Re: Amendment to rms-open-letter GR
Hi Sean
On 2021/03/25 22:17, Sean Whitton wrote:
> The point of this is not to call for the removal of the entire FSF
> board, as the open letter does, while still supporting the main thrust
> of the open letter, which is about Stallman himself.
>
> The vote to restore Stallman to the board was not unanimous, and there
> is some confusion about how the procedure for elections to the board
> actually works, so the call to remove *all* board members does not make
> sense to me. And the FSF is going to need people with experience to
> help it recover from this whole affair.
>
> There are probably others who think similarly to me about the call to
> remove the whole board, so this amendment gives them something to vote
> for in preference to just signing the open letter. It's an alternative
> rather than a rival.
>
> I see that some people have raised concerns about the appendix to the
> open letter. I haven't formed an opinion about that myself yet, but
> perhaps this amendment could be something for such individuals to vote
> for, too.
I'm not sure I like this. I believe that removing the board is a
critical part of the letter. They are 4 friends that RMS chooses that he
chose because they never appose him. They are not elected by members of
the FSF but a self-selected cabal.
I'm not sure what the plans would be if the board would actually resign,
clearly RMS and the board have no intention of doing so[1] (at least by
their choice of language in that announcement), but ideally the board
would be selected by the community and be held accountable by them,
currently they answer to no one and let RMS do whatever he feels like
without consequences.
[1] https://www.fsf.org/news/preliminary-board-statement-on-fsf-governance
-Jonathan
Reply to: