Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 07:30:58PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> Ah I see!
> 
> Thanks for this.
> 
> I think your interpretation is the most relevant one for now but indeed
> there is some place here for improvements.
> 
> I intend to propose a Constitution change taking into account the secret
> vote question and that.

You might want to read the thread starting at:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2019/11/msg00208.html


Kurt

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 19:26:06+0200, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 07:15:32PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> > Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 08:56:33+0200, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:11:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > > Phil Morrell  writes:
> > > > 
> > > > > Do the additional proposals made in that week mean the discussion 
> > > > > period
> > > > > has automatically been extended? Is the Secretary simply being 
> > > > > pragmatic
> > > > > here, executing discretion before announcing the start of the voting
> > > > > period? Or perhaps the DPL has likely requested another alteration?
> > > > 
> > > > Debian constitution A.2:
> > > > 
> > > > 1. The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for a
> > > >vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has
> > > >elapsed.
> > > > 
> > > > 2. The proposer or any sponsor of a resolution may call for a vote on 
> > > > that
> > > >resolution and all related amendments.
> > > > 
> > > > The vote does not automatically commence after the end of the discussion
> > > > period.  Someone who is a proposer or sponsor has to explicitly call for
> > > > it.
> > > 
> > > There is also this in 4.2:
> > > 4. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up
> > >to 1 week by the Project Leader. The Project Leader has a casting
> > >vote. There is a quorum of 3Q.
> > > 
> > > The DPL changed the minimum time for the discussion period to 1 week.
> > > The discussion period is over when a vote is called.
> > 
> > Not to wreck havoc, but there also is in A.2:
> > 
> > 4. The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last formal
> > amendment was accepted, or since the whole resolution was proposed if no
> > amendments have been proposed and accepted. 
> > 
> > So I guess since you acccepted the last amendment on March the 31st,,
> > we're up to the 7th April before the vote may be called for.
> > 
> > Am I wrong?
> 
> This is part where the constitution is really hard to parse, and
> it's something I've struggled with for a long time. The terms are
> used in conflicting ways. I hope someone will take the time to fix
> this.
> 
> In A.1. there is:
> 2. A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer, in
>which case the formal resolution draft is immediately changed to
>match.
> 3. If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the sponsors of
>the resolution does not agree with the acceptance by the proposer
>of a formal amendment, the amendment remains as an amendment and
>will be voted on.
> 
> It's my current interpretation that no formal amendment was
> accepted.

Ah I see!

Thanks for this.

I think your interpretation is the most relevant one for now but indeed
there is some place here for improvements.

I intend to propose a Constitution change taking into account the secret
vote question and that.

But I won't propose anything until:

1. The DPL election is over
2. The current Resolution about RMS is over.

Cheers.

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Russ Allbery]

Kurt Roeckx  writes:

> This is part where the constitution is really hard to parse, and it's
> something I've struggled with for a long time. The terms are used in
> conflicting ways. I hope someone will take the time to fix this.

Yeah, my apologies, I was going to fix this after the systemd GR and then
never did.  I've now made a better note of my intention.  I think we have
a few procedural GRs we should work through after the DPL election and
this vote.

> In A.1. there is:
> 2. A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer, in
>which case the formal resolution draft is immediately changed to
>match.
> 3. If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the sponsors of
>the resolution does not agree with the acceptance by the proposer
>of a formal amendment, the amendment remains as an amendment and
>will be voted on.

> It's my current interpretation that no formal amendment was accepted.

This is also consistent (unsurprisingly) with what we did with the systemd
GR, after a lot of discussion of it at the time.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 07:15:32PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 08:56:33+0200, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:11:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Phil Morrell  writes:
> > > 
> > > > Do the additional proposals made in that week mean the discussion period
> > > > has automatically been extended? Is the Secretary simply being pragmatic
> > > > here, executing discretion before announcing the start of the voting
> > > > period? Or perhaps the DPL has likely requested another alteration?
> > > 
> > > Debian constitution A.2:
> > > 
> > > 1. The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for a
> > >vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has
> > >elapsed.
> > > 
> > > 2. The proposer or any sponsor of a resolution may call for a vote on that
> > >resolution and all related amendments.
> > > 
> > > The vote does not automatically commence after the end of the discussion
> > > period.  Someone who is a proposer or sponsor has to explicitly call for
> > > it.
> > 
> > There is also this in 4.2:
> > 4. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up
> >to 1 week by the Project Leader. The Project Leader has a casting
> >vote. There is a quorum of 3Q.
> > 
> > The DPL changed the minimum time for the discussion period to 1 week.
> > The discussion period is over when a vote is called.
> 
> Not to wreck havoc, but there also is in A.2:
> 
> 4. The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last formal
> amendment was accepted, or since the whole resolution was proposed if no
> amendments have been proposed and accepted. 
> 
> So I guess since you acccepted the last amendment on March the 31st,,
> we're up to the 7th April before the vote may be called for.
> 
> Am I wrong?

This is part where the constitution is really hard to parse, and
it's something I've struggled with for a long time. The terms are
used in conflicting ways. I hope someone will take the time to fix
this.

In A.1. there is:
2. A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer, in
   which case the formal resolution draft is immediately changed to
   match.
3. If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the sponsors of
   the resolution does not agree with the acceptance by the proposer
   of a formal amendment, the amendment remains as an amendment and
   will be voted on.

It's my current interpretation that no formal amendment was
accepted.


Kurt

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 08:56:33+0200, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:11:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Phil Morrell  writes:
> > 
> > > Do the additional proposals made in that week mean the discussion period
> > > has automatically been extended? Is the Secretary simply being pragmatic
> > > here, executing discretion before announcing the start of the voting
> > > period? Or perhaps the DPL has likely requested another alteration?
> > 
> > Debian constitution A.2:
> > 
> > 1. The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for a
> >vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has
> >elapsed.
> > 
> > 2. The proposer or any sponsor of a resolution may call for a vote on that
> >resolution and all related amendments.
> > 
> > The vote does not automatically commence after the end of the discussion
> > period.  Someone who is a proposer or sponsor has to explicitly call for
> > it.
> 
> There is also this in 4.2:
> 4. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up
>to 1 week by the Project Leader. The Project Leader has a casting
>vote. There is a quorum of 3Q.
> 
> The DPL changed the minimum time for the discussion period to 1 week.
> The discussion period is over when a vote is called.

Not to wreck havoc, but there also is in A.2:

4. The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last formal
amendment was accepted, or since the whole resolution was proposed if no
amendments have been proposed and accepted. 

So I guess since you acccepted the last amendment on March the 31st,,
we're up to the 7th April before the vote may be called for.

Am I wrong?

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:11:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Phil Morrell  writes:
> 
> > Do the additional proposals made in that week mean the discussion period
> > has automatically been extended? Is the Secretary simply being pragmatic
> > here, executing discretion before announcing the start of the voting
> > period? Or perhaps the DPL has likely requested another alteration?
> 
> Debian constitution A.2:
> 
> 1. The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for a
>vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has
>elapsed.
> 
> 2. The proposer or any sponsor of a resolution may call for a vote on that
>resolution and all related amendments.
> 
> The vote does not automatically commence after the end of the discussion
> period.  Someone who is a proposer or sponsor has to explicitly call for
> it.

There is also this in 4.2:
4. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up
   to 1 week by the Project Leader. The Project Leader has a casting
   vote. There is a quorum of 3Q.

The DPL changed the minimum time for the discussion period to 1 week.
The discussion period is over when a vote is called.


Kurt

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Russ Allbery]

Phil Morrell  writes:

> Do the additional proposals made in that week mean the discussion period
> has automatically been extended? Is the Secretary simply being pragmatic
> here, executing discretion before announcing the start of the voting
> period? Or perhaps the DPL has likely requested another alteration?

Debian constitution A.2:

1. The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for a
   vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has
   elapsed.

2. The proposer or any sponsor of a resolution may call for a vote on that
   resolution and all related amendments.

The vote does not automatically commence after the end of the discussion
period.  Someone who is a proposer or sponsor has to explicitly call for
it.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Phil Morrell]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 21:29:27 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> The option is now on the website.

Hi, I was wondering if anyone would mind explaining a point of procedure
to me here. I understand that the discussion period is normally 2 weeks,
and that the DPL confirmed a request to reduce it to 1 week. Measured
from the 5th second, this would have expired at 2021-03-31 21:10 UTC.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 at 17:09:34 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Seconded.
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 09:43:36 +0200, Erik Schanze wrote:
> Seconded.

Do the additional proposals made in that week mean the discussion period
has automatically been extended? Is the Secretary simply being pragmatic
here, executing discretion before announcing the start of the voting
period? Or perhaps the DPL has likely requested another alteration?


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Phil Morrell]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Assuming that the letter from https://rms-support-letter.github.io/ is
> signed by Debian, could we please have clarified up front how the above

There are evidently some who wish that there was more up front clarity
about https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ too. Both letters have been
added to the ballot completely unedited for the same reason -
consistency of Debian's message with the wider ecosystem is of greater
importance than precision. If you prefer different wording, I suggest
you propose it as an amendment.

> Notably, if it implies that Debian Developers some developers (e.g.
> those who signed the open letter or voted certain elements on the ballot
> higher than FD, etc.) would no longer be able to participate in DPL
> votes, then I see this ballot as a change of our current constitutional
> power (§4.1).
> 
> Accordingly, I think this ballot should require a constitutional change
> and a 3:1 majority or the text should explicitly state that no current
> or future Debian Developer is considered a part of the "ambush mob".

This GR is being made within the scope of §4.1.5 "They may also include
position statements about issues of the day". I think you're reading
more into this than the letter contains. If that was the implication
then the proposer would have needed to specify a different section of
the consitution for the resolution to be interpreted under.
--
Phil Morrell (emorrp1)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Kurt Roeckx]

The option is now on the website.


Kurt

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Niels Thykier]

Hi,


> Hi,
> 
> I hereby propose to have another option on the ballot:
> 
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's 
> readmission to the FSF board seen at https://rms-support-letter.github.io/. 
> The text of this statement is given below.
> 
> [...]
> 
> To the ambush mob who is ganging up on Richard Stallman over reasonable 
> arguments in debate and various opinions and beliefs voiced over decades as a 
> public figure:
> 
> You have no part in choosing the leadership of any communities. Especially 
> not 
> via another mob attack which does not remotely resemble a fairly conducted 
> debate as exemplified by better people such as Richard Stallman.
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> 
> [...]

Assuming that the letter from https://rms-support-letter.github.io/ is
signed by Debian, could we please have clarified up front how the above
paragraphs affects Debian developers ability to vote for DPLs (which I
assume counts as having a "part in choosing the leadership of any
communities".)

Notably, if it implies that Debian Developers some developers (e.g.
those who signed the open letter or voted certain elements on the ballot
higher than FD, etc.) would no longer be able to participate in DPL
votes, then I see this ballot as a change of our current constitutional
power (§4.1).

Accordingly, I think this ballot should require a constitutional change
and a 3:1 majority or the text should explicitly state that no current
or future Debian Developer is considered a part of the "ambush mob".

Thanks,
~Niels

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Erik Schanze]

On Friday, 26 March 2021 7:12:09 PM AEDT Timo Weingärtner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I hereby propose to have another option on the ballot:
>
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's
> readmission to the FSF board seen at
> https://rms-support-letter.github.io/.
> The text of this statement is given below.
>
> Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a driving force in
> the free software movement for decades, with contributions including the
> GNU operating system and Emacs.
>
> Recently, there have been vile online attacks looking to remove him from
> the FSF board of directors for expressing his personal opinions. We have
> watched this happen before in an organized fashion with other prominent
> free software activists and programmers. We will not stand idly this time,
> when an icon of this community is attacked.
>
> FSF is an autonomous body that is capable of treating its members in a
> fair, unbiased fashion, and should not give in to external social
> pressures. We urge the FSF to consider the arguments against RMS
> objectively and to truly understand the meaning of his words and actions.
>
> Historically, RMS has been expressing his views in ways that upset many
> people. He is usually more focused on the philosophical underpinnings, and
> pursuing the objective truth and linguistic purism, while underemphasising
> people’s feelings on matters he’s commenting on. This makes his arguments
> vulnerable to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, something which we
> feel is happening in the open letter calling for his removal. His words
> need to be interpreted in this context and taking into account that more
> often than not, he is not looking to put things diplomatically.
>
> Regardless, Stallman’s opinions on the matters he is being persecuted over
> are not relevant to his ability to lead a community such as the FSF.
> Furthermore, he is entitled to his opinions just as much as anyone else.
> Members and supporters do not have to agree with his opinions, but should
> respect his right to freedom of thought and speech.
>
> To the FSF:
>
> Removing RMS will hurt FSF’s image and will deal a significant blow to the
> momentum of the free software movement. We urge you to consider your
> actions carefully, as what you will decide will have a serious impact on
> the future of the software industry.
>
> To the ambush mob who is ganging up on Richard Stallman over reasonable
> arguments in debate and various opinions and beliefs voiced over
> decades as
> a public figure:
>
> You have no part in choosing the leadership of any communities. Especially
> not via another mob attack which does not remotely resemble a fairly
> conducted debate as exemplified by better people such as Richard Stallman.
> ---8<---8<---8<---

Seconded.





OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Dmitry Smirnov]

On Friday, 26 March 2021 7:12:09 PM AEDT Timo Weingärtner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I hereby propose to have another option on the ballot:
> 
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's
> readmission to the FSF board seen at https://rms-support-letter.github.io/.
> The text of this statement is given below.
> 
> Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a driving force in
> the free software movement for decades, with contributions including the
> GNU operating system and Emacs.
> 
> Recently, there have been vile online attacks looking to remove him from
> the FSF board of directors for expressing his personal opinions. We have
> watched this happen before in an organized fashion with other prominent
> free software activists and programmers. We will not stand idly this time,
> when an icon of this community is attacked.
> 
> FSF is an autonomous body that is capable of treating its members in a
> fair, unbiased fashion, and should not give in to external social
> pressures. We urge the FSF to consider the arguments against RMS
> objectively and to truly understand the meaning of his words and actions.
> 
> Historically, RMS has been expressing his views in ways that upset many
> people. He is usually more focused on the philosophical underpinnings, and
> pursuing the objective truth and linguistic purism, while underemphasising
> people’s feelings on matters he’s commenting on. This makes his arguments
> vulnerable to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, something which we
> feel is happening in the open letter calling for his removal. His words
> need to be interpreted in this context and taking into account that more
> often than not, he is not looking to put things diplomatically.
> 
> Regardless, Stallman’s opinions on the matters he is being persecuted over
> are not relevant to his ability to lead a community such as the FSF.
> Furthermore, he is entitled to his opinions just as much as anyone else.
> Members and supporters do not have to agree with his opinions, but should
> respect his right to freedom of thought and speech.
> 
> To the FSF:
> 
> Removing RMS will hurt FSF’s image and will deal a significant blow to the
> momentum of the free software movement. We urge you to consider your
> actions carefully, as what you will decide will have a serious impact on
> the future of the software industry.
> 
> To the ambush mob who is ganging up on Richard Stallman over reasonable
> arguments in debate and various opinions and beliefs voiced over decades as
> a public figure:
> 
> You have no part in choosing the leadership of any communities. Especially
> not via another mob attack which does not remotely resemble a fairly
> conducted debate as exemplified by better people such as Richard Stallman.
> ---8<---8<---8<---

Seconded.

This option is necessary to balance RMS derangement syndrome.

IMHO this shameful GR should not have existed as it is not our business
to interfere with internal matters of FSF.

-- 
Cheers,
 Dmitry Smirnov
 GPG key : 2048R/CCBC38B3CCEE

---

Tyranny is always better organized than freedom.

---

"Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated
With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine".
-- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22423139/


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Adam Borowski]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 09:12:09AM +0100, Timo Weingärtner wrote:
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's 
> readmission to the FSF board seen at https://rms-support-letter.github.io/. 
> The text of this statement is given below.
> 
> Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a driving force in the 
> free software movement for decades, with contributions including the GNU 
> operating system and Emacs.
> 
> Recently, there have been vile online attacks looking to remove him from the 
> FSF board of directors for expressing his personal opinions. We have watched 
> this happen before in an organized fashion with other prominent free software 
> activists and programmers. We will not stand idly this time, when an icon of 
> this community is attacked.
> 
> FSF is an autonomous body that is capable of treating its members in a fair, 
> unbiased fashion, and should not give in to external social pressures. We 
> urge 
> the FSF to consider the arguments against RMS objectively and to truly 
> understand the meaning of his words and actions.
> 
> Historically, RMS has been expressing his views in ways that upset many 
> people. He is usually more focused on the philosophical underpinnings, and 
> pursuing the objective truth and linguistic purism, while underemphasising 
> people’s feelings on matters he’s commenting on. This makes his arguments 
> vulnerable to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, something which we feel 
> is happening in the open letter calling for his removal. His words need to be 
> interpreted in this context and taking into account that more often than not, 
> he is not looking to put things diplomatically.
> 
> Regardless, Stallman’s opinions on the matters he is being persecuted over 
> are 
> not relevant to his ability to lead a community such as the FSF. Furthermore, 
> he is entitled to his opinions just as much as anyone else. Members and 
> supporters do not have to agree with his opinions, but should respect his 
> right to freedom of thought and speech.
> 
> To the FSF:
> 
> Removing RMS will hurt FSF’s image and will deal a significant blow to the 
> momentum of the free software movement. We urge you to consider your actions 
> carefully, as what you will decide will have a serious impact on the future 
> of 
> the software industry.
> 
> To the ambush mob who is ganging up on Richard Stallman over reasonable 
> arguments in debate and various opinions and beliefs voiced over decades as a 
> public figure:
> 
> You have no part in choosing the leadership of any communities. Especially 
> not 
> via another mob attack which does not remotely resemble a fairly conducted 
> debate as exemplified by better people such as Richard Stallman.
> ---8<---8<---8<---

Seconded.

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ What Would Jesus Do, MUD/MMORPG edition:
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ • multiplay with an admin char to benefit your mortal [Mt3:16-17]
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ • abuse item cloning bugs [Mt14:17-20, Mt15:34-37]
⠈⠳⣄ • use glitches to walk on water [Mt14:25-26]


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Lionel Élie Mamane]

seconded

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 09:12:09AM +0100, Timo Weingärtner wrote:
> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's 
> readmission to the FSF board seen at https://rms-support-letter.github.io/. 
> The text of this statement is given below.
> 
> Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a driving force in the 
> free software movement for decades, with contributions including the GNU 
> operating system and Emacs.
> 
> Recently, there have been vile online attacks looking to remove him from the 
> FSF board of directors for expressing his personal opinions. We have watched 
> this happen before in an organized fashion with other prominent free software 
> activists and programmers. We will not stand idly this time, when an icon of 
> this community is attacked.
> 
> FSF is an autonomous body that is capable of treating its members in a fair, 
> unbiased fashion, and should not give in to external social pressures. We 
> urge 
> the FSF to consider the arguments against RMS objectively and to truly 
> understand the meaning of his words and actions.
> 
> Historically, RMS has been expressing his views in ways that upset many 
> people. He is usually more focused on the philosophical underpinnings, and 
> pursuing the objective truth and linguistic purism, while underemphasising 
> people’s feelings on matters he’s commenting on. This makes his arguments 
> vulnerable to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, something which we feel 
> is happening in the open letter calling for his removal. His words need to be 
> interpreted in this context and taking into account that more often than not, 
> he is not looking to put things diplomatically.
> 
> Regardless, Stallman’s opinions on the matters he is being persecuted over 
> are 
> not relevant to his ability to lead a community such as the FSF. Furthermore, 
> he is entitled to his opinions just as much as anyone else. Members and 
> supporters do not have to agree with his opinions, but should respect his 
> right to freedom of thought and speech.
> 
> To the FSF:
> 
> Removing RMS will hurt FSF’s image and will deal a significant blow to the 
> momentum of the free software movement. We urge you to consider your actions 
> carefully, as what you will decide will have a serious impact on the future 
> of 
> the software industry.
> 
> To the ambush mob who is ganging up on Richard Stallman over reasonable 
> arguments in debate and various opinions and beliefs voiced over decades as a 
> public figure:
> 
> You have no part in choosing the leadership of any communities. Especially 
> not 
> via another mob attack which does not remotely resemble a fairly conducted 
> debate as exemplified by better people such as Richard Stallman.
> ---8<---8<---8<---


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Axel Beckert]

Hi Timo,

Timo Weingärtner wrote:
> I hereby propose to have another option on the ballot:

Thanks a lot for this!

> ---8<---8<---8<---
> The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's 
> readmission to the FSF board seen at https://rms-support-letter.github.io/. 
> The text of this statement is given below.
> 
> Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a driving force in the 
> free software movement for decades, with contributions including the GNU 
> operating system and Emacs.
> 
> Recently, there have been vile online attacks looking to remove him from the 
> FSF board of directors for expressing his personal opinions. We have watched 
> this happen before in an organized fashion with other prominent free software 
> activists and programmers. We will not stand idly this time, when an icon of 
> this community is attacked.
> 
> FSF is an autonomous body that is capable of treating its members in a fair, 
> unbiased fashion, and should not give in to external social pressures. We 
> urge 
> the FSF to consider the arguments against RMS objectively and to truly 
> understand the meaning of his words and actions.
> 
> Historically, RMS has been expressing his views in ways that upset many 
> people. He is usually more focused on the philosophical underpinnings, and 
> pursuing the objective truth and linguistic purism, while underemphasising 
> people’s feelings on matters he’s commenting on. This makes his arguments 
> vulnerable to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, something which we feel 
> is happening in the open letter calling for his removal. His words need to be 
> interpreted in this context and taking into account that more often than not, 
> he is not looking to put things diplomatically.
> 
> Regardless, Stallman’s opinions on the matters he is being persecuted over 
> are 
> not relevant to his ability to lead a community such as the FSF. Furthermore, 
> he is entitled to his opinions just as much as anyone else. Members and 
> supporters do not have to agree with his opinions, but should respect his 
> right to freedom of thought and speech.
> 
> To the FSF:
> 
> Removing RMS will hurt FSF’s image and will deal a significant blow to the 
> momentum of the free software movement. We urge you to consider your actions 
> carefully, as what you will decide will have a serious impact on the future 
> of 
> the software industry.
> 
> To the ambush mob who is ganging up on Richard Stallman over reasonable 
> arguments in debate and various opinions and beliefs voiced over decades as a 
> public figure:
> 
> You have no part in choosing the leadership of any communities. Especially 
> not 
> via another mob attack which does not remotely resemble a fairly conducted 
> debate as exemplified by better people such as Richard Stallman.
> ---8<---8<---8<---

Seconded.

Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert , https://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-|  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

"rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/

[Timo Weingärtner]

Hi,

I hereby propose to have another option on the ballot:

---8<---8<---8<---
The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's 
readmission to the FSF board seen at https://rms-support-letter.github.io/. 
The text of this statement is given below.

Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a driving force in the 
free software movement for decades, with contributions including the GNU 
operating system and Emacs.

Recently, there have been vile online attacks looking to remove him from the 
FSF board of directors for expressing his personal opinions. We have watched 
this happen before in an organized fashion with other prominent free software 
activists and programmers. We will not stand idly this time, when an icon of 
this community is attacked.

FSF is an autonomous body that is capable of treating its members in a fair, 
unbiased fashion, and should not give in to external social pressures. We urge 
the FSF to consider the arguments against RMS objectively and to truly 
understand the meaning of his words and actions.

Historically, RMS has been expressing his views in ways that upset many 
people. He is usually more focused on the philosophical underpinnings, and 
pursuing the objective truth and linguistic purism, while underemphasising 
people’s feelings on matters he’s commenting on. This makes his arguments 
vulnerable to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, something which we feel 
is happening in the open letter calling for his removal. His words need to be 
interpreted in this context and taking into account that more often than not, 
he is not looking to put things diplomatically.

Regardless, Stallman’s opinions on the matters he is being persecuted over are 
not relevant to his ability to lead a community such as the FSF. Furthermore, 
he is entitled to his opinions just as much as anyone else. Members and 
supporters do not have to agree with his opinions, but should respect his 
right to freedom of thought and speech.

To the FSF:

Removing RMS will hurt FSF’s image and will deal a significant blow to the 
momentum of the free software movement. We urge you to consider your actions 
carefully, as what you will decide will have a serious impact on the future of 
the software industry.

To the ambush mob who is ganging up on Richard Stallman over reasonable 
arguments in debate and various opinions and beliefs voiced over decades as a 
public figure:

You have no part in choosing the leadership of any communities. Especially not 
via another mob attack which does not remotely resemble a fairly conducted 
debate as exemplified by better people such as Richard Stallman.
---8<---8<---8<---

Improvements welcome.

I'm not sure whether I like this one or the one from my other email more but 
the discussion period is shortened. I think it should at least be on the 
ballot for symmetry reasons.

Thanks go to LWN for linking to this.


Regards
Timo

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.