Re: Support RMS

[Paul Sutton]

On 26/03/2021 15:54, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> I really appreciate seeing the perspective from Georgia. Thanks also
> deeply to Deb Nicholson for engaging here in this space. Obviously,
> these negative reports about RMS being presented *here* amounts to the
> opposite of an echo-chamber. These voices are bring extremely valuable
> perspective — the sort we *lose* if we aren't careful to assure that our
> spaces are not only open to anyone but actually in *practice* have them
> feel welcome and stay.
>
> The Free Software movement is weaker for every loss of perspective. We
> have a duty to be not only gracious but appreciative of people like Deb
> for engaging and staying with us despite the tensions.
>
> Georgia's line is exceptionally important: "…the fact that he faced
> consequences for his creepy Epdtein-adjacent comments and not the
> decades of shitty behavior…"
>
> These are not people who are dogpiling on hearsay or gotcha online
> statements or whatever else. Those anti-patterns do indeed happen, and
> they polluted and harmed the credibility of the recent open letter
> against RMS. But here we have people who fully understand the unfairness
> and yet can express from extensive personal experience the *actual*
> reasons why RMS's leadership is problematic.
>
> As someone who deeply and profoundly respects RMS for various reasons, I
> still don't just simply support his leadership role. I do not want him
> banished, I want him to learn and do better on his pain points. I don't
> want to be naive though, efforts in this direction have obviously been
> done for years and not been enough.
>
> I would like to continue to get RMS' insightful and pointed perspectives
> without having him lead the organization. I would like him to live in
> the zone where his genius most thrives and he contributes the most, and
> I suggest that the other roles he has had would be better filled by others.
>
> If we want a resilient movement, we need to be really open to engaging
> with complaints. An organization that defends the status quo against
> such critics is like the NSA attacking Ed Snowden and people insinuating
> that Snowden is working for Russia (similar to people talking about how
> Deb now works for the OSI and the OSI is connected to corporations).
>
> I'm not suggesting deference to the outside unfair critics, the people
> who do indeed levy unfair attacks, mine quotes, spread FUD, etc. That
> stuff can be real, and we need to defend against it.
>
> But people like Deb are our whistleblowers, they are insiders who are
> bringing attention to serious issues. If we ignore or attack
> whistleblowers, we will fail to learn important lessons. This attitude
> can be fatal to a movement.
>
> In solidarity,
> Aaron Wolf
> (FSF member since 2014, co-founder of Snowdrift.coop)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss


I agree, here,  there are clearly things that have happened that are of 
concern, but that seems to happen elsewhere in the free software, the 
tech community and out side too.

What we need to do, is have very robust standards of how people behave, 
 drawn up by and for the community, standards based on good practice 
from other communities, and look beyond free software. Ideas / policies 
need to be evidence, data based so that they are credible.

Once done, and it will never get fully completed, as it is needs to be 
constantly refined, it is not a write once then forget thing.

* Examine Annually, to make sure the policy / policies are still 
working, relevant, inclusive and represent everyone concerned.

* Clear policy on training, of staff and new staff / volunteers so 
people are educated in equality and diversity.  If that means an agreed 
policy on pronouns it is then consistent fsf wide.

* A clear policy on what happens, if a complaint is made, how it is 
handled, time scale and what, if any the consequences are, how are 
allegations handled for example?

* Fully transparent,

* Something that can be learnt from

* Everyone agrees and no one is above this

* A policy where you are innocent of a crime till proven guilty, this 
protects both victims and the accused.  Investigations should aim to 
reach the facts of what happened,

* If these things are handled properly, there is no need to whistleblow 
or just leave which to me that is a last resort.

* Make it clear what the talk is about, and the talk is relevant to free 
software, drm, etc, Right to repair or which ever it is,

We have a safe space policy for libre  that states certain things are 
not tolerated.


Just a few thoughts

Hope it helps

Paul



--
Paul Sutton, Cert Cont Sci (Open)
https://personaljournal.ca/paulsutton/
OpenPGP : 4350 91C4 C8FB 681B 23A6 7944 8EA9 1B51 E27E 3D99

LibrePlanet 2021 - March 20th & 21st - https://libreplanet.org/2021/

Pronoun : him/his/he

OpenPGP_0x8EA91B51E27E3D99.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature