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

Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:17 AM Dmitry Smirnov <onlyjob@debian.org> wrote:
> Cancel "culture" arrived in Debian and it threatens the project:
>  * https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002
> Cancel "culture" activists want Debian to sign a petition regarding
> Richard Stallman's membership in the Board of Directors of the Free Software
> Foundation.

I don't want to start yet another big discussion, but I think this
isn't about cancel
culture. Nobody wants to disregard the achievements of RMS. I feel this is
more about the picture the FSF as *the* free software foundation represents.
It's supposed to represent everyone who fights for a future where software is
open, just like we do. But the way RMS got back on the board (I mean not
even the fr*cking FSFE knew about that before the public announcement), is just
something that shouldn't happen. And there was no apology from RMS (afaik)
whatsoever for anything he was criticized for, which is bad for a
foundation that
wants to represent free software as a whole and everyone involved.

Calling for RMS to step back, and everyone who was involved in that decision,
really has nothing to do with cancel culture. We as a project that believes that
diversity and democracy is important should *at least* publish a statement
addressing these issues without signing (e.g. like KDE or the FSFE).
Doing nothing is just straight ignorant, it's like saying "yeah we do
free software
but we don't really care what *the* free software foundation does". It
just doesn't
fit together.

Obviously, everyone is free to disagree and can sign the support
letter. There is
no problem with that even if the project as a whole signs the opposite letter.
I have yet to see someone that blames someone for not signing the open letter,
I only really saw it the other way around (so much for cancel culture btw).

Please, let this stay peaceful without conspiracy theories about cancel culture.


Reply to: