Follow

Very balanced take on the debate: arp242.net/rms.html
I do not agree with all of it, but I can get behind the criticism of specific passages in the open letter and the judgment on the fitness for leadership of rms is shared.

I've read that article, but I'm not gonna engage in a debate around individuals who think "he is fine" or vice-versa. Sorry.

Show thread

And, to be clear, I don't think any of this should get in the way of people who care about free software collaborating together to achieve a world in which all computer users should be able to do any computation they care about using only free software. I think we can (and should) all work together in spite of what we think of rms as a leader.

Show thread

@zacchiro have you read the one from a prior female president of the American civil liberties union ?

wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-th
IMO his resignation in 2019 is a disgrace to clear thinking and our FOSS movement, cancelling him in a time of emotional turmoil and proven falsities and smears. Many articles and statements do not even have the humility to correct themselves siting vague feelings.

we should be getting to the bottom of the inflammatory slander and lies before we make new decisions.

@zacchiro

so many have used the medium article filled with proven lies and news articles almost 1.5 years(its mind boggling)?? . Rather then correct the lies or present new good better reasons at a better time. Sadly the lies were pictures and statements directly(hard proof), misguided understanding should be educated and faslities corrected not given a false sense of vindication to further interests of deplatforming him. This is not Justice for anyone its sad.

@twotwenty I've already commented with others here that the news reporting at the time of his first resignation was, err, "suboptimal" (to put it mildly). But I think that at the time that resulted in a good result for the Free Software movement, for the *bad* reasons. So it's beyond me why the FSF board wanted to go back to the previous situation.

@zacchiro
have you read this article its post 2019 but prior to libreplanet 1 year.

She is a community leader that represented Stallman and let him stay with her family and children.

whoisylvia.medium.com/richard-

Just because you don't want him to lead doesn't mean he isn't inspiring people that seek his leadership. that is why there needs to be many organizations that are as diverse as the people the represent no leader can be everything to everyone (only superficially).

@zacchiro I really do not mean any disrespect because you are also an important leader and I respect your contributions.

@twotwenty no worries, I didn't perceive any disrespect in previous messages and I thank you for your feedback on this matter !

@zacchiro Also sorry for continuing about that subject.

Hey have you seen the presentation The Art of Code - Dylan Beattie? wow thats fun and inspirational

@zacchiro I agree, we all care about FOSS as a common goal.. you shouldnt ignore many have lost faith in others judgment on all sides of the debate. I know you do not agree with me totally but the following is a deeply seeded feeling in my peers. eg. I have a really hard time rationalizing how an organization like the EFF(lawyers and logicians) can file a statement linking to the salemg article medium blog riddled in lies rather then use only solid facts or distance themselves from slander.

@zacchiro Well, as long as they're not harassing or belittling people.

@zacchiro The author conveniently quoted parts of Keith Packard's speech (thankfully left a link to the talk). The parts Keith says next .. ".. we should have listened to him (richard) but we did not because we knew him too well.. I guess... (crowd laughs).. (Keith continues), you know he really was right, we need to remember that".

And social conformance is a regional thing, you know? We in India eat with our hands for ages! It looks strange when people eat with fork and spoons (& vice versa).

@zacchiro I lost respect for a lot of past and present Debian folks during this saga, sorry to say (I am saying this as an old DD who has been running only Debian from 1998).

Talking bad things about people who aren't in the same room is considered a bad thing in this part of the world! We shouldn't be judging people only by their past good work, agreed, but the man deserves a lot more respect.

I hope FSF cleans up and reinvents itself to take on new challenges in computing and social order.

@zacchiro
Reading the open letter I was also surprised at how it focused exclusively on some issues and used very strong phrasing while also ignoring many other behaviors that don't make RMS a suitable spokesperson for any movement.

@zacchiro Yeah; I appreciated that one as well. It noted several of the things about the open letter that I was extremely uncomfortable with, like citing items as absolutes or patterns with only one specific example. I'm aware, of course, through personal conversations, of other examples (and their numbers), but I get really hung up on rhetoric — a sword that has double (or more) edges and easily backfires. If I can mix those metaphors....

@zacchiro Just as importantly, I think that article does a good job of keeping focus on behavior and actions. Other critiques often slipped quickly between the list of objectionable actions and labelling RMS as person (if somebody "does" bad vs somebody "is" bad), which I think is rhetorically dangerous. i.e., once someone "is" bad, nothing they can do can restore them. When in reality, he could have changed his behavior, but he didn't. It feels less satisfying, but it's provable.

@zacchiro (Also I suspect that the "is" rhetoric probably stirs up the more vehement reactions and conspiracies, but that may just be entirely my imagination. Anyway, back to procrastinating....)

@n8 OTOH, my main gripe with that article is the title, which pitches it as a "defense" of sort, whereas in reality is a criticism of the form of the open letter + an agreement on the requested course of action.

@zacchiro Yeah; agree. Sort of wonder how intentional that title was, but didn't really want to ask.

stefano, would you spell out what passages of the letter you signed you can now "get behind" in criticism? I suppose some people might never forget that you signed it, even if you were to publicly retract it altogether (we've both seen how honest retraction is framed by distrusting opponents), but others might have some of their trust in you restored by your spelling out your own more balanced analysis of the letter and of the situation. I suggest it because I assume you're not pushing for a schism in the movement; feel free to ignore otherwise

@lxo Alexandre, this is so passive aggressive ("people might never forget [you]", "[you're] pushing for a schism in the movement [if you ignore this]", etc.) that I will indeed ignore it. But I'm letting you know that I'm doing that on purpose, without validating any of the implicit defaults in your message.

noted. I wish you'd paid as much attention to the language of the hate- and lie-filled letter while it was still in drafting, instead of agreeing to sign that which you admit to criticizing, but weasel out from detailing. it isn't too hard to guess what it is, from the article you qualified as balanced, but I can imagine various reasons for you to prefer not to own up the partial retraction, and to keep on insisting that it's someone else who can't be trusted

@lxo Nice try with the "partial retraction" and the "someone else". Kthxbye

are you now backpedaling on your retraction?
or denying that the criticism to specific passages of the open letter you (presumably co-drafted and) undersigned, criticism that you later claimed you could get behind, amounts to a (partial) retraction?

@lxo I have never retracted anything, nor I intend to do so. As one of the first signers I stand behind what is written in the open letter.

I hope that is clear enough.

(I deduce from your messages that you cannot reconcile this with what I wrote in the message that started this thread. And I can live with that.)

I'm still curious as to what it is that you agree with that article when it comes to getting behind criticism of the open letter, while also standing behind the letter. it sounds a little contradictory to me, and I expect your stating what it was that you criticized would have made it clear, but I get and respect that you won't wish to specify what the criticism you also partially undersigned was, and prefer to leave it up for speculation. I acknowledge and appreciate the self-criticism you imply with this combination of actions. o-o
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!