Richard Stallman Reportedly Steps Down As Head Of The GNU Project

[Guest]

This is the difference between leader and activist.

A project/company leader has to be willing to accept claims of wrong doing without any evidence as information to be investigated. Once there is evidence one way or the other than the project/company leader can comment not before.

Part of being a project/company lead comes with responsibility that does tie you hands where one serous things like rapes and assaults you can not just say no evidence. You have to have at least evidence of a proper investigation that found nothing before being able to say there is no evidence to the claim..

Activist/advocate can say what Stallman said. Basically a Leader should not say that stuff but let PR department handle answers.




That is the mistake. A project leader is required to work on evidence. Stallman did not have the evidence one way or the other so while a project leader really could not legally make a comment. A correct lead move in the position of lacking information is no comment. You don't attempt to defend someone until you have the facts on the matter.

Aiding and abetting laws are a pain in but for CEOs and Project leads.

There are responsibility with being a project lead or CEO to make sure you don't aide and abet a crime you can be done by for this offence by simple acting way that appears to show that you will not take a report of a criminal offence seriously even if that report is currently short in information.

Like it or not there is a serous need for Activist/Advocates and Project/Company leads not to be the same person. What you can say in the two roles when it comes to crimes is very different and have very different legal issues.

I agree with your definitions, but in this case none of the rapes/assaults were related to the FSF or GNU. They were infact related to MIT, and Stallman would have had no say in whether or not they were investigated, and how well. He was at best part of the CSAIL lab. Of course, he may or may not have had undue influence on the investigation, seeing as how he rubbed shoulders with many senior staff and potentially management, but other than that, he was not the deciding factor for anything. He was at best attempting to defend his dead colleague, so I don't see how what you're saying is relevant.

[blackiwid]

This news as far as I understand it was a hoax... the GNU Project seems to be still fine but the FSF is our enemy...

That said it starts to look good for Trump, the Identity Politics retards and Cancel culture Fascists and Femnazis make a compelling case to vote for Trump again. The current Impeachment process is also based on a similar lie than this one, they just took 2 half sentences cut 1000 words in between and fabricated evidence and somehow nobody goes to jail for forgery.

The only candidate that makes a good case that she doesn't support this tactics against Trump Tulsi Gabbard has no Chance to get the nomination therefor Trump will win. Well every country becomes the Politicians they deserve !!!

[johnc]

There's no such thing as "underage sex". Pubescent women, once they get their first period, are by all criteria, either natural, technical, biological or medical, entirely capable for the full process of reproduction.

"Age" is not even a factor. Age is a legal parameter that is used to determine whether the subject is capable of taking responsibility for their own actions.
Having sex with a 17yo is perfectly legal throughout entire Europe. Would getting rid of all European FOSS developers be a "GOOD RIDDANCE" by your standards as well?

You're lying. He said sex with children doesn't cause harm to the children. He didn't specify 17 year olds. Nobody thinks that a couple of 17-yos having sex is pedophilia or even creepy, even if in some circumstances it's not prudent.

Everybody that doesn't have their heads in the sand knows what's going on out there. Stallman is trying to normalize pedophilia.

[moilami]

You're lying. He said sex with children doesn't cause harm to the children. He didn't specify 17 year olds. Nobody thinks that a couple of 17-yos having sex is pedophilia or even creepy, even if in some circumstances it's not prudent.

Everybody that doesn't have their heads in the sand knows what's going on out there. Stallman is trying to normalize pedophilia.

No he is not trying to do anything like that and has never tried to do anything like that. He has never went full steam campaigning pedophilia like he has done to several other agendas. I don't know how he said that stupid nonsense thing regarding kids and sex, but I guess it was just his eagerness to say what he think is logical opinion to every matter asked.

If he tried to normalize pedophilia he would had actively campaigned for it and would had been special quest at that big pedo boss's parties.

[IreMinMon]

You're lying. He said sex with children doesn't cause harm to the children. He didn't specify 17 year olds. Nobody thinks that a couple of 17-yos having sex is pedophilia or even creepy, even if in some circumstances it's not prudent.

Everybody that doesn't have their heads in the sand knows what's going on out there. Stallman is trying to normalize pedophilia.

That's not the way I understood it, might have to go through his entire quote again.
You say that a couple of 17 year olds having sex is not pedophillia, but what exactly is pedophillia then? I want hard limits. To me, children aren't children anymore when they hit puberty, and it's rather difficult to draw that line, especially with boys. "Age of consent" goes as low as 15 in some countries, should all developers from these countries be banned from contributing?

I doubt RMS is trying to normalize pedophillia, even though he might be, but I still find it rather stupid that you'd have him replaced for saying mean/wrong words.

[moilami]

No witch hunt? Interestingly enough definition of "cancel culture" fits perfectly in this case.

"A modern internet phenomenon where a person is ejected from influence or fame by questionable actions. It is caused by a critical mass of people who are quick to judge and slow to question. It is commonly caused by an accusation, whether that accusation has merit or not. It is a direct result of the ignorance of people caused communication technologies outpacing the growth in available knowledge of a person."

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cancel%20Culture

Anyone who took part on that as an offender should be ashamed of themselves.

[fuzz]

"Age of consent" goes as low as 15 in some countries

In Germany it's even lower: 14 (with restrictions, of course). A lot of free software developers live in Germany too.

[oiaohm]

I agree with your definitions, but in this case none of the rapes/assaults were related to the FSF or GNU.

Problem is getting fired from project lead role is that you show that there is a high possibly that you could fail todo the job properly. To prove that you may fail to respond to event at company/organisation that you are Project/Company lead at is that you hand any event of the same class incorrectly.

They were infact related to MIT, and Stallman would have had no say in whether or not they were investigated, and how well. He was at best part of the CSAIL lab. Of course, he may or may not have had undue influence on the investigation, seeing as how he rubbed shoulders with many senior staff and potentially management, but other than that, he was not the deciding factor for anything.

That says he could not have clearly known.

He was at best attempting to defend his dead colleague, so I don't see how what you're saying is relevant.

That the problem while holding the job titles at the FSF and GNU he is required to act with a particular level of professionalism with these things even for stuff that does not come from GNU/FSF. This unfortunately means in cases like this Richard Stallman was required to bite is tongue and say nothing because of the titles he held.

Being a project lead/company lead comes great responsibility and some of the requirement of responsible behaviour from those roles effect everything you do while you hold your role.

This is a fun thing of Disrepute. The hard thing is being a project/company lead is that you can be fired from role for you own safety because you actions outside the company has undermined your reputation to handle the things a project/company lead need todo. Yes people use to be historically fired from these roles for being in disreputable actions outside company this made it clear that the actions outside company brought the person downfall.

The big thing here is a company/organisation is not require to wait for anyone in a management/project lead role to fail on their own dime to dismiss them all they need to do is prove the possibility with evidence. So like it or not Richard Stallman did exactly what was required to get himself dismissed.

The requirement on behaviour of company leads/management is over 300 years old. Its the basic principle that you are as project/company lead you are always representing the company/organisation you cannot forgot that if you do don't be surprised if you are either forced to resign or get fired. Lot of people do forget this requirement is there.

This is one reasons why when you are given a project lead role you should get a higher wage than the average person working on the same project because you are taking a risk that you might get fired for actions that as a normal employee would be harmless.

[oiaohm]

I am not ware, of any rape or "assault" he was aware of , and agreed with it..
And I think he should NOT be judged by a crime he have not committed,
If that ever happens, that will be persecution..

https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/general-discussion/1129321-richard-stallman-reportedly-steps-down-as-head-of-the-gnu-project?p=1129609#post1129609

You need to read this. This is the problem. He was defending a person who was dead from a possible reported assault.

The problem here is a project/company lead job include being a judge for things inside the company this required you to remain in good reputation on criminal things that people be willing to report them to you because they know you will take actions on them.

Part of being paid as a project/company lead including lead management roles is accepting you will be judged on how you respond to crimes this is basically part of the job description. The big pay checks at time for those roles are not for nothing. Sometimes its very hard inside a company to find anyone with a suitable reputation to take up a lead role.

Remember for a persecution to happen evidence has to be collected. One of the parties that collects evidence on people general behaviour bosses/project leads. There is the requirement that a person in that role does not bias their idea of a person with their personal option instead is able to look at their diary of record events (evidence) and make option from that. Also be smart enough to look at their diary of recorded events and see that there no evidence that proves no guilt and keep mouth shut. Let the person other collages defend him.

Yes lead doing what they should do can have people under them hate them because they claim they don't have their back.

The reality is a Lead job is to have the company/organisation back before everyone else. Not everyone can do this.

[moilami]

Problem is getting fired from project lead role is that you show that there is a high possibly that you could fail todo the job properly. To prove that you may fail to respond to event at company/organisation that you are Project/Company lead at is that you hand any event of the same class incorrectly.



That says he could not have clearly known.



That the problem while holding the job titles at the FSF and GNU he is required to act with a particular level of professionalism with these things even for stuff that does not come from GNU/FSF. This unfortunately means in cases like this Richard Stallman was required to bite is tongue and say nothing because of the titles he held.

Being a project lead/company lead comes great responsibility and some of the requirement of responsible behaviour from those roles effect everything you do while you hold your role.

This is a fun thing of Disrepute. The hard thing is being a project/company lead is that you can be fired from role for you own safety because you actions outside the company has undermined your reputation to handle the things a project/company lead need todo. Yes people use to be historically fired from these roles for being in disreputable actions outside company this made it clear that the actions outside company brought the person downfall.

The big thing here is a company/organisation is not require to wait for anyone in a management/project lead role to fail on their own dime to dismiss them all they need to do is prove the possibility with evidence. So like it or not Richard Stallman did exactly what was required to get himself dismissed.

The requirement on behaviour of company leads/management is over 300 years old. Its the basic principle that you are as project/company lead you are always representing the company/organisation you cannot forgot that if you do don't be surprised if you are either forced to resign or get fired. Lot of people do forget this requirement is there.

This is one reasons why when you are given a project lead role you should get a higher wage than the average person working on the same project because you are taking a risk that you might get fired for actions that as a normal employee would be harmless.

That really does not hold well regarding Stallman. He has been an exception to the rule, and I would say a positive exception, like you can see from his homepage and tons of political opinions there. Stallman clearly could have an opinion about anything. But then suddenly could not anymore because of a very toxic hate group attack towards him. Also I know that if my good long died friend is accused of something he did not do and I knew that, I would defend my friend. It would be my honor to do, and I would do it even if the defense would anger some hate groups like what happened to Stallman. I think a brave man is more valuable to the society than a coward.