search

rms-support-letter / rms-support-letter.github.io

An open letter in support of Richard Matthew Stallman being reinstated by the Free Software Foundation
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
GNU General Public License v3.0
2.33k stars 4.36k forks source link

What can we improve from now on? #6078

Open 6r1d opened 3 years ago

6r1d commented 3 years ago

Things are calming down, but we have two communities from now on. One denounces RMS, other doesn't. There's still little communication and there's a bit of conflict when somebody doesn't want to listen to you.

The fact many don't know the situation can potentially hurt RMS at a later date. FSF is almost broken, and it's probably broken because it relied on sponsorship money. The fact our letter only had appeared only in some news is strange, as well.

What can we do from now on to mend and improve things? Should we act at all? I propose an open discussion on that matter.

Aspie96 commented 3 years ago

I think considering my other points 90 days is probably too long.

I don't think we should focus an arbitrary number based on our arbitrary base 10 system but, rather, a more high level result.

Our closing time should balance a few factors which should include not waiting too long after they closed their letter and, also, the rate at which we are currently getting signatures.

We should not be trying to maximize in number of signatures but, rather, in the strenght of the message sent. I think we have mostly sent our message and indeed won. Closing signatures makes such win clearer IMO and makes it actually easier, not harder, to get new signatures faster than them if they open their letter a second time. It also avoids confusing situations in case a new controversy arises.

Obviously PRs themselves should remain open (or at least there should be a clear separate way for removing signatures)

6r1d commented 3 years ago

That spike can only be expected from (2)

Nah, I care about more widespread reaction when Debian announces something. At all. Can we just watch what will happen for now?

Aspie96 commented 3 years ago

I think that by closing signatures the message will be much clearer expecially in a distant future: "there were 2 initiatives, one got A signatures, the other got B signatures, so B won", rather then "there were two initiatives, one got A signatures, the other is still collecting signatures".

What is important now is to support the FSF and to create awareness but without focusing on this letter, which at this point is a distraction And we must fight against any such cancel mob we see, not just this one. But I think we safely won this one specific battle.

cmpunches commented 3 years ago

I think that by closing signatures the message will be much clearer expecially in a distant future: "there were 2 initiatives, one got A signatures, the other got B signatures, so B won", rather then "there were two initiatives, one got A signatures, the other is still collecting signatures".

What is important now is to support the FSF and to create awareness but without focusing on this letter, which at this point is a distraction And we must fight against any such cancel mob we see, not just this one. But I think we safely won this one specific battle.

I yield my objection to this idea.

cmpunches commented 3 years ago

It looks like their vote has concluded. They've unfortunately convoluted their election process so much that the results are unreadable without further research.

Aspie96 commented 3 years ago

Their decision is to be neutral

cmpunches commented 3 years ago

Their decision is to be neutral

Glad to hear that's what Debian the organization has voted on, but it doesn't detract from the fact that this was Neil McGovern's campaign.

It really should be addressed.

franpoli commented 3 years ago

Indeed, Debian's vote is difficult to interpret. According the pool result, they choosed the option 7 which states that "Debian will not issue a public statement on this issue". However the full statement of proposal 7 was: 

Choice 7: Debian will not issue a public statement on this issue
The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not.

Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign any of the open letters on this subject is invited to do this in a personal capacity.

This last sentence does not honor the Debian signatories of the petition who led the offensive against the FSF before their internal consultation.

Aspie96 commented 3 years ago

This last sentence does not honor the Debian signatories of the petition who led the offensive against the FSF before their internal consultation.

I don't understand your point actually.

cmpunches commented 3 years ago

I don't understand your point actually.

@Aspie96 The smear campaign that this all revolves around was led by a guy named Neil McGovern, who works at Debian and the Gnome Foundation, and Elana Hashman who works at Debian and the Kubernetes project, and Molly de Blanc at Debian and Gnome foundation was in all likelihood set up as a patsy to point the public's anger at to allow Neil and Elana to continue doing things like this.

The proposal that was on debian's docket here for joining in on attacking the FSF was also brought forth by Neil. He was also involved in the media arm of the effort where he went onto podcasts to try to suppress the support letter's results.

He is like the Final Boss of identity politics trolls.

franpoli commented 3 years ago
  1. Debian did not explicitly follow in the offensive against the FSF
  2. Debian "authorizes" its members to sign any open letters on their own capacity (self-decision).

These are two forms of disavowal against Molly de Blanc, Elana Hashman, Neil McGovern and Stefano Zacchiroli who have been proud to affiliate themselves to Debian in the smear letter.

Aspie96 commented 3 years ago

These are two forms of disavowal against Molly de Blanc, Elana Hashman, Neil McGovern and Stefano Zacchiroli who have been proud to affiliate themselves to Debian in the smear letter.

They are only signing in their individual capacity

franpoli commented 3 years ago

@Aspie96 They marked their affiliation to Debian, some use a Debian email address, some were part of the Debian vote. They did not wait for the Debian consulation in order to get into the action. This tells about the respect these persons have for the Debian community.

cmpunches commented 3 years ago

These are two forms of disavowal against Molly de Blanc, Elana Hashman, Neil McGovern and Stefano Zacchiroli who have been proud to affiliate themselves to Debian in the smear letter.

They are only signing in their individual capacity

@Aspie96 no they didn't just sign, they literally were the coordinators of this attack.

Aspie96 commented 3 years ago

Yes, but, again, in their individual capacity. Not representing Debian. The official stance of Debian is neutral and there is no contraddiction there.

6r1d commented 3 years ago

If it's about Debian now, maybe it's time to use GitHub discussions? :-)

I made this issue for improvement proposals. So some possible improvements are proposed here.

franpoli commented 3 years ago

Yes, but, again, in their individual capacity. Not representing Debian. The official stance of Debian is neutral and there is no contraddiction there.

@Aspie96 I'd like to make it clear. I am not passing judgement on Debian. I am pointing out the methods of manipulation used by jerks who seek to defame us.

cmpunches commented 3 years ago

Yes, but, again, in their individual capacity. Not representing Debian. The official stance of Debian is neutral and there is no contraddiction there.

@Aspie96 I'd like to make it clear. I am not passing judgement on Debian. I am pointing out the methods of manipulation used by jerks who seek to defame us.

I reiterate what @6r1d said about this meriting a discussions thread, but I think this comment should set it off: All these people work for Debian and hover around the OSI. I do not believe it would be reasonable to conclude that this is a coincidence, but, regardless, the behavior of these 3 people should be addressed in a community sense. Literally anyone could be their next victim -- including people in their specific communities.

basilean commented 3 years ago

Hello community, I will share my thoughts and auto critic. I have been using GNU/Linux Debian for the last 20 years, I remember to read Ian's and Richard's manifestos like a call to arms to defend my freedom. It has been so sad these past weeks, what went wrong that community flagship is at risk to be taken by [haters mob | company lackeys]? even worse, one of them was running for leader (check proposal 2) with a platform that looks like a copied and pasted from a big company newsletter. Not talking about disappointment to see proposals supporting FSF with minimal votes. From my side, I thought it was enough to contribute in the community not being part of the project but nowadays I'm feeling the need to join and try to build a new generation that remember the roots handling these challenges. I hope this experience will wake up many of us to defend the ship.

6r1d commented 3 years ago

I remember to read Ian's and Richard's manifestos like a call to arms to defend my freedom

Indeed, the attack vector was one of the best surprises to me as well. But @basilean, I would say right now: it is not the last mob attack. More will happen. More leaders will be attacked and removed. Maybe just programmers, too.

We all should stand against the mob tactic, against the idea someone can lose their life's work under false accusations and a lack of arguments.

Aspie96 commented 3 years ago

We all should stand against the mob tactic, against the idea someone can lose their life's work under false accusations and a lack of arguments.

I fully agree.