Re: Support RMS

[Aaron Wolf]

Thanks for sharing this perspective. Accepting it at face value, it
reinforces so strongly my view that the open letter against RMS and
other things should have focused *exclusively* on these types of things.
This is a boy-cried-wolf situation. If the debate were strictly on this
type of thing and not on unfair interpretations of some of RMS'
writings, I don't know how it would turn out, but it would be a much
more constructive and useful discussion.

When people continue to levy exaggerated attacks, it undermines
legitimate concerns. People get defensive and then start wondering if
the legitimate concerns are really part of the exaggerations or the
people expressing them part of some outraged outside attackers or something.

On 2021-03-31 7:38 a.m., Danny Spitzberg wrote:
> Below, history of the FSF union and how it was intentionally created to
> overcome bad behavior and poor leadership from RMS (he didn’t believe in
> time of to mourn dead family members?!). A healthy and sustainable FSF
> is important for the free/libre software movement. And... It’s healthy
> to have constructive criticism. It shows trust and interest. FSF Can
> become better. And from this narrative, it sounds like several staff and
> board members struggled to make that happen, instead of simply denying
> grievances.
> 
> “RMS created non-safe spaces at both MIT & the FSF. When I was at the
> FSF, RMS had little to no empathy for the staff. The FSF was not a
> healthy, functional workplace. We formed a union to help protect
> ourselves from RMS — he controlled our pay, benefits, and workplace
> conditions.
> 
> Everything was controlled by RMS — not the executive director, and not
> the board. The union helped turn FSF employment into what most people
> think of as a "normal" office job. It didn't fix everything. Some of the
> issues that we did fix:
> 
> RMS did not believe in providing raises — prior cost of living
> adjustments were a battle and not annual. RMS believed that if a
> precedent was created for increasing wages, the logical conclusion would
> be that employees would be paid infinity dollars and the FSF would go
> bankrupt.
> 
> RMS did not believe in providing bereavement leave. What if all your
> close friends and family die one after another? It's conceivable you
> would be gone from the office for days, or weeks, if not months. What if
> you lie about who is dying?
> 
> RMS would often throw tantrums and threaten to fire employees for
> perceived infractions. FSF staff had to show up to work each day, not
> knowing if RMS had eliminated their position the night before.
> 
> RMS has not apologized for the harm he's caused. Both MIT & the FSF
> successfully separated themselves from RMS in 2019. Why did the secret
> group of voting FSF members reelect him to the board? Why.“
> 
> From 
> https://twitter.com/paulnivin/status/1377079987950395393
> <https://twitter.com/paulnivin/status/1377079987950395393>
> 
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 2:14 PM quiliro <quiliro@riseup.net
> <mailto:quiliro@riseup.net>> wrote:
> 
>     Danny Spitzberg <stationaery@gmail.com
>     <mailto:stationaery@gmail.com>> writes:
> 
>     > Ali, I’m disappointed but not surprised you came to that
>     conclusion yet
>     > again. The history seems to be the opposite: FSF staff organized a
>     union
>     > because RMS was causing harm and dysfunction, and at best, RMS
>     went along
>     > and accepted it as a net positive state of affairs.
> 
>     Does all FSF support your view or is it just a hunch of yours?
>