FSF leadership

[Jens]

TBH I worry less about past transgressions or the communicative fallout
than I do a lack of response from us. (this is me not having a blessed
clue what exactly went down 2009)

I do agree with you on many points and I think you raise a lot of good
concerns at the same time, we missed the boat then to comment - what
we're seeing now is not a boat ten years travelled, but a new one
launched from shore so to speak.

I think with a bit of finesse we can use it as a voice of support for
FSF, a hope to ensure a leadership that can better serve the FSF as
well as weave it into a comment on our commitment for the same - AND do
so in a way that can include the ideological diversity of KDE.

In practice (FOR EXAMPLE):
"We support the FSF in its work to find a new President and would urge
them to find one that represent the Free Software movement as a whole
and can grow the entirety of the community. 
We all (the KDE community included) have to ensure that past biases do
not limit our choices of leadership and that access to Free Software,
the technologies and the communities isn't blocked by those same biases
and cultures."

a bit milquetoast for some, a bit radical for others - but something
middle of the roadish that we can all AT LEAST go "yeah ok..." to.

/Jens

tor 2019-09-19 klockan 10:14 +0200 skrev David Cahalane:
> KDE would be the first organization not directly linked to FSF to
> issue a public statement on this. It would also come over a week
> after RMS' statements gained media attention, and several days after
> his resignation.
> 
> If we wanted to voice our desire for a more open FOSS community, we
> should have done it before RMS resigned. OpenSUSE did exactly that,
> issuing a statement on Sept.14 simply arguing that free software must
> be free of abuse. No mention of Stallman, the FSF, or MIT.
> 
> Making a statement similar to Red Hat's would be seen by the FSF as
> an unwelcome intrusion into an internal discussion. A statement
> simply supporting the FSF could be misconstrued as mourning the loss
> of RMS.
> 
> The worst thing we could do is draw attention to what was said at
> Akademy 2009. If we didn't take enough action then, that is our
> failure. Ten years later, associating ourselves with those remarks
> can only cause undue harm to KDE.
> 
> I'm glad to see RMS go, and I sincerely hope FSF can change into a
> more inclusive and more effective organization. I know many in KDE
> feel the same. But it's not our place to put additional pressure on
> the FSF at this time. They already took a big step forward by getting
> rid of RMS, even though it may have been personally difficult for
> many of them.
> 
> From a communications standpoint, the time for our comment has long
> since passed.
> 
> 
> Sep 19, 2019, 04:08 by jens at ohyran.se:
> 
> > I disagree with a lot of the ideological/sociological statements in
> > your comment, but will focus on the core point:
> > 
> > What we're suggesting is chosing someone that is objectively BETTER
> > for
> > the FSF. The post isn't only technical in nature, but instead one
> > of
> > community leadership, communication and philosophical guidance. 
> > 
> > With that in mind looking for the leader to better represent the
> > FSF,
> > grow the Free Software movement, and improve its standing - makes
> > the
> > choice for diversification a clear and simple one
> > (and that is ignoring the other arguments for those of us who do
> > not
> > share your specific ideological/sociological beliefs)
> > 
> > /Jens
> > 
> > 
> > tor 2019-09-19 klockan 09:54 +0200 skrev Sven Brauch:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On Thursday, 19 September 2019 04:59:09 CEST Valorie Zimmerman
> > > wrote:
> > > > Accordingly, I would like us (the KDE Community) to advise them
> > > > to
> > > > diversify their Board, as RedHat has done here:
> > > 
> > > I am against diversifying for diversifying's sake. It's something
> > > that is 
> > > already way too prevalent in today's society.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Let's please pick the best 
> > > person for the job, regardless of race, gender, or whatever, and
> > > let's 
> > > especially *not* write letters to others recommending them to do
> > > otherwise.
> > > 
> > > Picking people with the argument of diversity achieves the exact
> > > opposite of 
> > > what you want: it leads to people which are *worse* at their job
> > > than
> > > the 
> > > competitors being selected for it. Thus doing this systematically
> > > gives an 
> > > actual, real reason for prejudice against "people with $property
> > > in 
> > > $position".
> > > 
> > > Greetings,
> > > Sven
> > >