Hello, GNU maintainer here, co-maintainer for the GnuCOBOL package.
I've been making noise in private channels that any overly publicized discussion about the GNU project management, leadership, and future is an obvious opportunistic attempt to weaken GNU from within. Ulterior motives at play during a smear campaign directed at the founder of the free software movement, Richard Stallman. Richard, third party through a deceased second party implicated in nefarious activities of the first party. This triggered a mob response, immense pressure and a resignation from well respected positions. Shortly after this unfortunate turn of events, internal GNU lists get an announcement of a public statement about issues regarding GNU internals, raising questions of leadership, with undertones of assuming rights of "ownership". I voted no to holding further public discussions during a smear campaign. Utterly inappropriate timing, either as part of forwarding an agenda, perhaps to ultimately weakening the GPL in the eyes of the public and courts, by continuing to spread hearsay and misinformed opinion using public network pressures against the founder of GNU, lead architect of the GPL and model of truly free software. The smear campaign has handed GNU some wedge issues, at a very critical time in its history. This is an obvious play at distracting the base membership, to maximize effect of initial headlines and misrepresentations. We, or some, have fallen for the wedges, began arguing in unkind, heated fashion, while reports go undefended against Richard and GNU. Instead there is growing pressure from within to disrupt the status quo of the GNU arm of Richard's project. I find this unacceptable and recreant behaviour from anyone that actually stands firm for the form of truly free software that is GNU. These conversations, important conversations, are continually discussed under less public light between GNU volunteers. The current public discussion is a wedge issue, timed to maximize on public pressures. Misinformed, opinion based network mob pressure. Richard pondered codes and contracts, and delivered the Kind Communications guidelines. Perfect. Decision made. Richard's decision. The GNU decision. Richard has indicated the current governance issues are also being pondered, along with the development of a model to ensure a solid and future proofed transfer of GNU rights is put in place. Here's a thing; any pressured discussion regarding replacing Richard, governance, leadership, roles, is moot; outside the event horizon of any final result decisions. GNU is Richard's project. Richard has indicated that he has been reading, and taking inputs for further thought. GNU is a volunteer project organized under an individual. Decisions for GNU are Richard's to make. No amount of public network pressure changes that fundamental fact. Current flash and mob pressure discussions are simply flash and mob pressures, dividing GNU volunteers in negative ways. To ensure a future GNU, there are activities required to ensure present GNU. Time sensitive and critical events are in progress. I vote no on prioritizing this discussion at a time when there is an active campaign that can be seen as an attempt to weaken free software and respect for the GPL. We can discuss future proofing GNU when it is apparent that current externally generated events are properly defended. GNU is what GNU is because, recursion. There is little room for kindness when facing internal existential threats in tandem with outside threats. There can be bluntness. Bluntly, continuation of this distraction, at this time, under this spotlight, is dangerous. We are being played. We were handed wedges and we are being played. We don't need to tear apart GNU to remake GNU when there are forces that would like to see GNU torn apart, weakening free software and potentially tainting the GPL. Bluntly, I expect reasonable people to see that head strong continuation of this distraction regarding the make of GNU is an indication of bias filtered ignorance or malfeasance. Player or played. Unkind words, intentionally. Even as I type this note in an attempt to diminish damage that is occurring to the reputation of Richard and GNU, I'm diminishing the reputation of GNU with a display of infighting. Played. Admitted. Wedged apart from respected peers. Time to tout free software, tout the GPL, tout GNU. GNU volunteers should be rallying, allowing truth to form amongst all the public network misinformation and hearsay, not piling on for an opportunity to further personal agendas. We are all being wedged to pick sides on emotionally charged issues, to the detriment of the future of truly free software, possibly tarnishing the past and continuing life works of Richard Stallman. As I was falling to the wedges, I was overly excitedly in the more private channels of GNU, and unkind. Digging deeper than simple headlines, the overall reaction to the Slashdot article that was part of the unfortunate timing after the MIT mailing list flash point, seemed overly dismissive of skill of the signatories of the Joint Statement, which I also found unfortunate. We need to limit mob influence over reputations and sense of well being if truly free software has a chance to flourish into the next generation. These threads, at this time, only add to the potential of additional ruinous public overreaction and utterly misinformed mass opinions, perceptions and summary judgments. This is all adding moral and ethical debt to the volunteer time of GNU as we eventually restore reputations during the unwinding of internet history. The efforts being expended here in this current collection of Joint Statement threads are only adding more layers to unwind and clarify. We should clarify the misrepresentations now, correct the misinformation and publicize facts instead of turmoil, however cathartic that turmoil may seem to some with a need to express visions of future GNU and volunteer structures. I truly believe that history will apologize to Richard for the current round of smears, however long it takes for fair truth to form in the public perception. It does not feel inappropriate to start apologizing now. Sorry, Richard. It may never be proven as to where from, but reasonable people can only conclude that we are being played, from inside and out. This has not been a truly organic sequence of events or public reporting. gnu-misc-discuss is now under a form of moderation that can only be seen as an attempt to control the narrative, or simply add wedges. It may already be too late, but the only way to win these (or in this case not lose, as there is no winning here) is to not play or be played. Not losing GNU, not allowing a weakening of the GPL and truly free software will require unwinding accumulated misrepresentations. Time to tout GNU, Richard's GNU. Sincerely, Brian Tiffin
