Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 4, assert the need to learn and grow from recent events

[Richard Laager <rlaager@debian.org>]

On 3/30/21 5:28 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> We urge Richard Stallman and the remaining members of the board which
> reinstated him, to consider their positions.
Can you elaborate on the intended meaning here? Is "position" their 
position to reinstate RMS, or their position as a member of the board?

Is this intentionally "consider" as opposed to "reconsider"? If so, is 
that intended to be a weaker form of reconsider?


Looking at the text as a whole, while there is talk of accountability, 
it's unclear to me what you actually want to happen. In contrast, I am 
able to understand the other choices: Choice 1 says RMS and the FSF 
board all need to go. Choice A/2 says we are taking no position as a 
project. Choice B/3 says RMS needs to go, and FSF needs to fix whatever 
allowed him to come back.

Is the general sense here that you would find it acceptable that RMS 
stays on the board, as long as he/they acknowledge past 
("mistakes"|"impropriety"), "learn from them[,] and change behavior"?

--
Richard