Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 à 15:35:42+0000, Ivan Shmakov a écrit : > >>>>> On 2021-03-26 15:50:02 +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > >>>>> Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 16:50:06+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > >>>>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:08:34PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > [Moving to -vote from -devel; apologies if inappropriate.] > > As an aside, I don’t suppose there can be a more affirmative > option on the ballot, along the lines of reaffirming commitment > to civil liberties and the principles underlying them, and > expressing hope that the changes Free Software Foundation > currently undergoes will resolve standing concerns?… > > […] > > > Well that is the principle of having a community of people with diverse > > opinions. I’m sad to hear that this diversity is the cause of such > > griefs. > > So am I. > > >>> As for RMS, whether one likes him or not, it’s not hard to see his > >>> public communications and see what things he defended. > > >> If someone won’t/can’t distinguish his personal opinions and ones on > >> behalf of FSF stuff — not mine problem. > > > Any organization who keeps at a direction position someone expressing > > controversial or unsane opinions is, in a sense, either ignorant of the > > situation or encouraging it. > > I’m afraid I cannot agree. That is your right. > I believe that everyone, regardless of station or lack thereof, > is entitled to the right to hold any views, and to express the > same without misrepresentation. I believe everyone is entitled > to the protection of said rights by law and relevant authorities; > and the respect of said rights by the society at large. I believe > that in democratic societies, no legal principle, be it right, > freedom, procedure, or other, that is deemed not worthy of respect > by the society at large, has any right to stand, and should be > struck off the books. > > On such a belief, I feel it necessary to point out that Choice 1 > currently on the ballot goes on to not only call into question > someone’s ability to lead, and to criticise the behavior of > the same individual, but also to deny him the right to have his > own opinions and views (emphasis mine): > > “We do not condone his actions *and opinions.*” > > “There has been enough tolerance of RMS’s *repugnant ideas* and > behavior.” > > “[…] we will not continue suffering his behavior […] or > otherwise holding him *and his hurtful and dangerous ideology* > as acceptable.” > > Where’s diversity in that? Diversity is not tolerating dangerous ideas and the persons defending these. For the sake of clarity, I'm talking about his comments on the Epstein thing, like pretending having sex with 14 yo childs is okay because they were "entirely willing", and the possession of pedopornographic images. His attitude towards women, too. Although I'm ill-at-ease with other things he said, like "one should abort if their to-be-born child is likely to have Down's syndrome", I still consider that such personal views are his right and I would not sign a letter asking him out if his words and opinions were limited to these. Because I indeed think that diversity also means accepting that some people think things that I am ill-at-ease with. > By comparison, the mistake of calling (?) FSF to remove him from > the position of the leader of the GNU Project, a position (to the > extent that such a position exists in the first place) that is, > as far as I know, not conferred by FSF, and hence could hardly > be revoked by them (other than by some outright coercive action), > appears rather minor. > > There’re of course other issues with the text. > > Let it be known that it’s not my personal loyalty speaking. > Unless, of course, you consider my dear friends Freedom of > Speech and Freedom of Conscience to be actual persons, in which > case it certainly is. > > As for those who’ve signed the original open letter, and there > are prominent Debian Developers among those, I hope they know > that their action /did/ hurt some of us. I’ve seen people > questioning whether they should continue to associate with > Debian, even as users, going as far as to consider moving off > the entire Debian ecosystem (which is to say, to operating > systems not based on dpkg and APT.) And while I can /and do/ > sympathize, I hereby ask them to reconsider: it is this ‘guilt > by association’ that brought us here, and the only way to break > this cycle is to strive to be better, aim higher, and refuse to > repeat the mistakes of the mistaken, whichever side of the > controversy they represent. > > Don’t you see, it takes either definite meanness or considerable > ignorance to call a person on his or her /past views/; the views > /can/ change, and they often do. I still am waiting for any proof that RMS did actually change. For now, I'm sorry to say that I have no element indicating that. And the way he comes back does not help any bit. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature