Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 4, assert the need to learn and grow from recent events
On 3/30/21 5:28 PM, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
Can you elaborate on the intended meaning here? Is "position" their
position to reinstate RMS, or their position as a member of the board?
We urge Richard Stallman and the remaining members of the board which
reinstated him, to consider their positions.
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"?