FSF Adopts A Board Member Agreement, Code of Ethics For Board Members

[stevecrox]

This is addressed in point 11 of the new "Code of Ethics". No individual alone will be considered the face of the organization, and the board will only speak as a whole.

The right to voice one's own opinion in their own free time is sacrosanct, and it would be paradoxical to promote software freedom while obligating board members to remain silent on any potentially controversial topic, thus limiting their freedom of speech, wouldn't it?
The FSF is unique in that it doesn't have to walk on eggshells in order to not upset investors that only care about ROI. Its "investors" are more like donators that care about principles. Have you checked the outcome of the two open letters, for and against Stallman?

And if anything, the only cringeworthy thing out of that debacle is that MIT students are either appallingly illiterate or knowingly malevolent.
It's always funny, reading their accusations and then watching them circulate time and time again on "woke" proprietary platforms such as Twitter. Colored hair and body hair, piercings, earlobe enlargers, "creative" makeup, being ostentatious about one's own identity and/or sexual preference; all things that are rampant in that community and that not too long ago would have been deemed utterly gross and inappropriate behavior both in professional environments and in public spaces.

But the occasional awkward genius with questionable appearance and posture is now the devil?
Where did tolerance and equality go? No equality for socially awkward people? Perhaps no equality for autistic individuals?

Yeah... Make no mistake, the majority of the population everywhere is completely wise to this phenomenon.

Firstly freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. A person can have views but that means others can choose to disassociate themselves from you.

Secondly a leadership position has responsibilities one of which is being viewed as a voice/face of a company. If you choose to be known for arguing for a lower age of consent using platforms linked to your role within an organisation people are going to think it aligns with the organisation values.

Putting that clause in the code of contact is more acceptance he can't regulate what he speaks on. The next time he promotes something offensive people won't seperate Stallman's personal from the FSF position. The fact the close exists tells us the FSF doesn't mind him publicly speaking on problematic topics not related to their core mission.

Lastly the whole point of the Free Software Foundation is to promote free software. That means being able to effectively communicate with software engineers and non software engineers. You wouldn't ask someone who could swim to be a lifeguard, why ask someone who is socially awkward to take on a role which requires highly excellent social skills?

[chocolate]

If you take any one of the stories as true, he likely wouldn't be taken seriously by politicians or business leaders. Which means he isn't "fit" to operate as a board member or ambassador.

Here is what italian politician Nichi Vendola thought of Stallman in 2010. Translation mine, emphasis mine; please note this is not 100% faithful to the original in Italian.
His personal website is now defunct, but you can snag a copy of the original here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20101223093034/http://www.nichivendola.it/sito/mcc/informazione/software-libero.html

Background: in 2010, Vendola's administration in the Puglia region was in the process of modernizing itself through digitalization. To do so, they initially partnered with Microsoft. At the time, Vendola's party being called "Left, Ecology and Liberty" (Sinistra Ecologia Libertà), this matter resonated with enthusiasts of, you guessed it, software libero. Vendola himself decided it was time to take corrective steps.

Today, I met Richard Stallman, the global point of reference in the battle for software freedom.
Our meeting had the taste of a crash course not only on technology, but politics as well, since the subject of software freedom is the subject of freedom [as a whole] in the present and in the future.
It was an important meeting because, while we were busy researching what other territories had done to promote free software, we had already been partnering with Microsoft [for the digitalization of the public administration]. This caused stupor and agitation. Since I am a curious person, I decided to deepen my understanding of the matter with some of the most important protagonists in the battle for software freedom.
Learning the things I learned today has been very important to me.

The meeting has been fruitful, since, starting today, we have established an important connection with Stallman and the network around free software, so that they can help us finalize a law on open source [sic] that is already being drafted at our regional council.
As a public administration, we have decided to communicate with those that share a vision of a kinder and more democratic future.

I like to imagine that our law will be enriched by their collaboration.
The process itself of drafting this law will become a model of collective consideration [for the adoption] of best practices, which will influence the future of the public administration, but will not be limited to it: in fact, together with the School Office of Puglia, I would like to sign a special protocol to promote free software in schools.

This is coming from a politician who has also been victim of harassment for being homosexual. I would like to hear the SJW mob's opinion on that!

Today, even though the nation probably still makes extensive use of OEM Windows PCs in the public administration, the adoption of free and open source software both in the public administration and in schools is encouraged, but not enforced, and is considered the default; use of competing, proprietary solutions must be justified in financial reports. This started as local initiatives in individual towns and schools, and is now law in Italy. Vendola's was one such initiative, but on a regional level, which at the time was a big deal.

It's been going on for quite a long time, and was the case even in my elementary school, as far back as the late 90s!
I went to high school in a different town, they were already making extensive, although not exclusive, use of GNU/Linux in laboratories. One day, they bought new PCs for a laboratory, and left them as-is, with Windows 7. I complained to the principal and, sure enough, thanks to enlightened professors that put in the work to do so, they dual-booted Ubuntu on all of them shortly after. Then I went to university: IT courses could not possibly work on anything but GNU/Linux in laboratories (making extensive use of free and open source software for automation, exam VMs, etc.), and even shared PCs in e.g. printing rooms would let you choose between Windows and Ubuntu at boot.

[microcode]

How depressing...

What's depressing is that you think Michael should avoid publishing stories because some people have comments about the REAL SCENARIO he is documenting that you don't agree with.

[microcode]

Not, absolutely not. My nature is the opposite, but if people here aren't interested in such topics he shouldn't writing about those, he may reduce the rudeness in this forum up to a 15%...

Dude, plenty of people here have a deep understanding of ethics; what has happened to so many organizations over the last five (or fifty, if you're looking at it closely) years is not a revolution in ethics, it's a revolution against human decency. You can keep slapping fresh paint on these things, or dressing them up as popular moral goods (like "ethics" or "toleration") but it doesn't change what's really happening.

[leo_sk]

the most wierd thing about any political correctness CoC is that they are actually harmful in nature for a lot of cases.

eg. Rust Code of conduct:

We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of level of experience, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, nationality, or other similar characteristic.

I am here asking i don't mind that you want to be friendly i welcome it. But why it is not written in way

We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all.

At least Rust adds that "similar characteristic" but a lot of SJWs focus only entirly on sex and race and nothing more. It is to a point where Hollywood has jokes about adopted people (and let's be honest there is no reason to put such people in harm) while not a single one where sex or race is touched in jokingly manner. It is basicly like saying hey if you are discriminated because of issue A or B we will protect you, but in case of C or D or E we will not.

So true. And worst of all, it divides people into groups. Sure people will divide themselves in one way or another, but endorsement of such words ensures that people will be viewed in the mentioned categories, even if they wish to divide themselves into groups based on interests, ambitions etc

[chocolate]

The eventual contraversy that got rid of him felt like satire. He wasn't at MIT as an expert in those topics. I get why but it came off as being an edgelord and again that undermines the credibility of the FSF. A professor or individual could discuss them but a face of an organisation should know it would be associated with the organisation and potentially bring it into disrepute. Its a firing level failure for a board member.

This is addressed in point 11 of the new "Code of Ethics". No individual alone will be considered the face of the organization, and the board will only speak as a whole.

The right to voice one's own opinion in their own free time is sacrosanct, and it would be paradoxical to promote software freedom while obligating board members to remain silent on any potentially controversial topic, thus limiting their freedom of speech, wouldn't it?
The FSF is unique in that it doesn't have to walk on eggshells in order to not upset investors that only care about ROI. Its "investors" are more like donators that care about principles. Have you checked the outcome of the two open letters, for and against Stallman?

And if anything, the only cringeworthy thing out of that debacle is that MIT students are either appallingly illiterate or knowingly malevolent.
It's always funny, reading their accusations and then watching them circulate time and time again on "woke" proprietary platforms such as Twitter. Colored hair and body hair, piercings, earlobe enlargers, "creative" makeup, being ostentatious about one's own identity and/or sexual preference; all things that are rampant in that community and that not too long ago would have been deemed utterly gross and inappropriate behavior both in professional environments and in public spaces.

But the occasional awkward genius with questionable appearance and posture is now the devil?
Where did tolerance and equality go? No equality for socially awkward people? Perhaps no equality for autistic individuals?

Yeah... Make no mistake, the majority of the population everywhere is completely wise to this phenomenon.

Myself, I don't care. But let's not pretend a mob like that jumped on the Stallman bandwagon for anything other than to satiate their thirst for a proper character assassination, out of immaturity and a feeling of impotence toward their real life problems. A mob always ends up becoming the cradle of the problems they originally set out to fight.

[chocolate]

[...] if history is any guide, will only ever be used as a weapon to remove anyone who disagrees with whichever subgroup is most determined to increase its control of the organization.

This is addressed in point 8 of their new "Code of Ethics". Have you read all the material? It's quite short and to the point, looks decently thought out to me. Perhaps you'll find it agreeable. Cheers.

https://www.fsf.org/about/board-of-directors-code-of-ethics

[stevecrox]

When he was kicked out there were so many stories by people in the community concerning what a deeply unpleasant person he was to interact with.

From staying with people and being abrasive to his hosts, being mildly disgusting (peeling toe skin off) in front of audiences, him insulting Belgium political leaders, to being generally creepy towards women.

Considering the stated goals of the FSF, board members need to be effective communicators, they need to present well and be able to reach non software engineers. They should be diplomats or brand ambassadors.

If you take any one of the stories as true, he likely wouldn't be taken seriously by politicians or business leaders. Which means he isn't "fit" to operate as a board member or ambassador.

Apparently he has a fear of plants, one of the stories was how most the women in MIT/FSF keep potted plants on their desk to keep him away. I mean considering the effort to convince women to enter STEM, if this was true it doesn't matter if he was amazing at everything else, he would need to change or be got rid off.

The eventual contraversy that got rid of him felt like satire. He wasn't at MIT as an expert in those topics. I get why but it came off as being an edgelord and again that undermines the credibility of the FSF. A professor or individual could discuss them but a face of an organisation should know it would be associated with the organisation and potentially bring it into disrepute. Its a firing level failure for a board member.

When they got rid of him it was a chance to show how seriously FSF took their message. The fact the organisation struggled so much after he left speaks of his poor leadership.

Bringing him back (and the way they did) showed the organisation wasn't about promoting free software but the cult of personality around Stallman.

Effectively the FSF doomed itself to irrelevance, businesses don't want to associate with him and his ineffective social skills mean they believe the FUD around the GPL. That said being seen to suppot open source is a big deal for a lot of business. They just use the bsd, apache, licenses which lack the baggage.

[Danielsan]

Michael hasn't given a shit about providing neutral information in a long time. He often fails to give credit to the correct people, he intentionally words systemd-oriented articles to be troll-inducing, and he consistently makes these articles any time he can just for the clicks, not because he's providing news or information to a community.

There is a reason I don't donate to Phoronix anymore.

How unfortunately true...

[computerquip]

How depressing...

Michael hasn't given a shit about providing neutral information in a long time. He often fails to give credit to the correct people, he intentionally words systemd-oriented articles to be troll-inducing, and he consistently makes these articles any time he can just for the clicks, not because he's providing news or information to a community.

There is a reason I don't donate to Phoronix anymore.