No

Posted Mar 25, 2021 16:01 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1)
In reply to: A new "board process" at the FSF by Deleted user 129183
Parent article: A new "board process" at the FSF

This is exactly the kind of comment I asked you not to post. We have been over this ground. Stop here, now.

No

Posted Mar 25, 2021 17:04 UTC (Thu) by Deleted user 129183 (guest, #129183) [Link]

I’m deeply sorry, but I felt that staying silent in face of injustice means that I tacitly approve of the injustice. Especially since this is the thing that touches me personally.

No

Posted Mar 26, 2021 0:20 UTC (Fri) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link] (3 responses)

I for one thought Polynka made a (to me) useful contribution. I made exactly one comment on the former post, I will make exactly one comment on this one.

The sudden concern with "democracy" within the FSF seems disingenuous, especially given the majority of the signatories of the poison pen letter against Stallman are members of commercial organizations whose only democracy is that of the almighty dollar, or non-profits which exist at the beneficience of the former.

Let's not be confused on what's really going on here. The "commons" carved out by the FSF was greatly enlarged in the 1990s after the vacuum left by the Unix wars of the 1980s and the rapid ascent of Microsoft. For a while, it was in the interest of the other manufacturers and players to contribute to this commons. But conditions are now different, the pull of gravity is toward the redivision of this commons, or at least preparing the grounds for it should it be necessary. This began with the creation, more or less ex nihilo, of "Open Source" -- and the long list of signatories against Stallman is dominated by figures associated with, and financial beneficiaries of that movement.

"The GPL is cancer" by other means...

The point of an organization like the FSF with a strong, and now minority, intellectual position, is precisely not to simply dilute the voting base to allow their position to be coopted. Those who are given voting privileges must have earned it through accepting the tenets of the organization and contributing to the refinement of the understanding of the struggle. The FSF is an organization with a viewpoint. To simply wash away that viewpoint destroys what has been most valuable of them -- and Stallman -- in their social and political function.

I hope very much that they will stand their ground uncompromisingly.

No

Posted Mar 26, 2021 8:36 UTC (Fri) by auc (subscriber, #45914) [Link]

Thank you for writing that.

No

Posted Mar 26, 2021 11:41 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

> especially given the majority of the signatories of the poison pen letter against Stallman are members of commercial organizations whose only democracy is that of the almighty dollar, or non-profits which exist at the beneficience of the former.

Er... what's the third alternative? Are signatories only to be considered acceptable if they're entirely unemployed? Maybe you'd allow academia, but this seems somewhat *arbitrary* to me as a distinction, unless you think that all the signatories are acting as lackeys of their employers. (This seems unlikely: more than any other field I've ever seen, free software development is rooted in its people, and the positions follow the people around, even as their employers change names.)

No

Posted Mar 26, 2021 15:01 UTC (Fri) by vadim (subscriber, #35271) [Link]

I agree that there's a bunch of issues and interests here. And that perhaps RMS isn't being criticized in an entirely fair way.

All the same I'd say that while his views on software freedom are good and valuable and should remain in force, he's not an effective leader either in the matter of advancing the FSF's agenda, nor in software development.

He did a good thing that's very worthy of recognition, but the FSF would be much better off finding somebody else who does a better job of representing the same ideals.