some notes on recent governance developments and the thread about the union

[Thomas Lord]

   A couple of notes:

   1. The voting members voted unanimously to have a qualified,
   union-approved member on the board and as a voting member.   The
   president of the FSF has committed to resigning when this is in place,
   to create a space for that member.  I gather from the FSF announcement
   it will take some time to make sure that this is implemented sanely.

   2 The voting members also voted to change the charter to improve
   transparency.

   See:
   https://www.fsf.org/news/update-on-work-to-improve-governance-at-the-fs
   f

   3 The union grievance posted here seems a bit off.  For example, it
   claims that RMS alone controlled wages, but that is not legally
   possible without the support of the board.  It complains that a full
   guaranteed cost of living adjustment to wages was not granted - but not
   even the strongest unions in public institutions and small non-profits
   even ask for that, because it makes no fiscal sense (which is
   apparently what RMS said about it).   If wages become intolerable,
   unions can take action, but a contractually guaranteed cost-of-living
   raise is not wise for either party. Bereavement leave is commonly
   handled not as a separate thing, but as an adjustment to how existing
   sick-leave and vacation time may be used (vacation time requiring
   supervisory permission, as usual).  Uncertainty as to having a job the
   next day is state law - Massachusetts is an employment-at-will state.

   It sounds from the account that the union got one thing right:
   policy-based procedures for dismissal with opportunity to appeal.  If
   they also gained a right to use sick leave and (with supervisory
   permission) vacation days for bereavement, good.  Even better if dire
   circumstances, and with supervisory permission, fellow employees can
   "donate" some of the vacation days to someone in need.

   4 Lastly, the author concluded the twitter thread with yet another
   repetition of the vague defamation of RMS I'd like to think we can move
   beyond.   People are entitled to feel how they feel about someone, of
   course, but not to demand (repetitively!) that everyone else share
   their feelings.

   It is possible for someone to feel hurt by another's actions even if
   neither party has done something wrong.

   -t