Re: Support RMS

[quiliro]

Paul Sutton via libreplanet-discuss
<libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> writes:

> On 26/03/2021 15:54, 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
>> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
>> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
>>
>
>
> I agree, here,  there are clearly things that have happened that are
> of concern, but that seems to happen elsewhere in the free software,
> the tech community and out side too.
>
> What we need to do, is have very robust standards of how people
> behave, drawn up by and for the community, standards based on good
> practice from other communities, and look beyond free software. Ideas
> / policies need to be evidence, data based so that they are credible.
>
> Once done, and it will never get fully completed, as it is needs to be
> constantly refined, it is not a write once then forget thing.
>
> * Examine Annually, to make sure the policy / policies are still
> working, relevant, inclusive and represent everyone concerned.
>
> * Clear policy on training, of staff and new staff / volunteers so
> people are educated in equality and diversity.  If that means an
> agreed policy on pronouns it is then consistent fsf wide.
>
> * A clear policy on what happens, if a complaint is made, how it is
> handled, time scale and what, if any the consequences are, how are
> allegations handled for example?
>
> * Fully transparent,
>
> * Something that can be learnt from
>
> * Everyone agrees and no one is above this
>
> * A policy where you are innocent of a crime till proven guilty, this
> protects both victims and the accused.  Investigations should aim to
> reach the facts of what happened,
>
> * If these things are handled properly, there is no need to
> whistleblow or just leave which to me that is a last resort.
>
> * Make it clear what the talk is about, and the talk is relevant to
> free software, drm, etc, Right to repair or which ever it is,
>
> We have a safe space policy for libre  that states certain things are
> not tolerated.

This last statement sounds dictatorial.  I do generally agree make a
good environment as you have proposed, but clarifying that it should
not hurt freedom of speech.