Re: Support RMS

[Danny Spitzberg]

   I don’t know you say it’s simply a lie. Here’s another testimony from
   former a SFS staff member:
   “I worked at the FSF for 3 years and volunteered for over 6 years —
   that ended in 2004. I witnessed misogyny, sexual objectification, and
   abuse carried out by RMS. I banded together with my coworkers, formed a
   union, negotiated a contract, and was elected shop steward.
   While RMS started the free software movement and the GNU GPL was a
   groundbreaking document, the community still has a right to hold him to
   account for his abhorrent actions and harmful speech. RMS should not be
   part of the FSF.
   The movement has grown larger than one person. We need leaders that are
   inclusive and treat all humans with the respect and dignity that they
   deserve. I cannot support a Free Software Foundation that enables RMS.
   During my time at the FSF, I helped create the associate membership
   program, significantly broadening the financial support base for the
   non-profit and encouraging a robust dialogue between supporters and the
   FSF. Donors have power over the FSF. Use it.”
   He then adds as a PS that the previous testimony is an accurate account
   of why staff unionized: to protect against RMS’s behavior.
   From
   [1]https://twitter.com/paulnivin/status/1374499598853545986
   On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 10:51 AM Thomas Lord <[2]lord@basiscraft.com>
   wrote:

   "It is union to try to protect people from RMS. / That's it. That's the
   reason."

    As a matter of history that is simply and purely a lie.

   I don't see any of that kind of complaint, at this point, as anything
   less or more than direct attempts to sabotage the FSF, the FSM, and
   GNU.     It has no place here.  You are free not to associate with the
   FSF and you should, it would seem, take that option.

   -t

   On 2021-03-26 10:46, Danny Spitzberg wrote:

   A union certainly helped everyone set and keep healthy boundaries. I
   have no doubt RMS was supportive. Like Paul suggested, a set of
   community agreements or a code of conduct or a contributor covenant or
   whatever is generally a good thing.

   But as for the reason why staff organized the union — you may call it
   silly, but here is the testimony in their own words:

   " I think that many people do not know that the FSF is a union shop, or
   why.

   It is union to try to protect people from RMS.

   That's it. That's the reason.

   Knowing some of the story about how this came to be, it really informed
   my own thinking about what a union can do, and can't do.

   Unionizing provided protections and standard benefits (like berievement
   leave) for workers at FSF. It could not remove RMS from a position of
   power.

   I think the issue for workers at the time was that RMS held unchecked
   authority. It did not matter that there was a board of FSF: you could
   not tell RMS what to do.

   Using the power that the law provides to force negotiations on a
   written contract was the only option.

   That is just... Not normal. Right?"

   From
   [3]https://twitter.com/_msw_/status/1374538607982088197

   On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 10:40 AM Thomas Lord <[4]lord@basiscraft.com>
   wrote:

   That's silly.  The FSF was unionized with the encouragement and support
   of the FSF executives and board, including RMS, because unions are
   good, at least while the injustice of wage labor still exists.

   > he also caused harm to people and to the FSF organization and the
   free software movement.

   I regard that as a straight up lie because none of the derogatory
   things said about him have supported that conclusion.

   Once again,  you are free not to associate with the FSF or the
   movement, but pretending to be an ally while repeating slanders should
   not be tolerated here or anywhere.

   -t



   On 2021-03-26 10:32, Danny Spitzberg wrote:

   Consider the fact that several FSF staff are going public for having
   organized and joined a union in order to protect themselves against the
   whims and wills of RMS, like if he suddenly decided to take away health
   insurance for everyone or other workplace dysfunction.



   Forming a union and finally talking about it isn't "whistleblowing"
   because obviously the staff and board chose to contain the problem
   rather than solve or eliminate it.



   However, I think we can agree that it's compelling nonetheless and adds
   to the view that while RMS contributed good things, he also caused harm
   to people and to the FSF organization and the free software movement.

   On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 10:25 AM Thomas Lord <[5]lord@basiscraft.com>
   wrote:

     It's wrong to describe people as "whistle blowers" when they
     have not produced a complaint that stands up to scrutiny.
     -t
     On 2021-03-26 08:54, Aaron Wolf wrote:
     > I really appreciate seeing the perspective from Georgia. Thanks
     also
     > deeply to Deb Nicholson for engaging here in this space.
     Obviously,
     > these negative reports about RMS being presented *here* amounts to
     the
     > opposite of an echo-chamber. These voices are bring extremely
     valuable
     > perspective — the sort we *lose* if we aren't careful to assure
     that
     > our
     > spaces are not only open to anyone but actually in *practice* have
     them
     > feel welcome and stay.
     >
     > The Free Software movement is weaker for every loss of
     perspective. We
     > have a duty to be not only gracious but appreciative of people
     like Deb
     > for engaging and staying with us despite the tensions.
     >
     > Georgia's line is exceptionally important: "...the fact that he
     faced
     > consequences for his creepy Epdtein-adjacent comments and not the
     > decades of shitty behavior..."

     >
     > These are not people who are dogpiling on hearsay or gotcha online
     > statements or whatever else. Those anti-patterns do indeed happen,
     and
     > they polluted and harmed the credibility of the recent open letter
     > against RMS. But here we have people who fully understand the
     > unfairness
     > and yet can express from extensive personal experience the
     *actual*
     > reasons why RMS's leadership is problematic.
     >
     > As someone who deeply and profoundly respects RMS for various
     reasons,
     > I
     > still don't just simply support his leadership role. I do not want
     him
     > banished, I want him to learn and do better on his pain points. I
     don't
     > want to be naive though, efforts in this direction have obviously
     been
     > done for years and not been enough.
     >
     > I would like to continue to get RMS' insightful and pointed
     > perspectives
     > without having him lead the organization. I would like him to live
     in
     > the zone where his genius most thrives and he contributes the
     most, and
     > I suggest that the other roles he has had would be better filled
     by
     > others.
     >
     > If we want a resilient movement, we need to be really open to
     engaging
     > with complaints. An organization that defends the status quo
     against
     > such critics is like the NSA attacking Ed Snowden and people
     > insinuating
     > that Snowden is working for Russia (similar to people talking
     about how
     > Deb now works for the OSI and the OSI is connected to
     corporations).
     >
     > I'm not suggesting deference to the outside unfair critics, the
     people
     > who do indeed levy unfair attacks, mine quotes, spread FUD, etc.
     That
     > stuff can be real, and we need to defend against it.
     >
     > But people like Deb are our whistleblowers, they are insiders who
     are
     > bringing attention to serious issues. If we ignore or attack
     > whistleblowers, we will fail to learn important lessons. This
     attitude
     > can be fatal to a movement.
     >
     > In solidarity,
     > Aaron Wolf
     > (FSF member since 2014, co-founder of Snowdrift.coop)
     >
     >
     >
     > _______________________________________________
     > libreplanet-discuss mailing list
     > [6]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
     >
     [7]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discus
     s
     _______________________________________________
     libreplanet-discuss mailing list
     [8]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
     [9]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discus
     s

References

   1. https://twitter.com/paulnivin/status/1374499598853545986
   2. mailto:lord@basiscraft.com
   3. https://twitter.com/_msw_/status/1374538607982088197
   4. mailto:lord@basiscraft.com
   5. mailto:lord@basiscraft.com
   6. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   7. https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
   8. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   9. https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss