[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[replying only to -vote - please avoid cross-posting!]

Quoting Dominik George (2021-03-26 11:05:26)
> Hi,
> > A General Resolution has been started about Richard Stallman's
> > readmission to the FSF board.
> > 
> > It currently has 1 available options, but other proposals have been suggested.
> I explicitly do NOT support this GR.
> My opinion, as laid out at
> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/issues/2285:
> 8><------------------------------------------------------------------
> With the FSFE freezing its collaboration with the FSF, projects
> signing open letters to effectively disassemble the FSF and the GNU
> project altogether, it seems we are officially at war.
> With all due respect to everyone who has been offended by Richard
> Stallman, feels oppressed by him, or is negatively affected by his
> views — every single such person has to be heard, their fears and
> sorrows been taken into account, and appropriate action been taken.
> As such, I am in full support of requiring the FSF board to instate
> an investigation committee, take letters from anyone affected, and
> hear these cases (including rms' position).
> What I do not support is forcing the disintegration of the FOSS
> community, even less in such crucial times. The COVID pandemic forces
> evryone to digitise the hell out of them and their organisations, and
> every action that weakens the FOSS movement in this ciritical process
> certainly does more harm to the ecosystem than a single person on any
> FOSS body's board ever could. Thus, I consider those responsible for
> this, in my opinion, thoughtless action harmful to the FOSS ecosystem.
> As already said, I am in full support of an investigation committee,
> and would immediately sign an open letter requesting the FSF to
> instate one (including a helpful list of requirements for this committee).
> Thanks for listening!
> P.S.: On a side note, hosting this thing on GitHub, which explicitly
> discriminates against parts of the community and is itself harmful to
> the FOSS ecosystem as a whole, is at least a bit weird.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------><8
> As such, I want to make the following amendment:
> 8><------------------------------------------------------------------
> Choice 2
> ========
> The Debian Project does not co-sign the statement regarding Richard
> Stallman's readmission to the FSF board seen at
> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md
> In its role as an important body in the free software world, the
> Project has made its members aware of the situation, and respects the
> opinion of all of its members. In doing so, every member is free to
> sign the statement, or to not do so.
> The Debian Project make an official statement, along the lines of:
> * We have learnt about rms being readmitted to the FSF board
> * We are aware of critical voices regarding the person known as rms,
>   and we take every single report very serously
> * Everyone who is affected by any action, opinion or statement of
>   rms can ask the Debian Anti Harassment team for support, and
>   the Anti Harassment team will suppor tthem in communicating with
>   the FSF and ensure their concerns are addresses
> * The Debian Project supports the instatement of an investigation
>   committee regarding all accusations against rms and asks the
>   FSF board to take such action, in close cooperation with other
>   organisations and in full transparency
> ------------------------------------------------------------------><8

I like the general framing of this proposal, but cannot second it due to 
details in it:

a) Seems to me that the statement implicitly expands the role of the 
Debian Harassment team from covering incidents within Debian to also 
cover Debian-external incidents related to RMS as well.  I think it is 
wrong to expand the role like that, and I think it is unnecessary for 
the general aim of this proposal to include that.

b) I worry that the word "support" in last paragraph is either too 
strong or has no real meaning: Does it imply that we promise to dedicate 
economic funds, or time, or people - or how do we truly "support"?  If 
the intended meaning is that we support only in spirit then I think it 
is better to not write it at all, because of the ambiguity and because 
arguably we already demonstrate our spiritual support by not sitting 
idly by but making an explicit statement.

Would you consider dropping or changing two last paragraphs, or are they 
crucial to the text you want on the ballot, Nik?

If you think it is ok to drop those two paragraphs, then perhaps it 
makes sense to work on merging this text with the other proposal for a 
brief non-signing statement.  How do you think about that, Nik?

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: