Hi,
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:58:41PM +0200, Johannes Zarl-Zierl wrote:
> Hallo,
>
>
> Am Sonntag, 28. März 2021, 03:11:22 CEST schrieb Ilu:
> > Ich halte es für einen Fehler des FSFE Vorstands, sich überhaupt zu RMS
> > zu äußern, man hätte ihn lieber totschweigen sollen. Personen kommen und
> > gehen, nur Ideen bleiben. Nur mit den Ideen lohnt sich die
> > Auseinandersetzung. Und von sinkenden Schiffen hält man sich am besten
> > fern.
>
> Wenn sich die FSFE zu den Vorgängen in ihrer Schwesternorganisation nicht
> äußert, ist das in diesem Fall auch eine Äußerung - nämlich, dass sie damit
> einverstanden ist. Darüber kann man intern natürlich lange und ausgiebig
> diskutieren, aber wie soll die Öffentlichkeit das sonst interpretieren?
Nicht äußern wäre nicht gut gewesen, nein. Direkt die Zusammenarbeit
zu beenden und öffentlich die Spaltung der Community zur Schau zu
stellen halte ich allerdings für wenig zielführend und potentiell
schädlicher als ein paar Wochen mit rms zu leben.
Das schul-frei-Projekt (Teckids e.V., ziemlich frischer FSFE
Associate) hat am Wochenende nach langer Abstimmung das Folgende dazu
gesagt:
8><---
Hi Matthias,
hi FSFE board,
hi fellow associates,
thanks for notifying us about the FSFE statement converning Richard Stallman's
reinstatement on the FSF Board of Directors.
Today, we discussed the topic within the schul-frei project and came to the
conclusion that we do not fully support this statement. In particular, we
consider the immediate termination of the cooperation with the FSF harmful to
the Free Software movement as a whole.
Our thoughts on the topic surrounding Richard Stallman and the FSF are the
following:
1. We recognise that Richard Stallman is a problematic person.
His opinions, his behavioural traits and the ways he show-cases
render him inappropriate for leadership roles, especially
those where he is responsible for shaping or in charge
of possibly weaker people.
2. We recognise that Richard Stallman's reinstatement on the
FSF Board of Directors was intransparent and came to the
unpleasant surprise to everyone who may have been harmed,
or feels oppressed, by Richard Stallman's opinions or
behaviour. The procedures of board member nomination that
have, or have not, been followed have to be documented
and probably changed.
3. During our research, we failed to find samples of misuse
of Richard Stallman's role in the FSF, the GNU project, or
other Free Software bodies. Therefore, while we do not
agree with large parts of the opinion's expressed on
Richard Stallman's blog, we do not see immediate danger
for people working in these projects. Furthermore, we did
not find proof that Richard Stallman has enough outreach
to consider channels like his private website important
enough to have an impact on average Free Software activists
who do not actively search for his statements.
4. Richard Stallman plays an important role in the Free Software
movement, and so does the FSF. The movement lacks another
body that contends the Free Software ideology as vehemently
as the FSF and Richard Stallman do. In constrast, there is
a depressing number of organisations who should be defending
Free Software values, but fail to do so in practice. This
uniqueness, and the power it gives the FSF, needs to be
broken in the long run. Neither Richard Stallman, nor the
FSF, nor any other single person or organsiation should
possess this power.
5. The Free Software movement is in a crucial era, as is the
whole world. Fighting several global crises, including
the COVID-19 pandemic hurrying digitisation and making proprietary
software companies profiteers, an immediate declaration of
war of one Free Software organisation towards another one
causes immediate and obvious harm to the Free Software movement
as a whole. Instead, while making the general positions about
the problems with Richard Stallman and the FSF's procedures
clear, all parties should seek a process that solves these
issues in the long term, without risking the incapacity of the
movement or reputational damage beyond that caused by Richard
Stallman's opinions or behaviour.
Our proposal for a rational course of action would be along the lines
of the following:
1. We condemn the procedure with which Richard Stallman was
reinstated to the FSF Board of Directors. Therefore, we call
the FSF to report on this procedure, answering the14 following
questions:
* Which written procedures were followed, leading up to the
reinstatement of Richard Stallman on the Board of Directors?
* Which body voted for, or unilaterally decided for, the
reinstatement of Richard Stallman?
* Which problems, or requirements, that made changes to the
Board of Directors necessary, were resolved by reinstating
Ricahrd Stallman to the Board of Directors?
