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

Re: Willingness to share a position statement?

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. 


I think I could not have worded my thoughts better.

> Cheers,
>    Matthias

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: