No announcement yet.

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

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by stevecrox View Post
    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:

    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.

    Originally posted by Italian politician, Nichi Vendola, December 20th 2010
    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.
    Last edited by chocolate; 18 December 2021, 11:09 AM.


    • #32
      Originally posted by chocolate View Post
      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?


      • #33
        Originally posted by microcode View Post

        Dude, plenty of people here have a deep understanding of ethics...
        Sure, just not here. Also the majorities here aren't interested in anything the FSF does, no matter what about the presence of RMS.

        Originally posted by microcode View Post
        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.
        Am I your today (yesterday) target?

        Very few people in these thread read the content of those links, they don't know anything about the FSF or RMS, nor are actually interested in such topics... C'mon...


        • #34
          Originally posted by Danielsan View Post
          Am I your today (yesterday) target?
          If you feel targeted by two comment replies, you should seek professional help.


          • #35
            Originally posted by microcode View Post

            If you feel targeted by two comment replies, you should seek professional help.
            I would have need professional help because I insist wasting my time here... 🤦‍♂️


            • #36
              Originally posted by chocolate View Post
              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.
              Thanks - I agree, though I maintain that it's far from being six months worth of work. :P

              I don't share your optimism about the practical outcome of this though. We've seen numerous cases where Codes Of XYZ have been weaponized by sociopaths who saw a way to leverage them to the benefit of their specific clique, at the expense of the majority and to the detriment of the organization or group as a whole - generally including at least some of those who naively supported the "takeover" because they were bludgeoned or manipulated into it by actors whipping the situation to provoke an emotional response and/or painting them as guilty by association if they didn't: basically, the "Think of the children" and "If you're not with us you're against us" tactics of authoritarians for centuries.

              Whether that happens to the FSF too is anybody's guess, but given the potential monetary value of the assets involved here it seems to me far more likely that things will end badly than not. The FSF doesn't have a great track record so far, and I don't think anyone really understands just how far some people will go to get what they want until they experience it firsthand.


              • #37
                Several of the people that resigned from the FSF in protest stated that at FSF events, the FSF Board published a code of conduct.

                Then when members of the board violated the code and complaints were filed, nothing was done.

                This isn't rocket science and it isn't "woke SJW bullshit". If you make a set of rules for all people at an event and enforce those rules for the guests but not the staff, you are hypocrites.

                Stallman is a world class genius and a visionary. But the fact that he can't figure that out is appalling. I've donated hundreds to the FSF, and I will keep donating to the SFC and other FOSS organizations. But never again to the FSF. Not with these hypocrites in charge. Live by your own rules.


                • #38
                  Originally posted by rabcor View Post
                  Somehow all news I've heard about FSF over this year are some bs waste of time code of ethics nonsense that's very poorly thought out, and Richard Stallman getting kicked out of his own organization by sjws.... I suppose with the latter, the former isn't really much surprise, I mean...

                  The FSF is just an SJW mouthpiece now isn't it? Nothing more? This is what it's been reduced to in Stallman's absence isn't it? No more 'free software' foundation, just 'free politics' foundation now?
                  It's politics not to sexually harass people or embarrass the open source community?


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by stevecrox View Post

                    You wouldn't ask someone who could[n't] swim to be a lifeguard, why ask someone who is socially awkward to take on a role which requires highly excellent social skills?
                    I've been saying this for many years now. Regardless of their legal or software contributions, both Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds are horrible, horrible choices to be the public face of open source (although Torvalds gets a lot of credit for trying to improve; and Stallman negative points for refusing to try). I mean, at one point in time you had Stallman picking something off his foot and eating it at a public forum and Linux Torvalds giving the middle finger to corporations and whining about whether he'd have to wear a tie next like he was an eleven-year-old being forced to go to church. Don't even get me started on Eric S. Raymond, who I even used to defend until the time he told me in an online exchange that black people are underrepresented in tech because they're not mentally/genetically capable of being good software developers; only white and Asian males are. There was no defending that one.

                    My choice then... and now... is making Steven Fry the public face of open source. He's intelligent and well-spoken and personable and respectable and funny and popular. Also, I don't think he's ever told anyone to go kill themselves or defended statutory rape either, which sadly provides bonus points in our community. Consider this his audition tape....

                    Stephen Fry wishes happy birthday to GNU and celebrates free software


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by alcalde View Post
                      or defended statutory rape either
                      Hopefully he isn't a role model for cyber defamation on the basis of provably false accusations, either.