Re: why isn't stallman on lp2022 speakers list?

[Kaio Duarte Costa]

Em 2022-03-06 13:18, Dora Scilipoti escreveu:
> On 3/6/22 03:25, Kaio Duarte Costa wrote:
>> Em 2022-03-05 19:46, Dora Scilipoti escreveu:
> 
>> In the event, I was not mistaken about the first part of my text. In
>> fact, I didn't say that his participation would replace another or that
>> others would do this as well, he is certainly welcome to participate and
>> sign up when there is the process again. I believe that he, as well as
>> anyone else, will never be prevented from participating without good
>> reason!
> 
> True, you didn't say that. Your argument was that he hadn't gone through
> the application process, therefore it would be unfair. What I was trying
> to say is that it wouldn't be unfair because he wouldn't be taking
> anybody's place (last Thursday it was announced that the early
> registration had been extended until March 6.)
> 
> 
>>> But you are right. He probably didn't apply and thus didn't fill the
>>> forms. That's because applying is something he never did before. If for
>>> whatever reason the organizers wanted to change this tradition, the
>>> least they could have done to avoid all this is to inform him: "Richard,
>>> this year you won't be invited by default, you need to apply." But they
>>> didn't, AFAICT.
>>
>> Regarding the other question, if he wants to participate, why didn't he
>> ask the LibrePlanet Organization Team if he would be invited?
> 
> If you read again what I wrote above, you will see my point, but I
> will try again.
> 
> RMS never had to apply, his speaking there was "by default," so to
> speak. How would you expect a man who works 18 hours a day --for both
> the FSF and GNU-- addressing a number of complicated issues
> simultaneously, having to keep them in mind all the time, to even
> remotely think that this year things at LP have changed and all of the
> sudden he is expected not only to apply, but to apply on time?
> 
> I believe it's the organizer's job to inform him.
> 
>> And then,
>> in the same way, did other people who were interested in seeing him
>> speak, ask the team?
> 
> For the same reason I explained above. People found out only after the
> schedule was published. They were taken by surprise.
> 
>> Surely, if this was not
>> intentional, they would find a way to fit it into the schedule.
> 
> It was probably not intentional, although strange. Most importantly, I'm
> not even sure RMS himself feels it is _that_ important for him to speak.
> He's awfully busy. It is possible that he would dismiss the whole thing
> with a "Oh, I forgot to apply."
> 
> 
>> At least I, regardless of being invited or not, would expect people to
>> sign up and do the same process, because the process should be the same
>> for everyone.
> 
> Organizers will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that
> the process is not the same for everyone. Some speakers have to be
> specifically invited.
> 
> I believe that some keynote speakers are specifically contacted and
> invited to participate in the event. This is likely to happen in the
> case of some keynote speakers.
> 
> To name just one, Edward Snowden was a keynote speaker at LP not long
> ago. I may be wrong, but chances are he did not submit an application.
> https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/libreplanet-2016-the-last-lighthouse-3d51/
> 
> Assuming I am correct that Snowden did not go through the usual
> application procedure, I will also assume that none of the other
> speakers --I'd dare emphasize, *none*-- complained about it.
> 
> As you can see in the video, Snowden was acclaimed by a standing
> audience at LP, and I believe RMS was among that audience. I will take
> this opportunity to say, for those who don't know him, that RMS is a
> humble person, just the contrary of what he has often been accused of,
> being self-centered. We all need to learn to be a bit less pretentious.
> 
> This takes us to the question of whether all leaders are equal. Of
> course at a human level we are equals, but not when it comes to what
> each of us do or has accomplished in life. I lead two small GNU
> projects, I have achieved some good results in my local group of free
> software activists as well as with other political causes in my youth. I
> don't think my achievements are equal to those of RMS in the field of
> software freedom or to those of Snowden in the political field.
> 
> 
>> After all, we are all activists and want to be heard,
>> right? [...]
> 
> Right.
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Regarding "Hero Worship" as some say, I may have misunderstood, but I
>> have felt in some e-mails that certain individuals speak in a way that
>> sounds worshipful. And I, in my personal opinion, do not support that.
> 
> That's because some people are more passionate than others. It can be a
> matter of personality or culture. It is important not to use it as an
> excuse to dismiss their opinions, if we want to be serious about
> inclusion. Such an attitude can hurt a lot, it can easily lead
> people to self-censorship or even to leave. I've seen it.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Thank you for the conversation.

Good Sunday to you Dora,

> True, you didn't say that. Your argument was that he hadn't gone through
> the application process, therefore it would be unfair. What I was trying
> to say is that it wouldn't be unfair because he wouldn't be taking
> anybody's place (last Thursday it was announced that the early
> registration had been extended until March 6.)

Okay, I understood the point that he won't fill anyone's space (i.e., no
one will be removed because of him), but I meant that it's unfair by
those who went through this process, waited the right deadline, and
signed up. In other words, can he still be placed this year? Possibly
yes, but possibly not in any way as I described in the previous message,
not least because I see that the organizing committee is extremely
organized.

In the case of the extended application, if he does apply, surely the
committee must analyze it in the same way as everyone else and may
accept him or not. 

> If you read again what I wrote above, you will see my point, but I
> will try again.
> 
> RMS never had to apply, his speaking there was "by default," so to
> speak. How would you expect a man who works 18 hours a day --for both
> the FSF and GNU-- addressing a number of complicated issues
> simultaneously, having to keep them in mind all the time, to even
> remotely think that this year things at LP have changed and all of the
> sudden he is expected not only to apply, but to apply on time?

Dora, I understand and respect your point. However, I remember a phrase
by Gabriela Guimarães that says: "Do your best, prepare for the worst,
expect nothing from anyone, and whatever comes is profit".

What I meant by this is that you shouldn't expect anything from anyone,
especially in something that is never the same people. Sometimes new
people came in, and they didn't even consider this, and just like anyone
else, they thought he would sign up. Even, I don't believe that this
"Speak by default" thing is a good thing. I agree that there can be
standard speeches by position or organization, for example, there is the
FSF speech, and then whoever represents the foundation will speak there.
But not from individuals, as this doesn't sound fair to the process
again.

However, in relation to the work and what he gets involved/participates
in, those are different things. He is doing his job, his duties and
responsibilities, as is the organizer of the event. It may not be his
(the organizer's) job to do this, and since he may or may not have had
contact from Richard about this issue, nothing was done.

> For the same reason I explained above. People found out only after the
> schedule was published. They were taken by surprise.

They were taken by surprise because they didn't question the organizing
committee about this, or Richard himself. Sometimes, if they had
questioned him, he would have been surprised and would have contacted
the committee about it. So I think this is something that everybody can
do when they are not completely sure about something, they can question
the person or the organization of it.

> Organizers will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that
> the process is not the same for everyone. Some speakers have to be
> specifically invited.

Dora, I talked about that too. But I will speak again, some people, they
will be invited in advance or during the process clearly, there are
always surprises, cool things, and I think this is very good! But the
people on the committee have possibly evaluated you internally,
deliberated about, and would ask you if you want to participate and
charge you for your information and what you will talk about. If you
look closely, you will see that they do a similar process to another
however, they charge for information, are asked about your time, and are
approved regardless of whether you are invited or registered. 

> That's because some people are more passionate than others. It can be a
> matter of personality or culture. It is important not to use it as an
> excuse to dismiss their opinions, if we want to be serious about
> inclusion. Such an attitude can hurt a lot, it can easily lead
> people to self-censorship or even to leave. I've seen it.

Right, it is not a problem that people like someone better for
something, and of course they should not be removed from the debates
because of this. But inclusion is about welcoming everyone and therefore
all sides can express themselves but there must be mutual respect. I for
one do not agree with the worship culture, and I have my reasons for
that. However, I have not stopped, excluded or disrespected anyone for
having a different view than mine. And I think this preserves good
interaction!

--
Kaio Duarte Costa (Kaiod)