On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 1:04 PM Sergey B Kirpichev <skirpic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It's supposed to represent everyone who fights for a future where software > > is open > > Is it possible? To reopresent everyone. > > Shouldn't he instead represent that he's expected to represent? > > >From the fsf.org: > ---->8---- > ... > Our Core Work > > The FSF maintains historic articles covering free software philosophy and > maintains the Free Software Definition - to show clearly what must be > true about a particular software program for it to be considered free > software. > ... > > The FSF publishes the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) > ... > ---------->8------ > and so on. > > Here is nothing about rms (or any FSF leader/board stuff/member) must > represent _you_. Or me, in turn.
Obviously the FSF can do whatever they want. They don't *have* to represent me. But that doesn't mean that I still felt that they did. At least from my experience within the OSS world, I always felt that people see the FSF as an important voice in their mission towards an open future. With that decision, I lost a lot of faith in them, and apparently I'm not the only one. > > I mean not even the fr*cking FSFE knew about that > > Why it should? Different organization. That's not the point. The FSF should obviously communicate better who is on their board and who isn't, with elections etc. Just appointing someone is bad. Especially when that person was removed just two years ago, for whatever reason (the reason doesn't really matter). It shouldn't have happened behind closed doors without a public discussion. The reason I like free software is that nothing is behind closed doors. > > And there was no apology from RMS > > There was no apology from RMS "critics", which e.g. improperly quote RMS > in the case of Minsky "defence" (the blame was itself is a lie). Honestly I don't know enough about RMS to argue about that, and I also don't want to discuss it here. For me, the circumstances are reason enough to call the FSF out. The way the decision was communicated was not worthy of an organization that stands for free software. If someone was removed from the board for whatever reason, before putting them back in, there should be a proper statement from that person addressing these issues. The apology from 2019 was too short. The point of my mail was that there are enough reasons to criticize this decision, that there is really no need for conspiracies about cancel culture. > > We as a project that believes that diversity and democracy > > You place your political opinion for members of the project, which even > can't vote. Is this a democracy? If you don't think Debian is democratic, I urge you to read the Constitution again [1]. Not every contributor can vote, yes, but I argue that this is normal. I can't vacation in a different country and demand the right to vote. I'll first have to become a citizen. Same with Debian, still democratic. I'll have to back down on the diversity statement, haven't checked various pages like the CoC [2], I don't see a direct statement on this. I guess it's fine if someone is against it as long as there are no personal attacks. > > Obviously, everyone is free to disagree and can sign the support letter. > > There is no problem > > See above. That's not a problem for you, yes. I don't get it. It's a democratic vote. If the vote is in favor of this, then so be it. If you disagree with the majority, then disagree. Nobody cares. If you think it's that big of a problem for you, you can leave the project. But I think you can still be part of a project, even if you don't 100% agree with everything the project votes for. Compare it to a country: say you voted against the government, and they issued a statement you agree with. You don't need to leave the country. Nobody assumes that you have voted for the government, just because the majority in your country did. Regards, Stephan PS: moved to debian-vote [1] https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution [2] https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
