
Joint Statement on the GNU Project - uncletaco
https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/
======
canarypilot
The only joy I get from these threads is in watching a whole bunch of newbies
to GNU get upset that politics, social policy, and GNU are intertwined.

They have always been! You could at least have the dignity to read Stallman’s
writings (a fine start is available at:
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-
articles.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html) , a
more advanced diet is available at Stallman.org ) to understand just how
politically charged GNU, the FSF, and Stallman have always been.

So now some members of a social movement disagree with the leader of that
social movement you feel upset to see social issues discussed? That seems
dishonest.

Why should any social and political movement remain beholden to one original
star of the old guard as the world moves forward.

How ought the community respond to a trend to controversy and irrelevance
other than by asking Stallman to step aside from the figurehead role? Is the
argument here really that once you are a figurehead for a social movement you
earn that position for life? I can’t think of any successful movement or
organisation for which that has been the case.

GNU has always been political, the politics needed to bring software freedom
to all users is different now than it was in the 90’s. Some battles have been
won, others have been lost hard, new battles have arisen. An honest discussion
of whether Stallman is best placed to lead those new battles is overdue.

~~~
blub
There's no one in that project that is such a fanatic and well-known
personality that they'd be able to lead it.

After being embraced, extended and diluted by corporations, software freedom
will slide even more into irrelevance.

This also doesn't seem to be a discussion, it's a statement towards Stallman
to GTFO.

~~~
canarypilot
That may well be true. Certainly, and reserving judgement on exactly what this
means, nobody who could lead it quite like Stallman.

But, I find the implication hard to accept.

It would be to say that Stallman’s continuing presence is essential to the
success of free software; surely a frightening responsibility for any one
mortal person to carry through their remaining years!

Free software has had success as a movement. To believe otherwise is to take
away more than just Stallman’s position, but his entire contribution to our
modern society!

That means there are others who will, and for a fact do already, take care for
the well-being of the GNU projects. Not all of these will believe in
everything Stallman has said or represents, and things would certainly change
without him.

A large and successful movement lives beyond its founder, and grows to
challenge the new status quo. If it fails to grow, new movements fill the
vacuum.

~~~
blub
I'm not worried about GNU projects or any project, I am worried about the idea
of free software, which has and has had many supporters but only one champion.

I don't think it will survive. Rich corporations like Google or Microsoft will
continue to fund open source projects when it suits them, while locking out
users through the cloud and hardware. Those other supporters will play along,
because the corporations are paying their salaries or donating to their
projects.

------
falcolas
Back when we collectively ousted Brandon Eich from Mozilla, I thought we were
doing the right thing. However, that slope is awfully slippery, and we are now
ousting people from their own projects for sins that have no real bearing on
the project. This isn't making our community better, for there is nobody that
exists that doesn't have skeletons in their closets.

People are claiming here that they can have just as much an impact on open
source as Stallman, but if this is the case, why haven't they already pushed
Stallman out on their merits alone? Why has it taken airing Richard Stallman's
dirty laundry for them to step up in the community's eyes?

Perhaps their sins are less objectionable than Stallman's - more acceptable
when combined with their lesser impact than Stallman - but what about
tomorrow? Who will replace them when their actions from 20 years ago come back
to haunt them?

What level me mediocrity will we have to endure in 10 years just to have the
least objectionable person possible in a position of power?

~~~
dtornabene
the ability for women to be able to contribute and simply be a part of the
free software community without harrassment does not fall under "no real
bearing on the project", just so we're clear here.

~~~
falcolas
Unless I'm dramatically misreading all the various articles, only a few women
that were directly approached by Stallman for a romantic encounter felt
discouraged. This did not impact a vast majority of the women who have, and
do, contribute to GNU projects.

Yeah, he fucked up in approaching those women and making them uncomfortable.
However, a couple of data points do not a trend make.

~~~
throwanem
Yes, you are dramatically misreading the situation.

I've been in attendance at an RMS talk (HOPE 2016) when he opened by asking
the organizers to turn the house lights back up so he could see if there was
anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with. I saw how many women
immediately got up and left in response to that, and I don't blame them for
doing so. I would've done the same, if I'd felt myself to be one of the people
Stallman made a joke about maybe wanting to fuck. (And, if I hadn't thought it
might be worth sticking around for the Q&A and a chance at a callout. Some
goober ended up yanking the mike cord, which was fine. A lot of people thanked
me for saying what I did before he got to me.)

How likely do you think it is that those women had any inclination to
contribute to free software after an experience like that? How likely do you
think it is that _I_ did - knowing that to do so would associate me with
people who had no problem with a figurehead whose behavior was so completely
out of step with modern mores, and so discouraging to such a wide segment of
the community?

Since then, I've corresponded with others more familiar than I with RMS, and
from that correspondence I've learned that this kind of thing was in no way
out of character for him - I don't know firsthand, because that was the last
RMS talk I chose to attend or will attend in future, and decided no longer to
donate my time, money, or support to any FSF project for as long as he
remained chairman. I don't want to be associated with behavior like that, and
I most certainly don't want to enable it - both for its own sake, and because
where the culture tolerates something like that, there's reason to suspect it
will tolerate worse, besides.

I'm glad that so many people who have such a strong hand in making FSF and the
GNU Project what it is today - far more of a hand than RMS has had in many
years now - have chosen to speak so well on the subject. I know their
statement has elicited a torrent of garbage. I hope they won't let it distract
them from the fact that they're doing the right thing.

~~~
jlokier
> "he opened by asking the organizers to turn the house lights back up so he
> could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex with"

There's video. This alleged event occurs at about 6:11 in
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw)

I think your words mean the _opposite_ of what RMS actually said. So much for
justice.

Your words:

"so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might want to have sex
with."

RMS's actual words (speaking to a darkened room where he can't see anyone &
conference organisers are having trouble getting their projector working, so
he has to improvise to fill the time):

"And I always like to be able to see the people I'm talking to but it's so
dark in here I can't see you. Now, I mean, I might conceivably enjoy sleeping
with some of you but that's not what we're here for. Uh, so if it's possible
to increase the light on the audience please?"

That's poorly judged joke/banter: If there's one lesson we're learning from
all this, it is avoid jokes that are likely to be misunderstood. I don't doubt
that some women got up and left, and were put off contributing. Someone should
have had a word with him about how it was received.

My guess is RMS would be mortified if he thought people, such as yourself,
were misunderstanding his words to that gross extent.

Frankly, given the severity of the accusations, what you have called him out
for on this occasion looks to me like a _brazen outright lie on your part_ ,
as evidenced by the video to correct the record.

~~~
throwanem
Yeah, I actually _posted_ the video you linked, transcoded from the con's DVD
of the talk - so it's hardly as if I'm afraid of its content being known. It's
a two-parter, by the way, and the Q&A is in part 2. My commentary is
timestamped in the description; if you haven't yet seen it, you're really
missing out on a great opportunity to call me names.

You're welcome, of course, to maintain whatever interpretation you like of the
events under discussion. But the video doesn't show the 20 or so women who got
up and left immediately after he said that. You've yet to offer a compelling
argument for why I, or anyone, should rely on your interpretation rather than
theirs.

~~~
68plus57equals5
You almost got me convinced by your alleging RMS asked organizers "to turn the
house lights back up so he could see if there was anyone in the crowd he might
want to have sex with". I thought, whoa, that sounds not good, bad joke,
nothing criminal, but it definitely isn't a good look.

However the moment I found the video with the actual quote and the extent of
your mischaracterization of the situation I reverted back to my former opinion
on the whole issue (which is very close to "this is witchhunt").

Nevertheless I feel grateful to you for reinforcing me in the belief one
should never ever trust any accusation without a concrete proof. I'm deeply
indebted to you for this important lesson.

~~~
throwanem
As I said to another interlocutor here, you're welcome to your opinion. How
finely you need to split the hair to preserve it is no concern of mine.

As I also previously mentioned, the video does not show the people who
immediately got up and left in response to that remark. It seems I'm not
alone, either, in being more concerned about their opinions than about yours.
Judging by the content of the statement here under discussion, many of those
who have in recent years, by volume of code and effort invested, been the
_actual_ leaders of the GNU project, incline to a reading of the situation
which rather more resembles mine than yours.

I doubt you will find it easy, with intellectually honest arguments, to
convince anyone that these people are engaged in a "witchhunt" which, if it
were so, would critically endanger the reputation of the project in which
they've invested so much.

But, again, that's your problem, not mine.

~~~
hvis
I wouldn't find it too surprising that all of those 20 people left at the mere
mention of words "might conceivably enjoy sleeping with some of you", since
the joke was in poor taste.

That doesn't necessarily support your interpretation.

~~~
throwanem
Even had I not seen the effect in action, here and elsewhere, I'd still be
willing to take people at their word when they say, as they have and do and
will go on doing, that this kind of arrant nonsense does in fact depress their
desire to participate in projects whose leaders engage in it, because it
evinces a lack of essential respect on the part of those leaders for members
of the groups whom those "jokes" target.

If you think they are lying about that, or can't be trusted for some other
reason, here's your opportunity to explain your reasoning on that.

~~~
hvis
> that this kind of arrant nonsense does in fact depress their desire to
> participate in projects whose leaders engage in it

I don't doubt that. And you're right to point that out.

You'd be even more right if you didn't exaggerate the words he said while
paraphrasing because your version changes the story from "poor taste in jokes
alienating women" to basically accusations of sexual harrassment.

And a lot of us don't like to see exaggerated accusations toward anybody, but
especially given the recent scandal where RMS suffered a lot of
misrepresentation and emotional overreactions all over the Internet.

Now, the change in leadership (or, to start with, decentralization) might
ultimately be a good thing for the GNU project, but that doesn't mean we
shouldn't treat the reputation of the outgoing FSF president with at least
some respect.

So let's be correct and factual, this will really help discussions like this
be more constructive from all sides.

~~~
throwanem
I'm being as respectful as I can be. For example, I haven't yet raised the
point that, the conference having taken place in NYC, an identical comment in
the context of employment almost certainly _would_ be considered unlawful
sexual harassment under the provisions of NYC's Human Rights Law ([1], cf.
also "Some Examples of Sexual Harassment" in [2], provided as an example of
sexual harassment information required to be posted as described in [1] and
[3]. Note also the hero image in [3], which, while perhaps not a legal
document in its own right, is extremely on point for this discussion.)

Now, of course, a conference speaker does not typically employ his audience,
and I don't argue that RMS is eligible for the civil penalties which, per that
statute, may attach to the comment he made. I would nonetheless, in light of
this information, find myself somewhat embarrassed to have chosen "it's just a
joke, not sexual harassment" as the hill on which I wished to die.

I have a great deal of respect for RMS's legacy. For example, had he not
invested the effort to bring GNU Emacs into existence, I would almost
certainly not now be at the point in my profession and my career where I am; I
have found Emacs an invaluable tool for something like a decade, and have no
intention of ever replacing it at any time in the future. I own a signed copy
of the Emacs 24 manual - bought at that same conference, and signed by RMS
himself just a few hours after those events took place. I have no plans to
destroy it, as I gather some have done. I was honored, and remain so, that he
was willing to sign my book at all.

But the respect I cherish for the technical work RMS has done, does not extend
to excusing his failures of respectful behavior, or the fashion in which they
hinder rather than advance the goals of the GNU Project and the FSF as a
whole. Nor does that respect extend to any longer keeping quiet about what he
said or about the effect it had. Indeed, I should've spoken up long before
now.

I understand the grievances of those who would hear no ill of their idol. I
hope they'll someday learn to understand that facts don't care about their
feelings.

[1]
[http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/New%20York/admin/...](http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/New%20York/admin/title8civilrights/chapter1commissiononhumanrights?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:newyork_ny$anc=JD_T08)

[2]
[https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/materials/Sex...](https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/materials/SexHarass_Factsheet.pdf)

[3] [https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/sexual-harassment-
campa...](https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/sexual-harassment-
campaign.page)

~~~
hvis
> an identical comment in the context of employment almost certainly would be
> considered unlawful sexual harassment under the provisions of NYC's Human
> Rights Law

Sorry, I couldn't find the definition for "sexual harrassment" in the first
document. And I'm not from US, so maybe we have different expectations for the
term.

Could you clarify which of the 6 examples in the second document you found
pertinent to the story?

> had he not invested the effort to bring GNU Emacs into existence, I would
> almost certainly not now be at the point in my profession and my career
> where I am

Cheers to you from one of the current Emacs developers, then!

> Nor does that respect extend to any longer keeping quiet about what he said
> or about the effect it had. Indeed, I should've spoken up long before now.

Maybe you should have. Hopefully not in the way that the current Twitter mob
has organized, though.

The way the scandal broke out, there's little opportunity now for the stories
like this to have an ultimate positive impact, unfortunately. I doubt Richard
is going to get a lot of speaking engagements in the near future.

~~~
throwanem
NYCHRL isn't straightforward in its language, for sure; it's written for
lawyers. It's also the legislation that applies in the jurisdiction in which
the comment was made. In any case, seeing as RMS is, to all accounts,
determinedly heterosexual, I'd say that it falls neatly into the category of
"sexist remarks based on gender", the sixth bullet in that second document.

Maybe you think that's an unworthy bit of lawyerly ratiocination, but even so,
consider that a comment like that would get anyone who made it fired from any
tech company with an HR department and an employee base the size of that
talk's audience, and for the same reason around which the GNU maintainers'
statement revolves.

To your last point, I don't think it is unreasonable to hope for some positive
impact out of all this, or I wouldn't have said anything even now. I'm not
here to try to dogpile the guy; I'm here to talk about how, no matter from
whom they originate, comments like this _aren 't_ "just jokes", that they
_aren 't_ harmless, and that there's nothing honorable or worthwhile in
defending them or the people who, as in this case, persist in making them past
all reasonable expectation or effort of curtailment.

I feel like that's worth talking about, if for no other reason than because
the man's been regarded as a hero by many, some of whom may really need to be
told that there are some aspects of his behavior which are not acceptable, and
which they cannot expect to get away with.

I'd prefer it if someone like that were to understand _why_ this is the case,
and agree that it should be. But I'll settle for someone like that getting the
idea that, whatever he may think of this whole idea, he'd better learn to keep
his mouth shut instead of saying things that hurt marginalized groups, or else
expect to be made sorry.

Maybe that sounds harsh to you, I don't know. It sounds harsh to me. Being
made fun of for being a woman, or gay, or a person of color, or Jewish, or
trans, or disabled, or... - that's a hell of a lot harsher, and it normalizes
and, as is amply exemplified in history both recent and otherwise, encourages
behavior that's far harsher still - discrimination, exclusion, robberies,
beatings, rapes, murders. That sort of behavior, I'm absolutely fine with
being harsh in an effort to dissuade.

Nobody gets to _choose_ to be - or not to be - a woman, or gay, or of color,
or Jewish, or trans, or disabled, or part of any of the other axes of
marginalization in our societies. Everyone, though, has the power to _choose_
what they say. I want people to choose wisely. If their native empathy doesn't
suffice them as cause to do so, I have no problem in principle or in practice
with the fear of punishment taking its place.

That, after all, is the tool societies ultimately use to discourage behaviors
they regard as unacceptable. What our societies find acceptable is changing. I
understand that some people really don't care for that. But, again, facts
don't care about their feelings. And when we have the US Supreme Court
considering whether to explicitly exclude LGBTQ people from civil rights
protections, and Germany's AfD frightening Jewish people into hiding their
ethnicity - when those aren't even the _worst_ examples you can find, just the
first two that came off the top of my head - it's getting awfully late in the
day to take a softly-softly approach.

~~~
hvis
> In any case, seeing as RMS is, to all accounts, determinedly heterosexual,
> I'd say that it falls neatly into the category of "sexist remarks based on
> gender", the sixth bullet in that second document.

Aren't sexist remarks statements like "a woman couldn't manage to do xxx as
well as a man could", or "make me a sandwich"? The statement was (one might
say, carefully) gender-neutral, and even if you can infer a gender it might
have been referring to, what negative thing would it have been implying about
said gender?

> consider that a comment like that would get anyone who made it fired from
> any tech company with an HR department and an employee base the size of that
> talk's audience

It could have, but I hope nobody would call it "sexual harrassment".
"Inappropriate language at the workplace", maybe? It might not (since there's
no single person it targeted, to report it to HR). It probably wouldn't cause
any firing at any of the places I've worked, though. _shrug_

> I don't think it is unreasonable to hope for some positive impact out of all
> this

Let's hope so. And let's hope your comments don't end up drowning in people
arguing about details, like a lot of us nerds like to do.

> there's nothing honorable or worthwhile in defending them or the people who,
> as in this case, persist in making them past all reasonable expectation or
> effort of curtailment

I hope you can see that, given the unfortunate circumstances, there really
_is_ something honorable in defending the person, at least to make sure that
the accusations are valid and not overblown.

> I'd prefer it if someone like that were to understand why this is the case,
> and agree that it should be

BTW, you know you could email him directly, right? Before that all happened,
or even now.

> he'd better learn to keep his mouth shut instead of saying things that hurt
> marginalized groups

Again this language of emotional escalation. It's manipulative.

Making someone uncomfortable doesn't always imply hurting them. Even if
they're feeling entirely disgusted by a speech, like some of the women in the
audience might have been.

You don't have to equate X with Hitler to prove to people that X is bad. X can
be bad on its own rights.

> If their native empathy doesn't suffice them as cause to do so, I have no
> problem in principle or in practice with the fear of punishment taking its
> place

There is still such a thing as disproportionate punishment.

~~~
throwanem
Of course you know I haven't equated anyone with Hitler. Nor need I. It's
quite enough that the comment under discussion moved people to walk out, to
leave, to turn their backs on the talk and the speaker and the subject he was
there, in the end, to promote.

That's harm, but it's not the only harm. It's not all that easy for someone to
start a career in this industry, if they don't already "look like us" \- the
concept is typically treated under the name "culture fit": white, male,
straight or at least nonthreateningly upper-middle-class gay, went to college
for a degree in CS or a nearby discipline or else started programming at minus
three years of age, laughs at our jokes and tells ones like them, drinks the
same kind of beer we do, stuff like that. People who don't check those boxes,
who don't exude the same ant smell, have a harder time. A higher standard is
imposed. One way to meet it is to demonstrate both technical skill and ability
to work with others via contributions to well-known projects - such as, for
example, those that constitute the GNU project.

So it doesn't just hurt the project, when people are discouraged from trying
to make such contributions by leaders making comments that, yeah, to people
who look like us it's easy to mistake for just a joke, what's the big deal.
It's easy for us not to see the problem, because people who look like us
aren't accustomed to being the butt of jokes. For people who are, of course
it's not "just a joke". It's the latest in a lifetime of "jokes" which, with
enough experience of the sort that people who look like us are not likely to
have, you learn are warning signs of a defect in the culture where such
"jokes" are accepted. You learn that such a culture will not be kind to you,
in the way it is to people who look like us. You learn you won't be welcome,
that it'll be a constant fight to even _try_ to establish and maintain
yourself there. You learn there are better ways to spend your time, that
piling that extra bullshit on top of the concerns that come with just trying
to live a life in the world of the future is something best approached with
great care and vast effort at self-defense, or maybe not at all.

So the project loses contributions, and you lose a chance to prove yourself to
the higher standard imposed on you than on people who look like us, and our
industry and our field of endeavor lose people who had the potential to be
great engineers and, being not superhuman, needed encouragement and support to
realize that potential - encouragement and support that people who look like
us failed to provide, all while asking why's there all this fuss, anyway, over
what was just a dumb joke, honestly, who even cares.

You're welcome to go on not seeing this as a problem, if you like. I don't
know what more I can do to convince you. If you won't believe the stories
women tell about experiences like this and the effect they have, if you won't
listen when someone who looks like us corroborates those stories and says,
yes, this happened, things like this happen every day, and they really do run
people out of projects, out of jobs, out of careers, that if you take even a
moment and look around just a little, you'll see it too - past that, I don't
see what more I can do to convince you that this matters.

It's enough to make me understand why those who bear the brunt of this problem
are getting past the point of trying to convince anyone of anything. It's
enough to make me want to get behind them and push. If that means adding my
voice to those demanding RMS, having so misused his platform for so long, now
have that platform taken from him, then so be it. His work will stand forever
as a legacy of what one person can do, and inspire others to do. That should
be enough for anyone. And if the manner of his departure from that role
inspires even one young engineer who looks like us to think twice about making
some "dumb joke" that'll force whatever women or PoC or queers like me who
hear it to consider whether they _really_ want to spend their whole working
life around people who act this way and worse toward them - well, there's a
kind of legacy worth respecting in that, too.

------
Smithalicious
This statement makes clear to me that I can no longer trust (parts of) the GNU
project to prioritize software freedom and making good software over catering
to hateful lynchmobs and virtue signalling.

There's no meaningful way for me to act on this current, since "boycotting"
GNU does nothing to harm these bad elements and I do not contribute back to
GNU. I can merely convey my profound disapproval.

This is a disgrace. This is no way to treat someone. It's nothing short of
utterly disrespectful and self-serving. RMS is, in my view, a completely
innocent man; even in the most negative sensible reading of the situation, he
is guilty of a minor transgression at most. Even in the most negative sensible
reading of supposed transgressions spread over decades, he does not deserve
this.

RMS has done more to empower _all_ computer users than all of these signees
combined. I'm very saddened by this torrent of hate, short-sightedness and
obedience to the mob. To me, GNU represents fighting for freedom even if
nobody else believes in it; this is the opposite of that.

~~~
codesections
> RMS is, in my view, a completely innocent man

Note that the Joint Statement does not take a position on the statements that
the most recent controversy has been about. Instead, it speaks about "behavior
over the years"[0]. Of course, the recent controversy doubtless played a role
in bringing all this to a head, but it is possible for someone to believe
_both_ that RMS is "completely innocent" of wrongful conduct _and_ that he has
engaged in behavior that harms the cause of Free Software.

[0]: > Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years
has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all
computer users.

~~~
virgilp
I could respect the signatories of the joint statement if thy sent it to RMS;
Like this, what are they hoping to achieve? Ponder it for a second. They're
calling for the lynch mob, they're disapointed that the lynch mob seems to
have "stopped too soon". These are not people who honestly want to quit over
principles... if they were, they'd send this in private to RMS. These are
people who want RMS out for their own personal agenda (which they may even
believe is the "common good" agenda... but, that's presumptuous on their
part).

~~~
rekado
What makes you think this _wasn 't_ sent to RMS privately? Or that there
haven't been personal discussions with RMS in the past years?

~~~
virgilp
What's the purpose of making this public? Discuss this in private circles
within GNU. If it doesn't go anywhere, and you care so much about it, just
leave.

What they did will fracture the community anyway. You can bet there are
Stallman supporters in GNU, too. If the undersigned have it their way, others
will leave (or disengage), in protest. There's no winning in this. From my
pov, what they did has only downsides, and no upsides whatsoever.

You don't like GNU? Fork their software, make your own GNU with vodka and
hookers. Just, don't throw a public tantrum. Use official channels and due
process. If the organization doesn't respond, and doesn't match your values -
just leave.

~~~
totony
I think your post summarizes my view of the whole situation.

Stallman created that movement and has a lot of community support. Outing him
to the public without discussing in private or even giving something
actionable is just inviting outrage.

If you disagree with an organization, quitting and/or forking (and announcing
your reasons) is less damaging to the cause than this.

------
etiam
Oh my god.

" _all_ computer users" with the implication that Stallman is not representing
the ones who demand to go straight to lynch mob behavior without a shadow if
due process as soon as the word "sexual" is mentioned? And therefore Stallman
should be thrown out of the project that is his creation and life's work?

That's got to be one of the most forced political readings ever of that point
in the manifesto. Well, if that's the argument, I'm a computer user too and
every one of these signatories have just demonstrated themselves unfit to
represent me. Enough of the witch hunt, and hands off Richard Stallman's
thoroughly earned standing in the GNU project!

~~~
snotrockets
Due process is for the court.

If you ousted yourself as an asshole in public, people not wanting to
associate with you isn't legal, it's civilized society.

~~~
falcolas
We, as a society, have established due process in the government and courts
because we believe it's the right thing - the moral thing - to do. If it's the
right thing to do for the most powerful entity in our land, what makes it
_not_ the right thing to do in all venues?

~~~
kennywinker
If I come to your house for dinner, and am an asshole to you and your family,
do we need to get the law involved or should you just not invite me over for
dinner again?

~~~
falcolas
Perhaps I pull you aside, call you out for your actions, and give you the
chance to change your ways.

One strike and your out isn't even how we play baseball.

~~~
kennywinker
... from the sounds of it, I assume the pull-aside convo happened and failed.

Maybe I'm too trusting. I have no evidence that kind of a convo happened. But
the allegations are that RMS has been a missing stair for well over 20 years.
I find it very hard to believe that someone who's been causing problems in a
community for 20+ years has never had a friend pull them aside and ask them to
change their behaviour.

~~~
falcolas
If we're changing the analogy to specifically look at Stallman again, we need
to make a few changes. Specifically, a quick note that now you're visiting his
house for dinner. This changes things a bit. He may have the best open source
dinner spread out there, but it's ultimately your choice to keep
participating.

~~~
morelisp
It's absolutely maddening to see such vociferous "defense" of Stallman in ways
we know he could not stand. If you think he would tolerate an "open source
dinner spread", you don't appreciate what he's actually done and have just
glommed onto the bizarre 4chan personality cult surrounding him.

------
bitwize
If I believed for a second that any successor candidate to lead the GNU
project gave as much of a fuck about software and personal freedom as Stallman
did/does, I might support them. My confidence that this will transpire,
however, is not high.

~~~
jordigh
There are lots of us who care. We can preserve software freedom with the same
stubborn, uncompromising attitude without having to also alienate the very
people we wish to help.

~~~
maximente
you are reframing (weakening) the OP's standard.

the standard is not "care", it's "gave as much of a fuck about software and
personal freedom as Stallman did/does".

RMS used an absolute garbage computer because it was, in his words:

> the only laptop one could buy that could run a free initialization program
> and a free operating system.

i'm certainly not taking it on some contributor's word that these 20 or so odd
people are as principled as RMS that i trust the project to be led by them. my
guess is a large fraction are pragmatists (like most normal people) who use a
nonfree BIOS setup for productivity, or have an iPhone/android because
"normal", etc.

so, while certainly more like normal people, they aren't as principled. and
what you want in a position like RMS's is someone so principled that they
basically are immune to attack and inspire others to take on those principles.
nobody's taking RMS seriously if he's giving talks from his macbook air.

as far as i can tell, RMS is so principled that it actually hindered the long
term success of GCC. it would have behooved the long term strategic goals to
make GCC the best/"only" compiler by making a BSD/MIT style version, so as to
accept more liberal contributions, but he didn't.

he seems to be principled to a fault. is this group of 20 or so people as
consistent as he was? i sincerely doubt it.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
I completely agree with you. Moreover, I witnessed the same scenario in other
projects, and it always ended the same way: once the charismatic leader was
eliminated, people gradually lost motivation and everything dwindled. When
people realized it was not worth it, it was already too late. Now that we lost
Stallman it will be extremely hard to find a person even remotely as
principled as he was.

~~~
bitwize
One of Eric Raymond's innovations was to establish clear principles for the
OSI at its outset, and then retire from the board out of a desire _not_ to
become one such "Jesus nut" for the movement.

The entryists have a response for this too: call for the removal and
replacement of _all_ the leadership of relevant organizations, as they have
already done with the FSF.

~~~
hvis
That's the thing: "open source" is not a movement. And ESR wouldn't be a
particularly charismatic leader (he's more of a controversial one).

Open Source would never be where it is now without the Free Software movement
(which _is_ an ideological one). Maybe some corporations would still promote
the OSS approach due to its economic benefits, but probably not. It likely
wouldn't have the same midshare among developers that it has today.

------
mark_l_watson
I personally think that Richard Stallman is both not getting fair treatment
and to some extent brought this on himself.

For me, the GNU project becomes much less interesting without his blog
articles, public talks, etc.

I had let my FSF membership lapse, was thinking of renewing, and now probably
won’t.

Off topic, but I enjoyed seeing the leaders of the various GNU projects listed
in one place as signers of this letter. I don’t agree with them but it is good
to see their names and projects listed.

~~~
wott
> the leaders of the various GNU projects

The leaders of _selected_ GNU projects who were likely to share the same
opinion and sign. Others were not even informed of this initiative that kind
of poses as speaking in their name.

~~~
mark_l_watson
Thanks, I didn’t know that other contributors were not consulted.

------
dtornabene
For anyone coming to this, I can't speak for all of the people on that list,
but the ones that I've met personally, over a decade now in the free software
world, are decent caring people _actually following the creed of freedom to
its rightful conclusion_. The idea that this is a "witchhunt" is absurd.

~~~
marco_salvatori
I cant speak for any of the people on that list either. But if they are
committed to the core values of free software and empowerment for all, then
its plausible to me that, rather than words in a joint statement, they should
fork the FSF. That is the course of action on which the FSF was founded and
would be proof positive of their commitment to the core values they profess.
They can then proceed to build a better project, with stronger core values,
including universal empowerment. There is no one that has to be judged; there
are no joint statements that need to be written. That is the wonderful thing
about freedom. One can build, perhaps has the obligation to build, the better
world that should exist.

------
simion314
I would suggest GNU people to not rush into decisions, the things are too
heated at this moment, I am afraid we get a fracture of the project.

I am also having a bad feeling that Linus Torwalds is next, that a list of 20
years old emails is already prepared and some people are ready to tweat
something that maybe happened long in the past that made them uncomfortable.
Maybe that public apology Linus did this year was a defensive move.

~~~
badrequest
There are probably a number of people who are attracted to Linus Torvald's
attitude and style, but I can assure you the number of people who do not
contribute to the Linux kernel because they're turned off by it is
significantly larger. It's absolutely in the best interest of the project that
he adopt an attitude change permanently or step down.

Just as most sports are 90% mental and only 10% physical, managing a large
software project is 90% people skills, and only 10% technical.

~~~
starik36
And yet somehow, Linux is arguably the most successful open source project in
the world.

~~~
otterley
Perhaps, but we do not know how much better it could be today if potential
contributors were not dissuaded by the politics and behavior of the existing
participants.

Popularity is only one gauge of success. There are other metrics, such as
personal satisfaction, missing features, or other things that the project may
have failed or scored less well on.

~~~
dx87
But you don't know which contributors you'll lose if you change the project. I
remember when FreeBSD added in their controversial new code of conduct, and
some existing maintainers left. People keep acting like getting rid of a
divisive leader will either result in improvements, or the status quo, but it
could also cause the project to get worse.

------
codesections
> We, the undersigned GNU maintainers and developers, … [18 signatures]

Does anyone happen to of know what fraction of GNU maintainers those 18 names
represent? Does this represent a majority of GNU maintainers or a small
fraction?

~~~
benji_is_me
Here's [1] the list of contributors to GNU. Note that it also includes past
contributors.

[1] [https://www.gnu.org/people/](https://www.gnu.org/people/)

~~~
uncletaco
Not sure if that list is comprehensive. Neither Ludovic Courtes or John
Wiegley are on it (and they are both signatories of the open letter).

~~~
oknenavin
Maybe it tells us something about the "joint" part? So mob-sad..

~~~
morelisp
Wiegley has probably done more to make Emacs exciting again than anyone since
the XEmacs fork.

(Which, hey, speaking of RMS driving off contributors...)

~~~
oknenavin
Sure, but taking part of a political games, doesn't make him a favor.

~~~
lvh
What exactly is your position? Is John Wiegly an important contributor to the
GNU project or not?

~~~
uncletaco
He is, in my opinion, considering he’s the primary maintainer of what has been
called GNU’s flagship application, emacs.

------
psankar
Genuine question, what exactly do these maintainers want ? Stallman has
already quit his leadership role/position, right ?! Is there something more
that he or the GNU project needs to do ?

~~~
jordigh
He quit the FSF and MIT. GNU is not the same thing as the FSF, despite their
close ties. He has ascertained he still maintains a leadership role in GNU,
and he has quite a contingency of devoted followers who think this is all a
witch hunt against him.

~~~
bitwize
It's not just Stallman. This is an attempted systematic ouster of old-school
hackers (and new-school hackers with old-school values) from positions of
leadership. Stallman is just the latest target and also one of the softest.
They have also called for the removal of:

* Linus Torvalds ( _after_ he apologized and approved the adoption of their code of conduct)

* Ted Ts'o

* the _entire_ FSF board

The problem is that while the old-school hackers were mainly left-liberal or
libertarian, more and more open source developers these days come from the San
Francisco web dev community and were immersed in the ideals and principles of
the social-justice left, for whom "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" is
an unstated truism. More struggle sessions and purges are likely to follow, if
this contingent is allowed to gain ground, and I fear for a GNU project led
by, instead of Stallman or someone who espouses Stallman's liberal ideals, a
commissar who strictly polices the use of gender pronouns and scrutinizes
every code commit and mailing list post for hidden signs of bourgeois
consciousness.

These people do not even support free _speech_. What makes you think they will
give a milligram of respect to free _software_?

~~~
badrequest
You've whipped up quite a strawman to get angry at, do you have any proof of
this conspiracy?

~~~
choeger
Well he is empirically right about the code of conducts, the public attacks on
free software figures, and the denial of free speech. I would call it typical
radical leftist behavior instead of a conspiracy, but everything else checks
out.

You, for instance, mentioned above that it would be impossible for a minor to
engage in consensual sexual behavior without even considering for a moment
that there are more liberal (and I'd say more civilized) societies that define
"consensual" and especially "minor" quite differently. It is exactly this
absolutist enforcement of a particular pov that alienates many observers.

------
Andrew_nenakhov
My company has released several applications under GNU GPLv3 and AGPLv3
licenses, and is preparing to release more. We wouldn't have done this without
rms.

This 'collective of GNU maintainers'is lying about rms actions undermining the
core values of GNU projects. 'Collective' is alienating us from participating
in GNU projects and I suggest to remove them from further discussions about
the organization of the project.

------
giancarlostoro
I always feared this day, I also fear the day Linus steps down / passes away.
I don't know who can fill their shoes without them getting too lenient or too
carried away.

------
zafiro17
This conversation went down the rabbit hole. I read the statement, and
interpreted it to mean the GNU project should also be a safe place for women
programmers. I'm a bit sad the comment that's risen to the top has taken us in
a different direction.

The fact that this statement remains vague hasn't helped anyone to interpret
it with precision.

------
shadowgovt
How mechanically centralized is leadership in the GNU project? Does rms sign
off on every change?

I'm wondering how expensive it would be (assuming he does not want to step
down) for the community to fork away from him or route around him.

~~~
jordigh
In practice, GNU is almost nothing. Years ago there was more cohesion, and
there are some guidelines that GNU maintainers nominally follow, but in
practice each GNU package mostly does its own thing. A lot of decisions are
made in a don't-tell-mom kind of way, i.e. we just try to make sure that rms
doesn't notice when we do something he doesn't like, such as calling it
win32/win64 instead of w32/w64 like he prefers.

One of the things I hope will happen with this statement is that we will
regain cohesion and we will be able to stand together again like we once did.
There's lots of good people in GNU, and I think we need someone like GNU.
Principled, uncompromising, and now hopefully friendlier and more helpful than
we have been.

~~~
kellenmurphy
"Uncompromising" and "friendly" are not terms that one typically finds
together.

~~~
jordigh
We can be friendly without having to compromise freedom. We don't have to be
friendly to those who would want to use our software to take freedom away from
others. We should be friendly to everyone who wants to use our software
freely, regardless of their skill level.

My view is that GNU should be working towards making sure we can get our
software into as many people as possible by giving it an attractive interface,
simple installation instructions, and a welcoming community, while at the same
time refusing to collaborate with any who wish to proliferate non-free
software.

~~~
DuskStar
> We don't have to be friendly to those who would want to use our software to
> take freedom away from others. We should be friendly to everyone who wants
> to use our software freely, regardless of their skill level.

"We should be friendly, unless we don't like the people using our software"

~~~
shadowgovt
>
> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

In the specific case of free software, the paradox of tolerance plays out
concretely, in that failure to enforce copyleft on software can lead to the
creation of software derived from that work that is itself copyrighted in such
a way that the deriver could sue an original source creator deriving work from
their derivations.

I don't think anyone would consider copyleft enforcement "friendly," but the
alternative is "free software has no ability to protect its core tenants," so
some friendliness must be abridged.

~~~
DuskStar
I agree that enforcing copyleft licenses is extremely necessary. My thought
here was that "those who would want to use our software to take freedom away
from others" is a bit too broad to apply to _just_ that, especially when
considering things like the recent Chef outage.

In other words - some people are going to use GNU software to take freedom
from others (imagine a prison running Linux, etc) in ways that conform with
the license. I do not think GNU should oppose this.

------
excursionist
I see claims of users not being 'empowered' and not being able to 'trust' GNU
software.. because of Stallman?

Sorry, but what does the controversy surrounding Stallmman have to do with
user empowerment and trust? Has Stallman been preventing people from using GNU
software? Does the trustworthiness of this free, open source software diminish
because of Stallman's opinion on some social/political issues that are
completely unrelated to software?

~~~
shadowgovt
They aren't completely unrelated to software. One can't divorce community
issues from technical issues when the project in question has a "philosophy"
page. From said page ([https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-
sw.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html))

""" “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community.
"""

The way rms treats people involved in GNU goes directly to what is meant by
'community.' Consider, as comparative example, the U.S. Declaration of
Independence and the phrase "all men are created equal," and that it was
penned by a slaveowner and did not lead to a government that freed those
slaves for over 80 years (regardless of what the words on paper said).

~~~
excursionist
> One can't divorce community issues from technical issues when the project in
> question has a "philosophy" page.

Anything can have a philosophy. Just because someone is a communist or a
feudalist shouldn't prevent them from contributing or being part of a free
software project.

> The way rms treats people involved in GNU goes directly to what is meant by
> 'community.'

Has RMS done anything to prevent people from using GNU software? Has he
attempted to move GNU in a direction that would violate its stated goals or
philosophy? Has he made the software any less free or any less respectful of
users' freedom and community?

~~~
shadowgovt
Based upon past travel hosts' interactions with him, having him visit to speak
on the topic can involve you needing to burn the sheets he slept on.

Yes, that has material impact on the organization; it decreases people's
willingness to hear its leader speak on the topic of what the organization
stands for.

~~~
excursionist
A lot of things affect people's interest in a project. RMS being the original
creator of GNU is definitely a big plus towards interest in hearing him speak.
I don't see anyone who would be a better fit. Furthermore leading GNU is not
just about giving talks with maximum popularity - and if popularity is such an
important point then GNU is the wrong project.

------
romaaeterna
So these people speak for all humankind? Wow. I wonder how that works. Is
there a certification process? Truly this is a brave group of 20 white men.

------
coolreader18
Wow, so what does this imply? Is this a coup d'état or just a _request_ for
Stallman to cede part of his leadership to more people?

~~~
golf2
GNU has clearly outlived its usefulness putting social justice before free
software.

~~~
shadowgovt
These are not mutually exclusive ideas. In fact, they're complimentary if you
turn your head and squint a bit; the Four Freedoms are targeted at minimizing
the creation of a classist world where some people control software and others
merely run it. Avoidance of a classist world is a "social justice" concept.

------
al_form2000
What a nice piece of backstabbing. Class.

~~~
ghettoimp
I suppose you could interpret it that way. It reads to me more like a
statement of values, going forward.

~~~
simion314
There is nothing factual on how RMS actually did damage to GNU and how exactly
this guys will by magic fix that damage.

Seems mostly a PR move and it will probably fracture GNU

~~~
jlokier
If my feelings are an indicator that mirrors others, I agree that it will
likely fracture GNU. Especially if the new leadership cannot recreate the same
sense of ideology, purpose, and deeper change that RMS stirred up with his
writings.

The GNU Manifesto (written by Richard Stallman) was one of the biggest change-
my-life documents for me. Probably it was just a matter of timing and luck
that it happened to be that document, but it was. It exposed me to new ideas
that I could relate to, and really made me think in a new way, a way that is
generous and creative towards other people, and that has stayed with me for
decades since. It went beyond mere software; my relationships, and the way I
treat people, were affected for the better as well.

And so I've long been very sympathatic to the FSF/GNU projects and cause.

I would have been proud to contribute and operate a project under the GNU
banner, and nearly did on several occasions.

Since recent announcements, I'm starting to feel different about the FSF/GNU
projects. My feelings about the GNU Manifesto and RMS's activist writings have
not changed much - there are good and profound ideas in there.

But I no longer envisage myself wanting to contribute under the FSF/GNU
umbrella, since the last few weeks. I expect there are quite a few people who
will feel the same "change" of enthusiasm.

The joint statement is very short and doesn't say much. But it says enough, in
that second paragraph about RMS, to make me feel wary of wanting to work with
any of the people whose names are listed below it.

> The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend
> their freedom.

The undersigned have shown, with crystal clarity, that they _cannot_ be
trusted to defend everyone's freedom, since they blatantly have chosen to not
even try to do so in this case.

And so we need a new movement, to replace GNU.

Ideally, one that everyone can _actually_ trust to defend their freedom.

------
snvzz
As a reminder, a bunch of ludicrous accusations on Stallman[0] is what this is
about.

[0] [https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/](https://sterling-
archermedes.github.io/)

------
coleifer
I see this as an essentially "internet" reaction. It is cowardly in the
extreme. I doubt any of these people would say to Stallmans face the things
their letter implies. Furthermore twitter etc act as an amplifier for whatever
words you throw in it, and as the news networks and talk show hosts figured
out years ago, outrage sells. There's also white-knighting, probably a
consequence of social awkwardness and discomfort, because nerds grow up but
they may not grow out of it.

Sad and cowardly, hardly surprising.

------
rowanG077
fuck the GNU project. I no longer can take it seriously after the events that
have occurred. Disgusting bunch of people.

~~~
nrclark
That "disgusting bunch of people" wrote a ton of the underlying software that
powers the internet. You might not like them, but show a little respect.

~~~
rowanG077
I don't show respect to people that throw their leader under the bus at the
first sign of trouble. They have achieved some cool technical stuff but that
is no excuse for being a sad sack of a human.

~~~
kennywinker
You're literally doing what you describe. Throwing away a bunch of people at
the first sign of an action you disagree with.

~~~
rowanG077
These people are not in any way the leaders of a group I belong to. I'm not
part of GNU. So I'm not doing the same thing at all.

~~~
kennywinker
Sorry, I should have said "writing off" not "throwing away"

~~~
rowanG077
Me writing off a bunch of people that are mostly unrelated to me and a group
of people expel their leader are vastly different things. There is(should be)
an inherit trust from the leader to the group and the group to the leader.
It's fine for the group to expel. What is not fine in my opinion is for the
group to do this under external pressure.

This clearly show the group has no allegiance to the group itself. Only to
winds of external pressures. It basically proved GNU is not really serious
group. Just window dressing.

~~~
kennywinker
Apparently some other non serious groups include: governments, most major
corporations.

~~~
rowanG077
That's exactly right. Governments enforce their power through force and major
corporations through money. Not groups that deserve any respect or their
stance be taking seriously.

~~~
kennywinker
This is a huge aside, but the most disturbing part of your response is the bit
about governments. Governments are _supposed_ to be responsible to the people.
Responding to external pressure is literally their job. They should be
respected when they are responsive to the people. They only need to "enforce
their power through force" when they are not responsive to the people.

~~~
rowanG077
Yes governments job is to respond to the people. I'm not sure what your point
is. That inherently makes the government a group that can't be trusted. It's
too fickle to be trusted.

------
enriquto
what a slimy bunch of shrieking rats

good riddance!

------
sprash
Many people here talk about "cancel culture" which is in fact a fake culture
that is completely artificially generated via paid actors, like some on this
list of signatures. Most of the people taking part in the character
assasination plot against Stallman running right now work in fact for
Saleaforce, IBM or some other FAANG type of organization. You can look it up
by yourself.

Stallman is a very eccentric person which makes him the perfect target for a
devide and conquer operation in order to take ownership of the (hobbyist) FOSS
movement.

Also ycombinator seems to have an agenda in this too, offing every post about
Stallman from the frontpage. Never trust anything you get for free (like this
site) except it came from Stallman, I guess.

~~~
t0astbread
> Most of the people taking part in the character assasination plot against
> Stallman running right now work in fact for Saleaforce, IBM or some other
> FAANG type of organization

Maybe those corporations do a better job at providing an inclusive environment
than the free software community? And those people are interested in bringing
the same to the FS world. (Whether or not it was necessary to push Stallman
out for that, I'm not sure.)

~~~
sprash
The FOSS community is about hobbyist recreational programming for FUN.

If you want to kill the FUN you introduce COCs, you guilt trip people of a
certain gender and race (white male) for simply existing and you create
artificial drama via divide and conquer like the current Stallman campagn.
Congratulations, mission accomplished, the fun has been eradicated.

Inviting the corporate world into FOSS was a grave mistake. The FOSS community
should generally exclude everybody who is not fun. Inclusiveness has proven
itself to be counterproductive.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The FOSS community is about hobbyist recreational programming for FUN.

No, it was never exclusively about that, and it's become less dominantly about
that over time.

> Inviting the corporate world into FOSS was a grave mistake.

The nature of “free” and “open source” is you don't get to choose who to
invite.

