I appreciate what the last email says about delegating, but can’t wholly agree with the assertion that the failure is on the part of followers- it specifically falls on FSF not the broader base.
This excerpt from “A Club is Not a Movement” ( https://news.techworkerscoalition.org/2021/10/26/issue-22/) might be instructive: Growing FSF We don’t talk enough about why free software is great. We say, “Well, it’s not proprietary!” But what’s really great about free software is that it asks questions like, What if you wanted to have a screen reader that could seamlessly go back and forth between the browser and the command line? Would a proprietary browser ask that? No, but a free software alternative absolutely would. And that comes from bringing in people who don’t *only* care about free software. So, despite outright opposition within the office, we formed the women’s caucus to help grow LibrePlanet — both the conference and the movement. Overtly and repeatedly saying “everyone is welcome” worked. The number of women who presented went up and up and held at about a third of the participants. We worked to include diverse people beyond the usual suspects: people from around the world, often from Spanish-speaking countries, and people with kids. We also saw a lot of new GNU projects that focused on growth, and we asked users what they wanted to see, how they wanted the software to work. That led to software not just for ourselves but for people like painters and artists. Most of those maintainers have been chased off, but for a while it was really good. It was great to see free software projects modeling how to talk with users. How do you get them using your software, not because it’s cheap or the right thing to do, but because it works? A Club is Not a Movement Some people in free software feel like, “We have a super fun secret club and it’d be nice if it were a little bit bigger.” Other people are trying to build a movement. Building a movement requires constant checks on gatekeeping, which is a muscle and a mindset you need to build because it’s not intuitive. If you look at corporate software events, it’s easy to see how they grow. Sure, they don’t run out of water or coffee by 11am and their hotel rooms are nicer, but what many do really well is proactively bring in students, women, and people of color by having a solid code of conduct, being super positive – and not acting as gatekeepers. We might not be able to afford endless espresso and sushi, but it doesn’t cost anything to be nice. Like in other nerdy pursuits, the norms and behaviors you set up are what matter. In a club, it’s not obvious that it’s better to listen to newcomers rather than make fun of them or say “Ugh [sigh], I’ll just do it for you.” If you want people to behave in a certain way, you need to model it in your own event, project, or nonprofit organization. On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 5:45 PM <faifl...@danwin1210.de> wrote: > > > "Lost the ball"? that sounds really pessimistic. > > Stallman himself is a self-declared pessimist. I'm not sure when the FSF > got all sunshiny and happy, though maybe it was around the time Stallman > himself lost influence. > > My "pessimistic" outlook comes from not days, weeks or months watching the > FSF in decay, but years of it "losing the ball". > > In those YEARS, I've repeatedly looked for Hope. Other than platitudes, > I've found no hope there. There is no hope in fooling ourselves. > > All the hope I've found was in other people who recognised these issues > and want to tackle them with integrity and honesty-- not optimism. > > Optimists are welcome of course. It remains to be seen if their outlook > itself is justified. > > > > This is not what we need if we are going to inspire and activate the > Free Software Movement to move the ball towards the goal. > > I don't agree. If the ball is somewhere on Mars now, we need to "inspire > and activate" the movement to go to Mars and fetch it-- not to pretend > that Mars is "really not that far." > > > > > RMS has always had too much to do. > > Yes, part of that is a failure to delegate properly, but please note (once > again) I blame his followers more. In other words, they have not picked up > the slack either. Some have tried, and some have worked very hard, but > this is a strategic error: everyone relies on a single point of failure, > for TOO MUCH. > > I'm not saying he's not important-- he's the founding leader and his > wisdom and input matters. I'm saying that there is a strategic error > regardless. Errors of that magnitude often lead to disaster. > > No amount of cheerleading fixes strategic errors. Even the board is > required to act as a cheerleading squad now: > https://www.fsf.org/about/board-member-agreement this is a bad sign for an > organisation. > > > > He needs his allies around him - not only for support but to generate > ideas too. Share your thoughts with him. > > I think you are unaware the degree to which people have mediated and > interfered with his communications, or you would realise why this > suggestion is about as practical as telling someone to grow feathers. > > The problem with excessive optimism is it tends to lead to assuming things > are better than they are. Forming solutions to problems is difficult when > you first assume the problems don't exist: > > "I'm an alcoholic, but that's not really a problem so... PROBLEM SOLVED!" > > This isn't how stuff gets done. > > > > "Too late"? Again, you can't win the game if you begin by admitting > defeat. > > No, but you are more likely to win the game if you begin by admitting that > a strategy hasn't worked in years, and a different strategy is needed. > > I've heard the same advice for years. It's never worked. In fact people > from the FSF attacked me as well. So the strategy being proposed is > uninformed at best. > > > > We need people to surround RMS and amplify Free Software's ideals. You > won't galvanise the movement by pessimism. > > You must not have any idea who he really is. Stallman was very arguably > pessimistic the entire time he was kicking arse and taking names at the > PEAK of his Free Software leadership, from the 1980s until 2011 or > something: > > "I am a pessimist by nature. Many people can only keep on fighting when > they expect to win. I'm not like that. I always expect to lose. I fight > anyway, and sometimes I win." > > THAT is Stallman. When I'm no different (in this regard) than he is, what > is the point of telling me not to be a pessimist? > > > > > So Unity with Microsoft is no good. And yet that is exactly what GNU > drifts > > > towards. > > > > > > Please explain. > > I keep explaining this, are you aware of how much of the GNU Project > relies on Microsoft and IBM at this point? It's ridiculous. Answers range > from "No that's not so" to "It's not a problem if it is so." Both are > false. > > The GNU developers simply do not care about this. I keep close watch on > developments related to this. I am aware of the latest measure to placate > people who insist on handing the crown jewels to the enemy until things > are convenient enough for them. > > This is betrayal and treachery. This is how GNU will fall. Be an optimist > if you like. I've spent years looking for a reason to be optimistic. There > isn't one, for GNU at least. > > > > I would encourage you to first identify individuals who support Free > Software's ideals > > Yes, I've done that. > > > then meet with RMS in order to plan strategies for charting the way > forward. > > He does not seem to think there is a problem. > > However, there is plenty of evidence that he used to. It's not my fault if > he was right the first time, and is now being "handled" exactly the way I > predicted. > > > If you don't understand, go have a read about the Linux Foundation's > treatment of Torvalds. I don't like Torvalds, I'm not even using his > kernel anymore. > > However, I predicted that Stallman's return would be just like his! > > And here we are. That explains pretty well why he isn't fighting. > > It's not because I'm a pessimist. It's because your entire organisation > (like FSFE, like Creative Commons) has gone STRAIGHT TO HELL! > > Go ahead and blame my "pessimism" for it. It's pig-headed to do that, but > it's your right. > > And don't take it too personally. I'm not trying to ruin your day, and > Stallman himself (great man and visionary that he is) has said worse. So > what? > > > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu > https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion >
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfellowship.eu https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
