Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee

[Alexandre Oliva <oliva@gnu.org>]

On Mar 28, 2021, Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> wrote:

> It shows we don't tolerate harassment in our project.

It shows we will favor and engage in harassment against a certain
demographic group, while pretending or believing it will somehow
make for a welcoming atmosphere.

> everybody I talked to about it had some story about being
> harassed by RMS, had witnessed such harassment or heard from or knew
> someone who had been.

... which, even if true, still requires quite a lot of twisting and
forcing and breaking to make it fit the sexism narrative presented as
the motivating factor.

And this is the problem with most of the witchhunting in place.  There
are plenty of allegations circulating all over the Internet, and most of
them fit either or both of two patterns: actual evidence twisted and
forced to fit a false narrative, or repeated hearsay, most likely
fabricated or exaggerated, without a traceable ultimate source.

Which is not to say that there aren't exceptions, the first-hand
narratives.  Those invariably fit in either of two patterns: they look
like smoking gun evidence of very wrongdoing, but they are disputed by
other who were just as much there and are just as trustworthy, or they
paint the known picture of person who has well-known flaws and is indeed
frequently difficult to deal with, but those facts don't help construct
the false boogeyman narrative.

Of course conclusions may be different once one starts picking evidence
that is favorable to make one's case, and disregarding that which
opposes evidence.  Most people would agree that this is not the way to
go to find truth, be it for science or for justice.

> he is against enforcing any anti-harassment policy some GNU
> mailinglist is currently being used to organize a doxing campaign

Doxing and harassment are not welcome, and that post has already been
solved, with his support and before you brought it up, FWIW.

Harassment has been tolerated before, which made this decision a little
more difficult, because the target of an earlier and ongoing harassment
campaign was someone in a position of power in the GNU project itself.
My understanding is that there was a decision to not silence that
discussion, although some moderators had engaged in suppression of
dissenting positions to the (still) ongoing harassment.  As anyone who
studied history can predict, authoritarian positions tend to suppress or
attempt to suppress dissent, while freedom-respecting ones endure it.

If that was a trial run of the sort of leadership that was trying to
replace Richard's, I'd much rather keep the devil we know.  That alleged
witch may have some warts indeed, but they're not quite as ugly as the
prosecutors/judges/executioners's.


> You link to a parody of a request of tens of Free Software foundation
> projects and thousands of Free Software hackers

If truth finding were a matter of headcount, we might still be forced to
believe we're on a flat planet orbited by a star.  But if we're to use
that measuring stick, petitions calling for the FSF to keep Richard at
the FSF board have been signed by more people, translated to more
languages, despite there being more of them, and hosted on platforms
that are less hostile to software freedom, and not being signed multiple
times by the same few people on behalf of multiple organizations.


> Sometimes satire is a way to deal with difficult problems, but I don't
> think that is appropriate here

How about this one instead?
https://avilarenata.medium.com/stallman-d824724b0083

  RMS’ principled stances cause an uncomfortable cognitive dissonance
  for them. They would rather kill a sacrificial Gnu than admit their
  own shortcomings. It is significant that the letter demanding his
  resignation must be signed using Microsoft’s Github platform, and that
  many organizations taking position are openly accepting money from
  Google and other predatory companies.


Or this one?
https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web

  The paradox of Stallman is that while his pointedness and stubbornness
  leads many to dismiss him as a jerk, his stubbornness and
  confrontations are actually rooted in his life-long obsession with
  morality. Though you may disagree, there is ample reason to believe he
  has come to hold his views from a concerted, rigorous, good-faith
  effort to be a voice for good in the world.

  “Stallman… is a hard man to like. He is driven, often impatient. His
  anger can flare at friend as easily as foe. He is uncompromising and
  persistent; patient in both.”
    Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law Professor, democracy activist

  “Even if I strongly disagree with a position or an idea, an expression
  of an idea, advocacy of an idea, and even if the vast majority of the
  public disagrees with the idea and finds it offensive, that is not a
  justification for suppressing the idea. And it’s not a justification
  for taking away the equal rights of the person who espouses that idea
  including the right to continue holding a tenured position or other
  prominent position for which that person is qualified.”
    Nadine Strossen, Civil Rights Activist, first female President of the ACLU


Maybe this one?
https://medium.com/@whoisylvia/richard-stallman-has-been-vilified-by-those-who-dont-know-him-a3907b25b4c7

  As an active feminist and one who has witnessed much bad behavior
  among tech CEOs over the past 30 years, I think that accusing Richard
  Stallman of not supporting women, gays, or any other minority group is
  false

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker  https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist         GNU Toolchain Engineer
        Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar