DeVault: Reforming the free software message

Posted Jun 20, 2023 6:25 UTC (Tue) by ddevault (subscriber, #99589)
In reply to: DeVault: Reforming the free software message by ddevault
Parent article: DeVault: Reforming the free software message

Oh, and for the record, I also reached out to RMS directly around the time I wrote the April blog post. He responded by inviting me to a meeting, which I agreed to and offered a suitable few time slots -- I never heard back from him.

DeVault: Reforming the free software message

Posted Jun 20, 2023 18:08 UTC (Tue) by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418) [Link] (3 responses)

Well, that is part of the problem, you didn't reach out to the FSF. https://www.fsf.org/about/contact/email For questions about the FSF campaigns, including public relations and press inquiries: campaigns@fsf.org

RMS is a board member, and FSF has published something to help avoid mistaken assumptions about what that means: https://www.fsf.org/about/board-of-directors-code-of-ethics
"Board members shall not speak on behalf of the FSF unless given explicit permission. Directors must not represent that their authority as board members extends any further than it actually extends. The board speaks as a whole, not as individuals."

And more relevant information:
https://www.fsf.org/about/staff-and-board/board

DeVault: Reforming the free software message

Posted Jun 20, 2023 18:16 UTC (Tue) by SLi (subscriber, #53131) [Link]

I'm sorry, but that's just not how communicating works. If a board member is speaking about issues central to the organization and not making clear they're not speaking for the organization, it's not redeemed by the fact that there's some obscure note somewhere saying otherwise. Really, you are responsible for the right message getting through. That involves proactively pushing for it, not merely making the pieces available on your website. This is doubly true if you are aware that a certain board member tends to be strongly associated with the organization in the minds of the public.

DeVault: Reforming the free software message

Posted Jun 20, 2023 18:21 UTC (Tue) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (1 responses)

He did reach out to the FSF - if RMS is a board member, and he's approached for something that the FSF should deal with, then it is RMS's responsibility (both moral and in many cases legal) to make sure that it's routed to the right people at the FSF.

That an outsider didn't follow FSF processes is not on the outsider - it's on the FSF board member who failed to handle the query correctly. And same applies if you're reaching out to somewhere like Amazon, Google or Facebook - if you reach out to Jeff Bezos, Larry Page or Mark Zuckerberg for something that's relevant to their respective companies, it's not on you to follow their corporate procedures, it's on the recipient to do so.

The only alternative action you can take that doesn't reflect on your organisation is to simply not respond at all, so that the person who reached out looks for alternative contact routes.

DeVault: Reforming the free software message

Posted Jun 20, 2023 18:50 UTC (Tue) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]

Everyone in the organization, from CEO to the lowliest intern, should know this stuff. People will try to contact random people in your organization, both because that's the email they happen to have and because they're trying to get comments from someone other than the official channel. You need to teach everyone in the organization how to deal with it, and the best approach is just to have them forward the message to the right person. My general approach is to say something like, "Sorry, I'm the wrong person to talk to about this. You should try contacting our Strategic Communications department at foobar@example.com, who I have CCed on this message." It's simple, direct, and gets me out of the way as quickly as possible.