Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Reportedly Steps Down As Head Of The GNU Project

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by cb88 View Post
    Oh? It's pretty common knowledge that he is a pompus douchebag since forever... so dunno how you can possibly deny that you knew about it when everyone else knew. RMS is often portrayed as some sort of FSF deity but the fact is he always held these ideas and while I think there is a lot of leeway that should be granted to people in general as to what they think and how they act as long as they do nothing illegal or that could cause their associates (eg MIT) to come under fire. I'm fairly certain stallman crossed the line many times over the years and until now it has been swept under the rug.
    I wish I had the cartoon from when the Fitzgerald Inquiry started in Australia it was a good one. Where stuff had been swept under the rug and the rug was no longer big enough to hide the problem.

    This is the problem with Richard Stallman. He has done more than enough to show he is not suitable for a lead position yet he was not demoted out of lead position.

    Either he was stubborn or the people around he was not clear that he need to change his position. So I have different questions.

    PR people get to be pompus douchebags with almost no restrictions. Management and project leads really have legal restrictions on how much of a pompus douchebag they can be before they risk getting into aiding and abetting crimes issues. People are suitable for different roles.

    Leave a comment:


  • cb88
    replied
    Originally posted by AdrianBc View Post


    While I do not agree with some of the opinions of Stallman, I do not remember of anything he ever said that could be assessed as "toxic behavior".
    Oh? It's pretty common knowledge that he is a pompus douchebag since forever... so dunno how you can possibly deny that you knew about it when everyone else knew. RMS is often portrayed as some sort of FSF deity but the fact is he always held these ideas and while I think there is a lot of leeway that should be granted to people in general as to what they think and how they act as long as they do nothing illegal or that could cause their associates (eg MIT) to come under fire. I'm fairly certain stallman crossed the line many times over the years and until now it has been swept under the rug.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by moilami View Post
    That really does not hold well regarding Stallman. He has been an exception to the rule,
    That been a problem. Being an exception to a rule that has a legal precedent its only a matter of time until that is corrected. Stallman has had a very long run.

    Originally posted by moilami View Post
    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.
    All that stuff on his homepage and the like could have been done as just a advocate. That is the job title Stallman should have been given. That means he can still have input like vote at meetings. But day to day operations he does not have final say as an advocate so would not have had the legal restriction on action.

    Originally posted by moilami View Post
    But then suddenly could not anymore because of a very toxic hate group attack towards him.
    It was not sudden. There have been many questions over the decades if Stallman should have stepped out of the management roles. This was not a solitary event of him putting foot in it either. If he had been moved to the right job title the toxic hate groups would have had nothing to work with.

    Originally posted by moilami View Post
    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 am not going to say Stallman should not be respect for falling on his sword to defend his friend. But we have to accept this is legal responsibilities to be a project/company lead. From what you said you are suitable management role.

    Originally posted by moilami View Post
    I think a brave man is more valuable to the society than a coward.
    Problem is management defines brave differently. You have to be brave enough in management to ride out a storm while you are required to keep you mouth shut and collect evidence proving one way or the other. Its a very hard thing to be a project lead and do it right. You require a very tough skin and the ability to suppress you emotions while you collect facts.

    Originally posted by moilami View Post
    Forgot to mention in previous posting that what was the stage or venue for the argument? Was it television? An interview in major newspaper? No, it was a minor mailing list less than 0.01% of the people know of, much less care. So the audience was not huge, it was tiny.
    Audience size is not critical. The requirement as a Project lead/Management is always act correctly. It does not matter in fact if there is no audience in fact. People have been fired from companies from management position because their superior read over their journal notes and it showed problems in personal logic. So a Audience of 1 is enough to get you fired if they have the evidence from a management role.

    Like it or not Richard Stallman has had the wrong job title and its now caught up with him. I wish he never had those titles because he really was never suitable for them. He could have done all the same things as a advocate/appointed representative to events. Stallman being the representative of FSF/GNU is a title he could keep and him putting foot in it would not be a fire able offence. Being a manager/project lead putting foot in it is a fire able offence.

    The job title you are given is very important at times if you keep your job or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • moilami
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

    https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...09#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.
    Forgot to mention in previous posting that what was the stage or venue for the argument? Was it television? An interview in major newspaper? No, it was a minor mailing list less than 0.01% of the people know of, much less care. So the audience was not huge, it was tiny.

    Leave a comment:


  • moilami
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by tuxd3v View Post
    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/foru...09#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.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by sandy8925 View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by sandy8925 View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by sandy8925 View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • fuzz
    replied
    Originally posted by IreMinMon View Post
    "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.

    Leave a comment:


  • moilami
    replied
    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/defi...ncel%20Culture

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

    Leave a comment:


  • IreMinMon
    replied
    Originally posted by johnc View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X