The FSF Is Re-Evaluating Its Relationship With The GNU

[tomas]

20 people out of hundreds. Just in the GNU Hurd project are 20 users registered: https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/user.html
Yet only one signed that statement.

It's ridiculous.

Those are not just 20 "random" people. I see many influential names there, so of course it matters.
I think it's quite clear that it's time for RMS to step down. I'm also quite sure that is what will happen eventually.

[Filiprino]

Those are not just 20 "random" people. I see many influential names there, so of course it matters.
I think it's quite clear that it's time for RMS to step down. I'm also quite sure that is what will happen eventually.

It's time for that people to leave GNU.

Edit: Stallman's behaviour over the years has always been the same AFAIK. They knew who was the head of the project before they joined. And what political stance he had on various subjects out of the scope of the GNU project. The GNU project embodies freedom of the software to empower computer users. I don't see how that goal has been missed by RMS's position in the GNU project. He has made talks all over the world, including Microsoft headquarters. And he has never said anything against LGTBQ+ rights. To the contrary, he supports them.

[moilami]

Those are not just 20 "random" people. I see many influential names there, so of course it matters.
I think it's quite clear that it's time for RMS to step down. I'm also quite sure that is what will happen eventually.

Why very tiny minority should be able to dictate who lead the project?

Also, some concrete examples of this:

"Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to."

Since when GNU's core value has been empowerment of all computer users? I have never ever heard anything like that. GNU's goal has been a free operating system.

[moilami]

In this thread: Lots of hysterical whining about people exercising their right to free association by choosing not to associate with someone.

No, those people can practice their freedom to not associate with someone by taking their leave, as has been common practice, instead of trying to dictate who lead what. That is two completely different things. Just practice your freedom and leave. Or are you really saying that you have some sort of right to fire people? Who gave you that right? What is your position? Do you think you can declare ownership of someone's house too by practicing freedom to not associate with someone?

You think you have rights to fire someone, but you don't.

[moilami]

Now this begin to be clear. Some sort of minor group are trying to seize positions and valuables in FSF and GNU.

[Redfoxmoon]

In this thread: Lots of hysterical whining about people exercising their right to free association by choosing not to associate with someone.

With your line of thinking, I can't wait until the lynch mob comes for you, because it's not if, it's when.

[ed31337]

I think it's pretty amazing that someone like RMS, who never fraternized with Epstein, gets the big fat boot, while someone like Bill Gates, who did hang out with Epstein seems to be getting off scott-free...

[Templar82]

I think it's pretty amazing that someone like RMS, who never fraternized with Epstein, gets the big fat boot, while someone like Bill Gates, who did hang out with Epstein seems to be getting off scott-free...

Ultimately this battle is between the "elite" and those who oppose them.

[Delgarde]

You think you have rights to fire someone, but you don't.

No, but you _do_ have the rights to refuse to associate with an organisation, for whatever reason you like. So if the FSF believes it cannot remain associated with GNU as long as RMS remains there, that's their right... and GNU will have to deal with the consequences of that one way or another, which may require severing their relationship with either FSF or RMS if the two cannot co-exist.

[IreMinMon]

In this thread: Lots of hysterical whining about people exercising their right to free association by choosing not to associate with someone.

This is ridiculous.
People indeed care about FOSS and willing-to-work programmers don't really grow on trees, do they? So obviously people will start questioning these ridiculous efforts about excluding competent programmers due to something stupid and unimportant that they said.
The same with Linux CoC, Linux needs contributors more than the other way around, obviously. Policing opinions and communications on behalf of neomarxist retards for the sole purpose of protecting "muh feelings" is indeed exclusionary and does put the entire project at risk.
"Association" my ass, nobody gives a shit about that and neither should they, these projects are bigger than your "association" nonsense.