Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
> "Milan" == Milan Kupcevic writes: Milan> An official Debian statement is not about any particular Milan> individual but about Debian's interests and goals. Yeah, but in general, I find persuading people to change their minds on stuff like this to be a waste of list time. If someone is interested in a particular question in order to decide how to vote, I find that to be a compelling argument in many cases to continue discussion. If there is no one who is likely to change their vote, and if the positions are well understood, I'm going to do what I can to encourage less email traffic on the issue. By saying that I cared about one question and not another, I was doing several things: 1) Letting Jonas know where his energy in discussing further might be valuable at least as directed to me. 2) Letting everyone know that I was thinking about whether adding more messages was helpful. 3) Trying to discourage people from arguing the legal question with me because I'm not open to persuasion on that point. If there is someone else who considers that question live, engage with them. Don't waste your or the list's time engaging with me on a question where I've already made up my mind. I won't stand in the way of you discussing that issue with someone who is either trying to decide how they feel or who is trying to understand the issue. Milan> There is no space for emotional revenge punches in Milan> the name of Debian. I agree with the above but don't believe the authors of the letter see it as an emotional revenge punch. I don't see it that way either. I'm still considering whether 1) Making an unnecessary accusation is inherently shaming 2) Whether this letter is something I'd consider an attempt at shaming (something I reject) or an attempt at public accountability (something I often embrace) 3) Whether the accusation is unnecessary. I appreciate that other people may view the situation differently, and am in no way trying to imply that my view is the one that should drive the conversation. I do think it's reasonable to consider my view when you're trying to decide whether interacting with me is worth your and the list's energy though. At this point in the process, I also do think it's valuable to have a specific audience in mind when you write a message and to think about whether your audience will find the message useful. --Sam
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On 3/28/21 5:55 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: >> "Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard writes: > > Jonas> Quoting Pierre-Elliott Bécue (2021-03-28 20:31:01) > >> Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 � 14:04:48+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a > >> �crit�: > My involvement in this subthread was when Molly arguing > >> that the > accusation was not harmful (using other words, yes, > >> and we can > nitpick that if really necessary). You (and others, > >> privately) > agree that the accusations are deliberately harmful > >> but that the > harm cannot backfire on Debian. I have raised my > >> concerns - I rest > my case. > >> > >> Accusations are generally harmful, and as accusations are always > >> delibeately made, they indeed tend to be deliberately harmful. > >> > >> That does not mean they are not warranted. And I think it is that > >> point that could/should be discussed. > > Jonas> Text #1 oncludes an accusation. Other proposed texts does > Jonas> not. > > Jonas> I think the relevant thing to discuss is not if the > Jonas> accusation embedded in text #1 is warranted, but instead if > Jonas> that accusation is necessary. Is the accusation needed for > Jonas> that proposal? It seems to me that the message would be the > Jonas> same with that accusation omitted, but maybe I am missing > Jonas> something. > > There were a lot of messages here, and I may have missed some. > > When I last paid attention to this, you were concerned about whether the > letter was an attempt at public shaming. > As a personal choice, I reject shaming fairly strongly. > But now somehow the discussion has moved on to whether the accusation > in the letter is necessary and whether Debian risks legal issues by > signing on. > > The legal question is not interesting to me; I think the risk to Debian > is one I'm quite willing to accept. > An official Debian statement is not about any particular individual but about Debian's interests and goals. We should strive on principles of equality, inclusion and enhance the sense of belonging of our every member while preserving Debian's reputation. This actually means that we have to carefully choose our words and hold ourselves to a higher standard at least when composing an official Debian statement. There is no space for emotional revenge punches in the name of Debian. Milan
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Hi Sam, Quoting Sam Hartman (2021-03-28 23:55:42) > > "Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard writes: > There were a lot of messages here, and I may have missed some. Sorry for my part of that: I wish I were able to express my opinions more compactly. > When I last paid attention to this, you were concerned about whether > the letter was an attempt at public shaming. > As a personal choice, I reject shaming fairly strongly. > But now somehow the discussion has moved on to whether the accusation > in the letter is necessary and whether Debian risks legal issues by > signing on. To me it is one and the same issue: I do not want to take part in bullying/shaming/libel/throwing mud/making accusations and therefore I don't want Debian to do so either. That it poses a legal risk is for me an indication of the underlying issue for me: That it is wrong to do so. > The legal question is not interesting to me; I think the risk to > Debian is one I'm quite willing to accept. > > But the shaming question is interesting to me (at least under my > fairly narrow definition of shaming). > I'd like to see if I'm understanding your argument. > > Are you saying that by making an unnecessary accusation we would be > shaming? > And so you'd like to understand whether the accusation is necessary to > understand whether we are shaming? Yes to both questions. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
> "Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard writes: Jonas> Quoting Pierre-Elliott Bécue (2021-03-28 20:31:01) >> Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 � 14:04:48+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a >> �crit�: > My involvement in this subthread was when Molly arguing >> that the > accusation was not harmful (using other words, yes, >> and we can > nitpick that if really necessary). You (and others, >> privately) > agree that the accusations are deliberately harmful >> but that the > harm cannot backfire on Debian. I have raised my >> concerns - I rest > my case. >> >> Accusations are generally harmful, and as accusations are always >> delibeately made, they indeed tend to be deliberately harmful. >> >> That does not mean they are not warranted. And I think it is that >> point that could/should be discussed. Jonas> Text #1 oncludes an accusation. Other proposed texts does Jonas> not. Jonas> I think the relevant thing to discuss is not if the Jonas> accusation embedded in text #1 is warranted, but instead if Jonas> that accusation is necessary. Is the accusation needed for Jonas> that proposal? It seems to me that the message would be the Jonas> same with that accusation omitted, but maybe I am missing Jonas> something. There were a lot of messages here, and I may have missed some. When I last paid attention to this, you were concerned about whether the letter was an attempt at public shaming. As a personal choice, I reject shaming fairly strongly. But now somehow the discussion has moved on to whether the accusation in the letter is necessary and whether Debian risks legal issues by signing on. The legal question is not interesting to me; I think the risk to Debian is one I'm quite willing to accept. But the shaming question is interesting to me (at least under my fairly narrow definition of shaming). I'd like to see if I'm understanding your argument. Are you saying that by making an unnecessary accusation we would be shaming? And so you'd like to understand whether the accusation is necessary to understand whether we are shaming? --Sam
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 à 20:56:26+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > Quoting Pierre-Elliott Bécue (2021-03-28 20:31:01) > > Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 � 14:04:48+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a �crit�: > > > My involvement in this subthread was when Molly arguing that the > > > accusation was not harmful (using other words, yes, and we can > > > nitpick that if really necessary). You (and others, privately) > > > agree that the accusations are deliberately harmful but that the > > > harm cannot backfire on Debian. I have raised my concerns - I rest > > > my case. > > > > Accusations are generally harmful, and as accusations are always > > delibeately made, they indeed tend to be deliberately harmful. > > > > That does not mean they are not warranted. And I think it is that > > point that could/should be discussed. > > Text #1 oncludes an accusation. Other proposed texts does not. > > I think the relevant thing to discuss is not if the accusation embedded > in text #1 is warranted, but instead if that accusation is necessary. > Is the accusation needed for that proposal? It seems to me that the > message would be the same with that accusation omitted, but maybe I am > missing something. What reason would you give to ask RMS' removal from the board of the FSF if it were not for his ways of being/behaving and his attitudes? -- 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: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Hallo, * Felix Lechner [Sun, Mar 28 2021, 08:12:58AM]: > On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 5:05 AM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > You (and others, privately) agree that the > > accusations are deliberately harmful > > That's intent to harm—and maybe malice. > > Anyone wishing to harm someone should do so on their own. I want no part in > it. You are not alone. I consider some of the wording of the second paragraph of "Choice 1" very disturbing, primarily that "He has shown himself to be" followed by strongly connotated wording. Seriously, what kind of statement is that? This is deliberately declaring the perception of "somebody" to be already some kind of truth. Do the proposers of Choice 1 actually realize that this might present Debian as a driving force of a smear campaign? Do we really want that? *facepalm* And regarding the subject, "shorten Discussion Period". Sorry, I cannot agree with that. We are known for taking our time with quality analysis, the Release Team even extended the package freeze time to 20 days. But for this topic, without any emergency, we have to rush like hell? Sorry, guys, smells like double standards. Best regards and good night, Eduard.
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Quoting Pierre-Elliott Bécue (2021-03-28 20:31:01) > Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 � 14:04:48+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a �crit�: > > My involvement in this subthread was when Molly arguing that the > > accusation was not harmful (using other words, yes, and we can > > nitpick that if really necessary). You (and others, privately) > > agree that the accusations are deliberately harmful but that the > > harm cannot backfire on Debian. I have raised my concerns - I rest > > my case. > > Accusations are generally harmful, and as accusations are always > delibeately made, they indeed tend to be deliberately harmful. > > That does not mean they are not warranted. And I think it is that > point that could/should be discussed. Text #1 oncludes an accusation. Other proposed texts does not. I think the relevant thing to discuss is not if the accusation embedded in text #1 is warranted, but instead if that accusation is necessary. Is the accusation needed for that proposal? It seems to me that the message would be the same with that accusation omitted, but maybe I am missing something. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 à 14:04:48+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > My involvement in this subthread was when Molly arguing that the > accusation was not harmful (using other words, yes, and we can nitpick > that if really necessary). You (and others, privately) agree that the > accusations are deliberately harmful but that the harm cannot backfire > on Debian. I have raised my concerns - I rest my case. Accusations are generally harmful, and as accusations are always delibeately made, they indeed tend to be deliberately harmful. That does not mean they are not warranted. And I think it is that point that could/should be discussed. -- 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: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Hi, On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 5:05 AM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > You (and others, privately) agree that the > accusations are deliberately harmful That's intent to harm—and maybe malice. Anyone wishing to harm someone should do so on their own. I want no part in it. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2021-03-28 08:17:32) > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 11:46:03PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2021-03-27 18:19:57) > > > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > Thanks for your judgements(!), Luke and Enrico. > > > > > > > > For the record, I do not defend actions of RMS. I defend his > > > > right to a fair trial. > > > > > > Nobody is claiming Richard doesn't have the right for a fair > > > trial. He is still a human being, and every human being has such a > > > right. > > > > > > However, there is no trial here. > > > > We agree that there is no trial here. > > > > My point is however tied to that of cancel culture a.k.a. group > > shaming - specifically that the initial text on the ballot use > > judgemental language that I can only read as intended to condemn the > > person that we want to distance outselves from. Maybe I use the > > words wrongly or sloppily - what I mean is the difference between > > saying "that person allegedly made a crime" and "that person has > > made a crime", where the former is an accusation. > > The word "allegedly" is used by the press when reporting on a case, as > a shorthand for "we don't want to take a position either way, but this > is what the one party in the case is saying". > > Since we *do* want to take a position here, using "allegedly" is not > appropriate. > > Having said that, the language of the letter does not say that RMS > *is* mysoginistic, transphobic, or ableist; it states that "he has > shown himself to be" all these things. The difference here is subtle, > but it is a difference of exactly the type you are arguing for. That (your very last sentence above) helps address my concern. > > Seems my concern is what in english is called "libel": > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Libel > > According to that very page, for a statement to be considered libel, > it has to be false. Quote: > >Defamation (also known as calumny, vilification, libel, slander or >traducement) is the oral or written communication of a *false* >statement about another that *unjustly* harms their reputation and >usually constitutes a tort or crime > > (emphasis mine) > > Do you have reason to believe these statements are false, and/or that > they "unjustly" harm RMS' reputation? Yes - that is the reason I have invested time on this subthread. I do not, however, have reason to believe that the statements are expressed "with reckless disregard for the truth", which seems an important distinction. > > > There is just the statement that RMS > > > has been a very annoying person for the past several decades, and that > > > having him in a position of leadership, in the opinion of those people > > > that signed the letter, causes more harm than good. > > > > > > *That is not a trial*. That is an opinion on the effects another > > > person's behavior has to a community. > > > > You talk about the part of Debian distancing itself from RMS. > > > > I talk about the part of Debian making accusations against RMS. > > > > Imagine someone in Debian blogged about skin colors, super annoyingly > > and persistently for many years but always "just talking about stuff" > > maybe walking close to but never crossing the line of racism, > > Do you believe that to be the case here? Do you think RMs has "walked > close but never crossed the line" of the things he's being accused of? Yes - that is the reason I have invested time on this subthread. > If you do, then... well, we'll have to discuss that. If you mean we have to discuss what RMS has or has not done, then I disagree that we have to discuss that. I believe that we have to discuss if we want on our ballot a text which potentially is libel. My concrete proposal is to remove that one sentence which I can only read as a direct accusation. > For the record, I don't believe so. I do believe he is all the things > he is being accused of in that letter. Right: Your opinion - and I assume the opinion of the proposers of the text as well - is that it has (deliberate harmful intent, but) no risk of libel in keeping it as-is. I am open to discuss further but don't know how it at all we can continue such discussion. > > Unless or until a fair trial has ruled that he is guilty of those > > horrible crimes, in which case in becomes facts. > > What he is being accused of is not a crime in any jurisdiction that I > am aware of. He is not a nice person towards fellow human beings, but > most laws don't require you to be. > > You don't need a trial for everything. I don't think what RMS has done > requires jail time, or any other punishment a trial could give him. > Failing that, there is no reason for a trial. > > Without a trial, it is indeed not possible for the accusations to be > proven true or false. However, if someone cared enough, all the > evindence is out there and
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Hi Jonas, On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 11:46:03PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Hi Wouter, > > Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2021-03-27 18:19:57) > > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > Thanks for your judgements(!), Luke and Enrico. > > > > > > For the record, I do not defend actions of RMS. I defend his right > > > to a fair trial. > > > > Nobody is claiming Richard doesn't have the right for a fair trial. He > > is still a human being, and every human being has such a right. > > > > However, there is no trial here. > > We agree that there is no trial here. > > My point is however tied to that of cancel culture a.k.a. group shaming > - specifically that the initial text on the ballot use judgemental > language that I can only read as intended to condemn the person that we > want to distance outselves from. Maybe I use the words wrongly or > sloppily - what I mean is the difference between saying "that person > allegedly made a crime" and "that person has made a crime", where the > former is an accusation. The word "allegedly" is used by the press when reporting on a case, as a shorthand for "we don't want to take a position either way, but this is what the one party in the case is saying". Since we *do* want to take a position here, using "allegedly" is not appropriate. Having said that, the language of the letter does not say that RMS *is* mysoginistic, transphobic, or ableist; it states that "he has shown himself to be" all these things. The difference here is subtle, but it is a difference of exactly the type you are arguing for. > Seems my concern is what in english is called "libel": > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Libel According to that very page, for a statement to be considered libel, it has to be false. Quote: Defamation (also known as calumny, vilification, libel, slander or traducement) is the oral or written communication of a *false* statement about another that *unjustly* harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime (emphasis mine) Do you have reason to believe these statements are false, and/or that they "unjustly" harm RMS' reputation? There is no question that they will harm his reputation; however, given the harm he has done to others, I do not believe it is "unjust", in that it is a result that could have been expected. > > There is just the statement that RMS > > has been a very annoying person for the past several decades, and that > > having him in a position of leadership, in the opinion of those people > > that signed the letter, causes more harm than good. > > > > *That is not a trial*. That is an opinion on the effects another > > person's behavior has to a community. > > You talk about the part of Debian distancing itself from RMS. > > I talk about the part of Debian making accusations against RMS. > > Imagine someone in Debian blogged about skin colors, super annoyingly > and persistently for many years but always "just talking about stuff" > maybe walking close to but never crossing the line of racism, Do you believe that to be the case here? Do you think RMs has "walked close but never crossed the line" of the things he's being accused of? If not, then I fail to see what the problem is. If you do, then... well, we'll have to discuss that. For the record, I don't believe so. I do believe he is all the things he is being accused of in that letter. [...] > > Debian stating to the FSF that we would prefer not to have to deal > > with RMS is not a punishment for RMS. > > Yes, I agree. But again that is not the group shaming part which I was > talking about. > > Stating that RMS "has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and > transphobic" is not simply expressing "that we would prefer not to have > to deal with RMS" - it is a strong accusation. Not a wild > out-of-the-blue accusation, but still an accusation. We agree that it is an accusation. I don't see what the problem is with that? Unless you believe the accusations to be false, it is fair to accuse someone of doing something if you believe the said something is wrong. If the accusations are strong, then that is only because the said things are *very* wrong. That's not the fault of the accuser; it is the fault of the accused. > Unless or until a fair trial has ruled that he is guilty of those > horrible crimes, in which case in becomes facts. What he is being accused of is not a crime in any jurisdiction that I am aware of. He is not a nice person towards fellow human beings, but most laws don't require you to be. You don't need a trial for everything. I don't think what RMS has done requires jail time, or any other punishment a trial could give him. Failing that, there is no reason for a trial. Without a trial, it is indeed not possible for the accusations to be proven true or false. However, if someone cared enough, all the evindence is out there and they can try to show why the accusations are
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Hi Wouter, Quoting Wouter Verhelst (2021-03-27 18:19:57) > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Thanks for your judgements(!), Luke and Enrico. > > > > For the record, I do not defend actions of RMS. I defend his right > > to a fair trial. > > Nobody is claiming Richard doesn't have the right for a fair trial. He > is still a human being, and every human being has such a right. > > However, there is no trial here. We agree that there is no trial here. My point is however tied to that of cancel culture a.k.a. group shaming - specifically that the initial text on the ballot use judgemental language that I can only read as intended to condemn the person that we want to distance outselves from. Maybe I use the words wrongly or sloppily - what I mean is the difference between saying "that person allegedly made a crime" and "that person has made a crime", where the former is an accusation. Seems my concern is what in english is called "libel": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Libel > There is just the statement that RMS > has been a very annoying person for the past several decades, and that > having him in a position of leadership, in the opinion of those people > that signed the letter, causes more harm than good. > > *That is not a trial*. That is an opinion on the effects another > person's behavior has to a community. You talk about the part of Debian distancing itself from RMS. I talk about the part of Debian making accusations against RMS. Imagine someone in Debian blogged about skin colors, super annoyingly and persistently for many years but always "just talking about stuff" maybe walking close to but never crossing the line of racism, and Debian at some point had enough and decided to issue a public statement saying that this person had shown himself to be a racist. My worry is that Debian had then comitted a crime of libel, whereas you seem to describe that as Debian simply sharing its opinion about this person in a community. Apparently (from skimming above Wikipedia article) the US treats celebrities special regarding libel, unlike e.g. Denmark. Perhaps that explains why I worry more than others in this conversation. > Debian stating to the FSF that we would prefer not to have to deal > with RMS is not a punishment for RMS. Yes, I agree. But again that is not the group shaming part which I was talking about. Stating that RMS "has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic" is not simply expressing "that we would prefer not to have to deal with RMS" - it is a strong accusation. Not a wild out-of-the-blue accusation, but still an accusation. Unless or until a fair trial has ruled that he is guilty of those horrible crimes, in which case in becomes facts. > XKCD 1357 applies here, with s/free speech rights/rights to a fair > trial/. Fun. But besides my point. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Thanks for your judgements(!), Luke and Enrico. > > For the record, I do not defend actions of RMS. I defend his right to a > fair trial. Nobody is claiming Richard doesn't have the right for a fair trial. He is still a human being, and every human being has such a right. However, there is no trial here. There is just the statement that RMS has been a very annoying person for the past several decades, and that having him in a position of leadership, in the opinion of those people that signed the letter, causes more harm than good. *That is not a trial*. That is an opinion on the effects another person's behavior has to a community. It is not a very positive opinion about that person's behavior, and in that respect this may reflect on RMS' reputation, but *a reputation is not something that is decided by trial*. It is instead something that is decided by the common opinion of all the people in the community. A trial is meant to decide on who is to blame for something, and, if that can be determined, what the appropriate punishment for the crime would be. Debian stating to the FSF that we would prefer not to have to deal with RMS is not a punishment for RMS. It is not an assignment of blame. It is instead Debian stating that we don't like something, and can they please do something about the situation. Debian deciding that we don't want to cooperate with the FSF anymore, to the extent possible, if the FSF doesn't do what we ask of them, is not us punishing the FSF. It is us deciding that between having to deal with an organization with major organisational issues, in our opinion, and having to figure out alternative options for some of the FSF software, we would prefer the latter. XKCD 1357 applies here, with s/free speech rights/rights to a fair trial/. -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Hi Martin, Quoting Martin Steigerwald (2021-03-27 11:13:52) > On addition: In a sense, Jonas, you said what I wrote below, I think. > You warned about group shaming. And I may have misread your mail. Cause > now I am not sure that you actually called him a monster. You wrote that > users have accused him of being one. So in case I misunderstood that, > please accept my apology. My differentiation to focus on behavior and not > the person regarding a public statement may still be helpful to bring > some clarity. > > > Dear Jonas, dear Debian community, > > Jonas Smedegaard - 27.03.21, 10:41:57 CET: > > I need no further testimonies or evicence that RMS is a monster. For the record: I am guilty of introducing the word "monster", but did *not* mean to imply that anyone in particular would label RMS as such - not me and not Luke and not Enrico. I accused Like and Enrico for _judging_ but not for labelling. > I never experienced Richard Stallman in real life so far. Is it relevant to study RMS to decide texts for the ballot? Some with one opinion has proposed the initial text for the ballot. Other with different opinions have proposed other texts for the ballot. We should make sure that the ballot represents the opinions of those opinions backed by adequate seconders, and we should try to make sure that the ballot has no unintended side effects - e.g. conflicts with other things in Debian, or violate laws of society surrounding Debian. We should not on this mailinglist try to judge RMS, however. What is the purpose *for* *preparing* *a* *ballot* of reflecting on the personality of RMS or examine presented evidence or collecting additional evidence? My point here is that it is *irrelevant* if he is a monster of not - for *this* conversation. It may or may not be super relevant for Debian what kind of person RMS is, and the _outcome_ of this vote seeks to aid in resolving that. We *cannot* resolve that in the design of the ballot, however! - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Martin Steigerwald - 27.03.21, 11:13:52 CET: > On addition: In a sense, Jonas, you said what I wrote below, I think. > You warned about group shaming. And I may have misread your mail. > Cause now I am not sure that you actually called him a monster. You > wrote that users have accused him of being one. So in case I that others have accused him > misunderstood that, please accept my apology. My differentiation to > focus on behavior and not the person regarding a public statement may > still be helpful to bring some clarity. Even if I read my mails after writing but before sending them, a typo like that sometimes slipped through. Best, -- Martin
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On addition: In a sense, Jonas, you said what I wrote below, I think. You warned about group shaming. And I may have misread your mail. Cause now I am not sure that you actually called him a monster. You wrote that users have accused him of being one. So in case I misunderstood that, please accept my apology. My differentiation to focus on behavior and not the person regarding a public statement may still be helpful to bring some clarity. Dear Jonas, dear Debian community, Jonas Smedegaard - 27.03.21, 10:41:57 CET: > I need no further testimonies or evicence that RMS is a monster. > Regardless of the amount and type of proof, Debian should in my > opinion *not* take part in group shaming. And *that* is relevant to > discuss on this mailinglist: What to put on the ballot for the Debian > vote. > > The originally proposed text says that RMS has demonstrated that he is > what he is being accused of being. That is a way of turning > allegations into facts - i.e. *judging* - and I worry for Debian > officially stating that the allegations are facts is going too far, > and that it is unneded if what we want is to distance ourselves from > a monster. I never experienced Richard Stallman in real life so far. I have followed links of some of what he said – on his very own website – and I do not agree with some of what I found there. I have seen testimonies on him which could or could not be true. It could be this or that way and I accept that. I accept that I do not have much first-hand information about him at the moment. I also accept that I may not easily find out cause if I learned anything during the last year it is: What is written on the internet, what is portrayed by media is not necessarily the truth or even most often isn't. However I suggest to focus on his behavior. His behavior is likely to come from personality traits he developed over time. But I would be very reluctant to judge on his personality. I'd focus on whether his behavior is acceptable within free software communities or not. I make no judgment on that – just cause I lack the first-hand information to do so. Of course it is also about the likely hood on whether he repeats past behavior that caused harm. And to that extent it may be necessary to look at what personality traits, beliefs and thought, but especially behavioral patterns he has shown in the past. But still: Unless the information I have about Richard Stallman is crossly incorrect he is a human being. Or a soul incarnated in a human body. He is not a monster. I see calling him a monster or calling him a toxic person as part (!) of the very same behavior he is accused of. The most important thing in my eyes about how to deal with the situation is to take great care to do it with the highest excellence of human behavior you can honestly (!) come up with. Be clear, state clearly what behavior you do not see as acceptable, state clearly how you choose to handle the situation. But also stay away from calling him a monster or a toxic person. Do not engage in the very same excluding behavior you accuse him of. You can say "You are not allowed onto any of our conferences" for example while still not saying "You are a monster". That is at least my recommendation. I have been reluctant to write anything about the matter out of the fear of being attacked in person for doing so. However I see myself well equipped to deal with anything that might come back at me. And at least I tried hard not to hurt and harm anyone. In case you still hurt by what I wrote there, I ask you to consider that I wrote this with the intention of the highest good of everyone who is involved in mind. Best, -- Martin
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Dear Jonas, dear Debian community, Jonas Smedegaard - 27.03.21, 10:41:57 CET: > I need no further testimonies or evicence that RMS is a monster. > Regardless of the amount and type of proof, Debian should in my > opinion *not* take part in group shaming. And *that* is relevant to > discuss on this mailinglist: What to put on the ballot for the Debian > vote. > > The originally proposed text says that RMS has demonstrated that he is > what he is being accused of being. That is a way of turning > allegations into facts - i.e. *judging* - and I worry for Debian > officially stating that the allegations are facts is going too far, > and that it is unneded if what we want is to distance ourselves from > a monster. I never experienced Richard Stallman in real life so far. I have followed links of some of what he said – on his very own website – and I do not agree with some of what I found there. I have seen testimonies on him which could or could not be true. It could be this or that way and I accept that. I accept that I do not have much first-hand information about him at the moment. I also accept that I may not easily find out cause if I learned anything during the last year it is: What is written on the internet, what is portrayed by media is not necessarily the truth or even most often isn't. However I suggest to focus on his behavior. His behavior is likely to come from personality traits he developed over time. But I would be very reluctant to judge on his personality. I'd focus on whether his behavior is acceptable within free software communities or not. I make no judgment on that – just cause I lack the first-hand information to do so. Of course it is also about the likely hood on whether he repeats past behavior that caused harm. And to that extent it may be necessary to look at what personality traits, beliefs and thought, but especially behavioral patterns he has shown in the past. But still: Unless the information I have about Richard Stallman is crossly incorrect he is a human being. Or a soul incarnated in a human body. He is not a monster. I see calling him a monster or calling him a toxic person as part (!) of the very same behavior he is accused of. The most important thing in my eyes about how to deal with the situation is to take great care to do it with the highest excellence of human behavior you can honestly (!) come up with. Be clear, state clearly what behavior you do not see as acceptable, state clearly how you choose to handle the situation. But also stay away from calling him a monster or a toxic person. Do not engage in the very same excluding behavior you accuse him of. You can say "You are not allowed onto any of our conferences" for example while still not saying "You are a monster". That is at least my recommendation. I have been reluctant to write anything about the matter out of the fear of being attacked in person for doing so. However I see myself well equipped to deal with anything that might come back at me. And at least I tried hard not to hurt and harm anyone. In case you still hurt by what I wrote there, I ask you to consider that I wrote this with the intention of the highest good of everyone who is involved in mind. Best, -- Martin
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Le samedi 27 mars 2021 à 10:41:57+0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > Quoting Enrico Zini (2021-03-27 10:08:06) > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:31:28PM -0700, Luke W Faraone wrote: > > > > > Myself, I signed this letter based on both public information and > > > the numerous times I've heard, unprompted, stories from women and > > > female-presenting people who have had uncomfortable / creepy > > > experiences with Stallman, in the Debian / free software community, > > > the MIT community, and elsewhere. > > > > > > I have heard first-hand stories from women who were new to the Free > > > Software movement and, at a conference, were excited to meet its > > > leader -- only to be hit on by Richard and invited back to continue > > > the conversation at a residence. These people did not stay in the > > > Free Software movement, and our community is poorer for it. > > > > > > None of those incidents would have turned into a police report, and > > > I'm not demanding that you rely on it. But it comes up so frequently > > > at conferences, student clubs, and bar chats from so many different > > > people that I have little reason to doubt its veracity. > > > > > > It's also interesting to note that over 12 former FSF staff, who > > > worked directly with Richard, also saw it fit to sign the letter. > > > > This! Thank you! > > > > I have regularly been among people sharing horror stories of what > > happened when they hosted RMS at some event or another. > > > > In my experience there is an unwritten, alternative "RMS Rider", that > > you should know before hosting/handling him, with things like "don't > > you *ever* leave RMS alone with a woman!", "avoid mentioning this list > > of words", "a number of basic expectations of human decency don't > > apply, and you should be prepared for that". > > > > As long as he was in a somewhat official position of guru/leadership, > > I was part of a community that tried its best to *handle* him, and to > > *minimize his damage*. I understand that many people close to him > > tried to talk to him, and that Stallman is about as famous for > > speaking as for not listening. I believe that all this has held Free > > Software back significantly. > > > > We had finally moved on from having a significant amount of the > > community energy spent on *handling Stallman*. And now he's supposed > > to be back "and I'm not planning to resign a second time"? > > > > Stallman can certainly *speak* about Free Software. Stallman cannot > > *lead* the Free Software movement, or any influential part of it. We > > had moved on, and we had mostly gotten away with it[1]. I don't want > > to go back. > > Thanks for your judgements(!), Luke and Enrico. > > For the record, I do not defend actions of RMS. I defend his right to a > fair trial. > > This mailinglist is for dicussing what to put on a ballot. > > I need no further testimonies or evicence that RMS is a monster. > Regardless of the amount and type of proof, Debian should in my opinion > *not* take part in group shaming. And *that* is relevant to discuss on > this mailinglist: What to put on the ballot for the Debian vote. > > The originally proposed text says that RMS has demonstrated that he is > what he is being accused of being. That is a way of turning allegations > into facts - i.e. *judging* - and I worry for Debian officially stating > that the allegations are facts is going too far, and that it is unneded > if what we want is to distance ourselves from a monster. > > Only if we want to punish the monster is it relevant to explicitly judge > the monster. > > It is my understanding that it is illegal for organisations to make such > explicit judgements, which is a reason for us to avoid explicit > judgement, even if that is in fact what we want to do. A fair trial is what you expect from the society when your actions are put under the justice system. Here as a group of people, his trial is mostly what he said publicly and never apologised for. I don't really see why you'd like him to get any sort of """trial""" when he had plenty opportunities to prove himself to have become better. Regards, -- 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: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Quoting Enrico Zini (2021-03-27 10:08:06) > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:31:28PM -0700, Luke W Faraone wrote: > > > Myself, I signed this letter based on both public information and > > the numerous times I've heard, unprompted, stories from women and > > female-presenting people who have had uncomfortable / creepy > > experiences with Stallman, in the Debian / free software community, > > the MIT community, and elsewhere. > > > > I have heard first-hand stories from women who were new to the Free > > Software movement and, at a conference, were excited to meet its > > leader -- only to be hit on by Richard and invited back to continue > > the conversation at a residence. These people did not stay in the > > Free Software movement, and our community is poorer for it. > > > > None of those incidents would have turned into a police report, and > > I'm not demanding that you rely on it. But it comes up so frequently > > at conferences, student clubs, and bar chats from so many different > > people that I have little reason to doubt its veracity. > > > > It's also interesting to note that over 12 former FSF staff, who > > worked directly with Richard, also saw it fit to sign the letter. > > This! Thank you! > > I have regularly been among people sharing horror stories of what > happened when they hosted RMS at some event or another. > > In my experience there is an unwritten, alternative "RMS Rider", that > you should know before hosting/handling him, with things like "don't > you *ever* leave RMS alone with a woman!", "avoid mentioning this list > of words", "a number of basic expectations of human decency don't > apply, and you should be prepared for that". > > As long as he was in a somewhat official position of guru/leadership, > I was part of a community that tried its best to *handle* him, and to > *minimize his damage*. I understand that many people close to him > tried to talk to him, and that Stallman is about as famous for > speaking as for not listening. I believe that all this has held Free > Software back significantly. > > We had finally moved on from having a significant amount of the > community energy spent on *handling Stallman*. And now he's supposed > to be back "and I'm not planning to resign a second time"? > > Stallman can certainly *speak* about Free Software. Stallman cannot > *lead* the Free Software movement, or any influential part of it. We > had moved on, and we had mostly gotten away with it[1]. I don't want > to go back. Thanks for your judgements(!), Luke and Enrico. For the record, I do not defend actions of RMS. I defend his right to a fair trial. This mailinglist is for dicussing what to put on a ballot. I need no further testimonies or evicence that RMS is a monster. Regardless of the amount and type of proof, Debian should in my opinion *not* take part in group shaming. And *that* is relevant to discuss on this mailinglist: What to put on the ballot for the Debian vote. The originally proposed text says that RMS has demonstrated that he is what he is being accused of being. That is a way of turning allegations into facts - i.e. *judging* - and I worry for Debian officially stating that the allegations are facts is going too far, and that it is unneded if what we want is to distance ourselves from a monster. Only if we want to punish the monster is it relevant to explicitly judge the monster. It is my understanding that it is illegal for organisations to make such explicit judgements, which is a reason for us to avoid explicit judgement, even if that is in fact what we want to do. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:31:28PM -0700, Luke W Faraone wrote: > Myself, I signed this letter based on both public information and the > numerous times I've heard, unprompted, stories from women and > female-presenting people who have had uncomfortable / creepy experiences > with Stallman, in the Debian / free software community, the MIT > community, and elsewhere. > > I have heard first-hand stories from women who were new to the Free > Software movement and, at a conference, were excited to meet its leader > -- only to be hit on by Richard and invited back to continue the > conversation at a residence. These people did not stay in the Free > Software movement, and our community is poorer for it. > > None of those incidents would have turned into a police report, and I'm > not demanding that you rely on it. But it comes up so frequently at > conferences, student clubs, and bar chats from so many different people > that I have little reason to doubt its veracity. > > It's also interesting to note that over 12 former FSF staff, who worked > directly with Richard, also saw it fit to sign the letter. This! Thank you! I have regularly been among people sharing horror stories of what happened when they hosted RMS at some event or another. In my experience there is an unwritten, alternative "RMS Rider", that you should know before hosting/handling him, with things like "don't you *ever* leave RMS alone with a woman!", "avoid mentioning this list of words", "a number of basic expectations of human decency don't apply, and you should be prepared for that". As long as he was in a somewhat official position of guru/leadership, I was part of a community that tried its best to *handle* him, and to *minimize his damage*. I understand that many people close to him tried to talk to him, and that Stallman is about as famous for speaking as for not listening. I believe that all this has held Free Software back significantly. We had finally moved on from having a significant amount of the community energy spent on *handling Stallman*. And now he's supposed to be back "and I'm not planning to resign a second time"? Stallman can certainly *speak* about Free Software. Stallman cannot *lead* the Free Software movement, or any influential part of it. We had moved on, and we had mostly gotten away with it[1]. I don't want to go back. Enrico [1] Possibly we don't deserve it. As a community we had enabled him to be indecent on others for decades! -- GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On 26/03/2021 05:56, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: - I don't like the term "cancel" because I think it doesn't mean much anymore and is too loaded. >>> >>> Means too little and too much at the same time?!? >>> >>> https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/cancel-culture/ describes >>> it as a form of boycott, calling out, and group shaming. In the United States, "cancel culture" is a bit over-used as a term, to the point of being somewhat meaningless. It comes with the connotation of being an overreaction, etc. Whereas, well, sometimes we're just talking about people facing consequences for their behaviour. Are we discussing a handful of people leaving volunteer positions? Yes. Are we discussing ruining their lives? No. >>> >>> Are we disccussing public boycott and shaming? Yes. >>> >>> Do public boycott and shaming ruin lives? Hopefully not, but I >>> wonder how you can so confidently dismiss both the term as being >>> meaningless and the action as being harmless. Shame on you for not >>> taking responsibility for your action. >> Did you just "shame" someone because they supposedly call on "shaming" >> someone else? Isn't that a contradiction? > > No. I shame someone for reframing an act of group shaming as harmless. Don't call for shame on your fellow Debian developers while putting words in their mouth. mdb's mail didn't assert it's "harmless" -- instead that it wasn't tantamount to "ruining their lives". Obviously, there's an adverse impact to an individual in no longer holding a volunteer position of prominence. But the letter didn't advocate for the board members to be fired from their other employment, or seek to make them pariahs in the free software community. > I find it distasteful for Debian to *judge* activities in related > organisations. > > Stating that "[RMS] has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and > transphobic" is treating allegations (arguably very strong allegations > but still not proven in a court of law) as it it was facts. These aren't justiciable issues in America. Being a misogynist isn't a crime. Myself, I signed this letter based on both public information and the numerous times I've heard, unprompted, stories from women and female-presenting people who have had uncomfortable / creepy experiences with Stallman, in the Debian / free software community, the MIT community, and elsewhere. I have heard first-hand stories from women who were new to the Free Software movement and, at a conference, were excited to meet its leader -- only to be hit on by Richard and invited back to continue the conversation at a residence. These people did not stay in the Free Software movement, and our community is poorer for it. None of those incidents would have turned into a police report, and I'm not demanding that you rely on it. But it comes up so frequently at conferences, student clubs, and bar chats from so many different people that I have little reason to doubt its veracity. It's also interesting to note that over 12 former FSF staff, who worked directly with Richard, also saw it fit to sign the letter. Cheers, Luke Faraone (they/them) OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Hi Anarcat, Quoting Antoine Beaupré (2021-03-25 20:11:45) > Hey what's up doc, > > On 2021-03-25 00:41:41, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Quoting M dB (2021-03-24 23:55:23) > >> A few thoughts: > >> > >> - I don't like the term "cancel" because I think it doesn't mean > >> much anymore and is too loaded. > > > > Means too little and too much at the same time?!? > > > > https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/cancel-culture/ describes > > it as a form of boycott, calling out, and group shaming. > > > > Wikipedia seems to share that view - what am I missing? Am I in some > > bubble confirming my views, and other bubbles tell radically > > different storis about the meaning of the term? > > > > > >> Are we discussing a handful of people leaving volunteer positions? > >> Yes. Are we discussing ruining their lives? No. > > > > Are we disccussing public boycott and shaming? Yes. > > > > Do public boycott and shaming ruin lives? Hopefully not, but I > > wonder how you can so confidently dismiss both the term as being > > meaningless and the action as being harmless. Shame on you for not > > taking responsibility for your action. > > Did you just "shame" someone because they supposedly call on "shaming" > someone else? Isn't that a contradiction? No. I shame someone for reframing an act of group shaming as harmless. > > I get a strong impression that this RMS felow is far from a saint, > > and encourage that he be properly tried for his alleged wrongdoings. > > So basically, what you are proposing is that, instead of suggesting > RMS simply be expelled from a non-profit, all the witnesses and > victims of his crimes should collectively organise for him to be > criminally prosecuted in a court of law in the United States? > > How would that not be public shaming? Regardless of the shame involved in prosecution in a US court system, that does not legimitize group shaming. I find it reasonable for Debian to distance itself from questionable activities in related organisations, but not to get involved in group shaming. I find it distasteful for Debian to *judge* activities in related organisations. Stating that "[RMS] has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic" is treating allegations (arguably very strong allegations but still not proven in a court of law) as it it was facts. > Anyways, I think the point here is to get seconders, maybe we should > keep those arguments to the vote and move on. I hope I won't regret > outlining the contradictions here. I think the point here is to discuss what should be on the ballot. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
M dB wrote: > Are we discussing a handful of people leaving > volunteer positions? Yes. Are we discussing ruining their lives? No. [...] > Nobody who wants rms off the FSF board is trying to destroy > his life I may be wrong, but it looks like Richard Stallman has dedicated his life (or at least a large part of it) to (formerly) write and (now mostly) campaign for free software. After stepping "back from the free software, tech ethics, digital rights, and tech communities" (what he is asked to do and the open letter seems to campaign for), there does not seem to remain much of his current life. -thh
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Hey what's up doc, On 2021-03-25 00:41:41, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting M dB (2021-03-24 23:55:23) >> A few thoughts: >> >> - I don't like the term "cancel" because I think it doesn't mean much >> anymore and is too loaded. > > Means too little and too much at the same time?!? > > https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/cancel-culture/ describes it as > a form of boycott, calling out, and group shaming. > > Wikipedia seems to share that view - what am I missing? Am I in some > bubble confirming my views, and other bubbles tell radically different > storis about the meaning of the term? > > >> Are we discussing a handful of people leaving volunteer positions? >> Yes. Are we discussing ruining their lives? No. > > Are we disccussing public boycott and shaming? Yes. > > Do public boycott and shaming ruin lives? Hopefully not, but I wonder > how you can so confidently dismiss both the term as being meaningless > and the action as being harmless. Shame on you for not taking > responsibility for your action. Did you just "shame" someone because they supposedly call on "shaming" someone else? Isn't that a contradiction? > I get a strong impression that this RMS felow is far from a saint, and > encourage that he be properly tried for his alleged wrongdoings. So basically, what you are proposing is that, instead of suggesting RMS simply be expelled from a non-profit, all the witnesses and victims of his crimes should collectively organise for him to be criminally prosecuted in a court of law in the United States? How would that not be public shaming? Anyways, I think the point here is to get seconders, maybe we should keep those arguments to the vote and move on. I hope I won't regret outlining the contradictions here. A. -- Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex. - Frank Zappa
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
* Sam Hartman: > I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged > discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting > quickly in this instance. I think the appendix to the open letter is problematic, and that might warrant some discussion. Am I alone in this regard?
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
M dB writes: > - To be explicit to anyone reading this, this is exclusively about the > Board of the FSF (and to some extent the Voting Membership -- if you're > reading this you're probably not a voting member). This is not about the > staff. This is not about the mission of the FSF. This is not a > condemnation of free software. >From the bylaws[1] I think the directors are elected by the Voting Members. So if people are unhappy that the Voting Members elected Stallman, shouldn't they complain about the Voting Members instead of the other directors? Ansgar [1] https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/fsf-amended-bylaws-current.pdf Article IV, Section 1
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Sam Hartman dijo [Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:19:09PM -0400]: > I suspect that the issues surrounding the open letter asking rms to step > down and for the FSF board to resign are fairly well understood at this > point. > It's been an ongoing issue. > > I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged > discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting > quickly in this instance. > So, I'd like to ask the DPL to consider shortening the discussion > period. > > It's possible that circumstances may arise requiring more > than a week's discussion. > But unless that happens I think we would all be happier spending less > rather than more time on this issue. > I suspect most people already have their minds made up. I second Sam's request, as this is a yes/no vote, and delaying it for a full GR term will postpone the outcome too much. Debian's processes are not optimized for speed, lets imporve a bit :-] signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Quoting M dB (2021-03-24 23:55:23) > A few thoughts: > > - I don't like the term "cancel" because I think it doesn't mean much > anymore and is too loaded. Means too little and too much at the same time?!? https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/cancel-culture/ describes it as a form of boycott, calling out, and group shaming. Wikipedia seems to share that view - what am I missing? Am I in some bubble confirming my views, and other bubbles tell radically different storis about the meaning of the term? > Are we discussing a handful of people leaving volunteer positions? > Yes. Are we discussing ruining their lives? No. Are we disccussing public boycott and shaming? Yes. Do public boycott and shaming ruin lives? Hopefully not, but I wonder how you can so confidently dismiss both the term as being meaningless and the action as being harmless. Shame on you for not taking responsibility for your action. I get a strong impression that this RMS felow is far from a saint, and encourage that he be properly tried for his alleged wrongdoings. Public boycott and shaming is something else than a that, however. Something that _does_ means much, and has a bitter taste in my mouth. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
A few thoughts: - I don't like the term "cancel" because I think it doesn't mean much anymore and is too loaded. Are we discussing a handful of people leaving volunteer positions? Yes. Are we discussing ruining their lives? No. - I think some of us have been very close to the FSF and issues within the FSF for a long time and have strong opinions based on our personal and professional experiences working with the Board and the organization. I certainly can't condense 11 years of working with the FSF (as an intern, volunteer, and staff) into a single email. Some people have been associated with the FSF even longer (take John Sullivan, for instance). - Obviously, I am one of the original signers of the letter. I like to think it speaks for itself. The things it calls for are not sudden responses to something that happened, but the result of years of thinking, conversations, studying non-profits, and being involved in social movements and activist work. - Georgia Young, former FSF Programs Manager, said something very important: Nobody who wants rms off the FSF board is trying to destroy his life, & many of us like things about him, but in a position of power and influence, he has shown a disinterest in growth & change, & its causing more harm than good. - To be explicit to anyone reading this, this is exclusively about the Board of the FSF (and to some extent the Voting Membership -- if you're reading this you're probably not a voting member). This is not about the staff. This is not about the mission of the FSF. This is not a condemnation of free software. Cheers, mdb On 3/24/21 6:30 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 3/24/21 10:20 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: >> I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged >> discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting >> quickly in this instance. > By writing you wish Debian was "acting quickly", you're expressing your > opinion about the issue. This doesn't match the title of your message. > > FWIW, I'm in the opinion Debian shouldn't do anything, and that all of > this is just distractions. We have Bullseye to release... > >> I suspect most people already have their minds made up. > Looks like you do! :) > > Cheers, > > Thomas Goirand (zigo) >
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:13:19AM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > On 2021/03/24 23:19, Sam Hartman wrote: > > I suspect that the issues surrounding the open letter asking rms to step > > down and for the FSF board to resign are fairly well understood at this > > point. > > It's been an ongoing issue. > > > > I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged > > discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting > > quickly in this instance. > > So, I'd like to ask the DPL to consider shortening the discussion > > period. > > > > It's possible that circumstances may arise requiring more > > than a week's discussion. > > But unless that happens I think we would all be happier spending less > > rather than more time on this issue. > > I suspect most people already have their minds made up. > > If Steve, as proposer of the GR is comfortable with shortening the > discussion period to one week, then I will use the DPL powers as per > section 4.2.4 of our constitution to enact that. I am more than happy with this. I see no reason for a prolonged discussion. Ratifying someone else's statement is by its nature an up or down vote. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On 3/24/21 10:20 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: > I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged > discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting > quickly in this instance. By writing you wish Debian was "acting quickly", you're expressing your opinion about the issue. This doesn't match the title of your message. FWIW, I'm in the opinion Debian shouldn't do anything, and that all of this is just distractions. We have Bullseye to release... > I suspect most people already have their minds made up. Looks like you do! :) Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On 2021/03/24 23:19, Sam Hartman wrote: > I suspect that the issues surrounding the open letter asking rms to step > down and for the FSF board to resign are fairly well understood at this > point. > It's been an ongoing issue. > > I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged > discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting > quickly in this instance. > So, I'd like to ask the DPL to consider shortening the discussion > period. > > It's possible that circumstances may arise requiring more > than a week's discussion. > But unless that happens I think we would all be happier spending less > rather than more time on this issue. > I suspect most people already have their minds made up. If Steve, as proposer of the GR is comfortable with shortening the discussion period to one week, then I will use the DPL powers as per section 4.2.4 of our constitution to enact that. -Jonathan
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Sam Hartman, 2021-03-24 17:19 -0400: > I suspect that the issues surrounding the open letter asking rms to step > down and for the FSF board to resign are fairly well understood at this > point. > It's been an ongoing issue. > > I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged > discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting > quickly in this instance. > So, I'd like to ask the DPL to consider shortening the discussion > period. > > It's possible that circumstances may arise requiring more > than a week's discussion. > But unless that happens I think we would all be happier spending less > rather than more time on this issue. > I suspect most people already have their minds made up. I second the request. Taowa -- Taowa (they) LOC FN35EM signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On 16082 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote: I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting quickly in this instance. So, I'd like to ask the DPL to consider shortening the discussion period. And for whatever it counts: Seconded. No need to have a longish thread about it, its either a yes or no for support of a given text. -- bye, Joerg signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
I suspect that the issues surrounding the open letter asking rms to step down and for the FSF board to resign are fairly well understood at this point. It's been an ongoing issue. I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting quickly in this instance. So, I'd like to ask the DPL to consider shortening the discussion period. It's possible that circumstances may arise requiring more than a week's discussion. But unless that happens I think we would all be happier spending less rather than more time on this issue. I suspect most people already have their minds made up. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
