Mass resignations from #FSF. One can only begin to ponder what the board was thinking when bringing back RMS.
https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/30/fsf_mass_resignation/
I also wonder what the people signing the "open letter" were thinking. I saw that you boosted https://www.arp242.net/rms.html earlier, perhaps you agree that it is appropriate to read carefully and think before deciding to sign something like that.
If the FSF gives in to demands because of that letter, does it mean that the kind of unjust and ill-founded personal attacks found in that letter are the new normal, the modern way of wielding power? Do the ends justify the means?
> Attacks on RMS are neither unjust or ill-founded
Is it your position that all attacks on RMS are automatically just and well-founded? You do not need to know what the specific attack is?
What I was referring to is specifically the "open letter", please read https://www.arp242.net/rms.html to understand what I mean, it is explained quite well there.
Is your opinion that arp242 is wrong, everybody should directly join all accusations, there is no point in thinking before signing something?
@eliasr I know that RMS has written that unborn children with downs syndrome should be removed before birth (an opinion that makes me puke since our closest friends have a lovely child with Downs syndrome), I know that he has tried to downplay sexual abuse towards underaged girls, I know that he is a creep towards women and he has critized laws against child pornography. Kind of a reoccuring theme when it comes to RMS... https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1173637138413318144
@eliasr So yeah - RMS has been getting away with a lot of shit over the years and that finally bit him in the ass two years ago. Now FSF chose to put him back on the board and no other foundation, corporation or similar would put a person with that track record in a public facing leadership position. And yet, FSF did.
@eliasr I linked to arp242.net/rms.html because he had some valid points and I thought whoever is following me should read it to get both sides of the story. Simple as that - a boost does not imply endorsement.
> no other foundation, corporation or similar would put a person with that track record in a public facing leadership position. And yet, FSF did.
True. Note however that he is the founder of the FSF, kicking out the founder is a special situation, maybe not easy.
> a boost does not imply endorsement
Sure. Thanks for explaining what you meant.
Anyway, in my opinion, if more people did like like arp242 and thought carefully before accusing someone, the world would be a better place.
@eliasr Other businesses and organizations can choose to pull support from FSF or whatever other organization they choose if they feel that that organization does not live up to values that most people would think are appropriate. Getting RMS back to FSF just because he needs a job (or whatever the reason is) and being sneaky about it tells us all we need to know: FSF knows this is not the right move. Attacks on RMS are neither unjust or ill-founded, his behavior is unacceptable.