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

[Danielsan]

if you don't like rudeness then you're free to skip the comments on such news.
It's that simple.

I'm sure that Michael has enough experience running Phoronix to know exactlty what to post and what not.

How depressing...

[arQon]

"A 6-month consultant-led review"

Seriously? So, they fed probably half a million dollars, minimum, of revenue to a third party just to produce an utterly boilerplate pile of crap that, 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.

Whether that's to vote themselves massive pay increases and bonuses Michell Baker style; or create a GPLv4 that says "companies that contributed to a project have the right to produce closed-source forks of that project"; or some other perversion of the FSF's ideals is something I guess we'll find out the hard way in the next year or two.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.