely no. I believe that the majority of the board are good people - I do not believe that the majority of the board has a good understanding of the difficulties people other than straight cis white men face in the free software community. The idea that the FSF has been doing more inclusive work than anyone else where is indescribably insulting to the people who've compromised their careers to stand up for these issues. The FSF should absolutely be obnoxious when it comes to principles, but that's led to the utterly fucked up situation where people believe that any criticism is due to the principles rather than the practice. I'm glad that Maria and Christina are there, but please don't interpret some degree of wider representation as evidence of support of the wider struggle for equality.

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 1, 2025 17:01 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

I disagree.

"As someone who's seen more of how the sausage is made than you"

That's debatable. (Yes, I know you were previously on the board.)

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 4, 2025 14:38 UTC (Sun) by rbranco (subscriber, #129813) [Link] (12 responses)

This is the kind of divisive language, taken verbatim from so-called critical theories, that we should strive to avoid in the future.

Nerds suck at politics and this kind of extracurricular activism brings more harm than good.

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 4, 2025 16:46 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (11 responses)

The GNU Manifesto is far more a political document than a technical one, focusing on proprietary software as an attack on essential liberties. Even if we frame the rest of the free software movement as apolitical for the sake of argument, it's nonsense to suggest that the FSF is anything other than an inherently political organisation.

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 4, 2025 20:09 UTC (Sun) by rbranco (subscriber, #129813) [Link] (10 responses)

The GNU Manifesto focuses on one thing only. Being a party in the culture war is an entirely different beast.

Let's also avoid falling into trap of "everything is political". That's platitudes. When everything is political, nothing is.

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 4, 2025 22:08 UTC (Sun) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (9 responses)

> Let's also avoid falling into trap of "everything is political". That's platitudes. When everything is political, nothing is.

So basically, you think we should all go off in hair shirts to live alone in caves as hermits?

Politics (big P) may be the art working together with others to achieve big aims, but politics (small p) is the art of getting along. If you don't want to indulge in politics, you need to opt out of society.

And sometimes being political means you need to say harsh truths. No I don't like it, but burying your head in the sand when other people are talking rubbish isn't a good idea. Which then leads into Religion/religion (same sort of big R little r distinction).

What's the saying? "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts". Admittedly, made all the more complicated by the fact that some facts are just facts, while, as Einstein observed, some facts do really depend on the viewpoint of the observer.

Cheers,
Wol

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 5, 2025 6:37 UTC (Mon) by rbranco (subscriber, #129813) [Link] (8 responses)

> Politics (big P) may be the art working together with others to achieve big aims, but politics (small p) is the art of getting along. If you don't want to indulge in politics, you need to opt out of society.

Computer geeks suck at p, so we end up with petty politics dividing communities. The FSF must not be hijacked for these.

> And sometimes being political means you need to say harsh truths. No I don't like it, but burying your head in the sand when other people are talking rubbish isn't a good idea. Which then leads into Religion/religion (same sort of big R little r distinction).

Sometimes those "harsh truths" are plain nonsense. One common occurrence is Popper's paradox taken out of context, capitalism vs socialism, etc. This is worsened by the fact that computer geeks are the most affected by the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Wild political theories must not pushed like a religion on everyone.

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 6, 2025 15:28 UTC (Tue) by lunaryorn (guest, #111088) [Link] (7 responses)

Petty politics already exist within these communities, they already devide these communities, all the time. You just didn't notice yet because so far you always ended up the inner side of the dividing line. You probably didn't even see the line.

But the line exists, and some people are now starting to tear it apart because they belive that our software communities shouldn't casually exclude the majority of our societies, so you're only now starting to see the dividing line.

And that makes you afraid, because for the first time ever you fear you'll find suddenly yourself on the wrong side of the line. Which is how just about half of our society has always felt when it comes to our free software communities...

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 6, 2025 17:47 UTC (Tue) by rbranco (subscriber, #129813) [Link] (6 responses)

You make far too many assumptions about me.

I saw the FOSS crowd sheer Hugo Chávez in the World Social Forum in Venezuela. RMS has idiotic views about him. But I don't judge people based on their political views... I learned to dismiss those.

I think I know a thing or two about true division and polarization. When society is teared in half, you haven't seen half of the movie yet. There comes a stage where people in each half tear each other apart. If you want to see the whole movie, allow extremists to hijack existing organizations.

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 6, 2025 18:20 UTC (Tue) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (5 responses)

> But I don't judge people based on their political views... I learned to dismiss those.

That attitude works great... until the day you wake up to find that the leopards are about to eat your face.

> If you want to see the whole movie, allow extremists to hijack existing organizations.

No need to get hypothetical; we're now seeing this happen in real time to a >200-year-old organization that has a literal army at its disposal.

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 6, 2025 19:41 UTC (Tue) by rbranco (subscriber, #129813) [Link] (4 responses)

> That attitude works great... until the day you wake up to find that the leopards are about to eat your face.

To a commonplace expression I can only reply with another: It takes two to tango...

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 6, 2025 20:52 UTC (Tue) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (3 responses)

> But I don't judge people based on their political views... I learned to dismiss those.
> To a commonplace expression I can only reply with another: It takes two to tango...

You appear to be contradicting yourself.

Maybe this has more than run its course?

Posted May 6, 2025 21:01 UTC (Tue) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]

I don't see this sub-thread going anywhere useful for anyone ...

can we please just end it here?

thanks,

jake

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 7, 2025 10:23 UTC (Wed) by rbranco (subscriber, #129813) [Link] (1 responses)

> You appear to be contradicting yourself.

No I don't. I happen to distrust people complaining about first world problems because they end up preaching third-worldism and cozying up to third-world tyrants.

RMS is radical enough in his own way to risk replacing him with someone even more radical, specially after the coward and lame attempts to smear him. It should give us a new appreciation for the State monopoly on justice, which is preferable to mob lynching.

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 7, 2025 12:42 UTC (Wed) by daroc (editor, #160859) [Link]

This subthread doesn't seem likely to add much new to the discussion; let's stop the conversation here, please.

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 5, 2025 9:17 UTC (Mon) by jhe (guest, #164815) [Link] (1 responses)

> I do not believe that the majority of the board has a good understanding of the difficulties people other than straight cis white men face in the free software community

You frame it as it needs to be told and then it would work out fine. They got told already, and the knowledge did not come across, still. Where is the issue? (open question)

Disappointment in all directions

Posted May 5, 2025 18:53 UTC (Mon) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link]

Knowledge of somebody else's lived experience rarely comes across, for several reasons:

* The full story is usually very long.
* Individual pieces of the story usually do not sound very compelling in isolation (the story is not about any one event, it is about larger patterns of events).
* Especially when speaking to more scientifically-minded or engineering-minded people, there is a faint stigma associated with "anecdotal" evidence. In contexts where no other form of evidence can reasonably exist, there is a tendency to dismiss the entire subject matter as inherently subjective and meaningless.
* When cherished people or beliefs are challenged, there is a tendency to refuse to engage with the evidence, to rationalize it away, to repeatedly move the goalposts, or to otherwise engage in special pleading.
* The fundamental attribution error predisposes us to place greater weight on our own lived experiences than on somebody else's lived experiences, so where they differ, we tend to interpret that difference in favor of our own experiences.
* The various -isms (racism, sexism, etc.) have been with us for centuries, if not millenia, but for some reason, some engineering-minded people seem to think that you can solve these ancient problems with top-down magic words such as "meritocracy" and "consensus," rather than the hard work of self-reflection that would otherwise need to be done on an individual, bottom-up level. When presented with the option to do nothing and make it Somebody Else's Problem, there is a strong human tendency towards that option, so these people are far more persuasive than the evidence should allow.