On 24/03/21 5:52 am, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > No human can do anything that makes them immune to criticism. This is > not a matter of hate, I actually doubt anyone who signed the petition > really "hates" RMS. > RMS without a doubt did a lot of good with starting the FSF and his > early work on Free Software and we owe him thanks for this, but he > *also* inflicted a lot of damage on his own organization, hurt a lot > of people, has shown to be unable to learn from mistakes and empathise > with people. There are a lot of examples of behavior that pretty much > everyone should deem inacceptable. > > So, even though RMS has done good things, he also is in a way the > worst person to have a leading role in the FSF. Think about the signal > we send if we as a community are okay with a person openly debating > whether sex with children is okay in a leading role at the top of the > organization that's promoting software freedom. I also very much > question whether his strong technical influence on GNU projects is a > good thing (he did in fact revert community-made decisions in the > past). > > It is also not like this issue is a new thing. He knows about his > behavior, has been told about it time and time again, and doesn't seem > to have any sensitivity at all as to how his actions and words impact > other people and reflect on his organization. Furthermore, the FSF > board itself, by putting him in a leading role again, also does seem > insensitive about that. > If you are just a guy with an opinion on the internet, the situation > *may* be different (but one could argue against that too), but if you > are in any position of leadership you have to be held accountable for > your actions and words and have to reflect on them. In other words, be > a good leader. RMS failed at that (and arguably as a human) and he > should be held accountable for his decisions. That hasn't happened, > really, and if it doesn't happen we are in a way saying that we don't > care if someone at the top of an organization misbehaves. > ... > It's not like it's a call to silence him forever. It is however a call > to remove him from a position he appears to be unfit for. Inclusivity > and tolerance does not mean we have to accept every opinion as equally > valid. +1 I think I could not have worded my thoughts better. > Cheers, > Matthias >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature