RMS and open letter

[Niccolò Ve]

In answer to renard at kde.org:
> It is quite clear that we are very far from a consensus on this
> question. So please, don't try to push KDE as an organization to sign
> such a letter. Each people can choose to sign it under its own name or
not.

Three or four people against a proposal hardly count as very far from a
consensus, just like
three or four people for it doesn't. And this is probably eV matters?
I guess an email should be sent to the ev ml and a vote should happen there.
I'd happily support such vote.

In answer to notmart at gmail.com:
> and i don't really have anything against RMS per se...
Even after reading the appendix <https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix>?
The part where he justifies child sex? or underplayed rape? Or that saying
that
children with Down's syndrome are pets? Intentionally using the wrong
pronoun? Anything? I mean...
I'm also not a big fan of the wording of the open letter; still, I feel
like we should kind of all agree that RMS did
and said extremely inappropriate things (to say the least).
Yes, I do agree on the "kinda misses the point" part. But I do not think
that saying "We don't want to have *anything*
to do with him or the org. that supports him, he's terrible" is on par with
what he said.

In answer to abenito at kde.org:
> If we would judge the legacy of a human being by his/her behaviour, there
would be no rock&roll.
We are not judging the legacy of RMS based on his behaviour, afaic. We are
saying that - given his behaviour - he is unfit
for such a position in the free software movement.

In answer to valorie.simmerman at gmail.com:
> Valorie, [...] against supporting pedophilia and pedophiles
I'm also very much against supporting offending pedophiles / pedophiles who
act on their desire.
I'm instead happy to support non-offending pedophiles / pedophiles who *do
not* act on their desire and never would.
Quite OT, but I think it's an important distinction to be made. Sorry for
nitpicking.

In answer to jos at vandenoever.info:
> The accusations are very broad and mostly are about opinions that
> he has
Accusations are quite specific and are about his behaviour and opinions.
Specific examples of opinions that make you
unfit for such a position are: justifying child sex, comparing down's
sindrome to being a pet. Specific examples of
behaviours that make un unfit for such a position: intentionally using a
wrong pronoun, mistreating women.
If all the above is to be forgotten because "it's not related to free
software", then we truly live in a sick world,
what can I say. But it certainly not "broad" nor "only about opinions".
> Is it sensible of FSF to reinstate Stallman? I've no idea.
*sigh*
> The letter talks about 'his hurtful and dangerous ideology'. If RMS is
known
> for any ideology, it's Free Software
and the whole pedophilia thing. You know, it's not like people did not
notice at all.
There are videos and articles about it. And I'm really not sure we want to
associate free software image with *that*.

[/rant]
Niccolò

Il giorno mer 24 mar 2021 alle ore 10:59 Marco Martin <notmart at gmail.com>
ha scritto:

> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 9:52 PM Eike Hein <hein at kde.org> wrote:
> >
> > With the dot-org hat on, I wish the Open Letter had a little bit more of
> a dot-org focus instead of focusing on the individual.
> >
> > What the current controversy highlights is that FSF board changes occur
> without an election and without significant transparency.[1]
> >
> > This is not KDE e.V.'s organizational setup, and it's also not the setup
> we would like to see in an organization that aims to centrally represent
> Free Software. It's also likely that the current and other situations would
> have been prevented by a healthier, more participatory board setup.
> >
> > I think the discussion of where to take the FSF (or representation for
> Free Software communities in general) next is what matters beyond the
> current moment in time. This is worth thinking about in the coming days,
> and also discussing with our partner dot-orgs.
>
> So much this!
> asking to remove rms because he had toxic behaviors is really a
> strawman argument and completely misses the point.
> RMS *is* unfit for that position, yes.
> He *did* say horrible horrible things, yes.
>
> but the question is: why didn't he have to run for election (and such,
> probably lose) in order to enter the board again?
>
> --
> Marco Martin
>


-- 
Niccolò Venerandi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20210324/b26f4269/attachment.htm>