Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux at 9:04 pm by Guest Editorial Team
Article by figosdev
Mocking Assange in exile
Summary: Richard Stallman (RMS) is still quiet and it’s not helping software freedom one year after the ‘lynching’
No, not that closet; rms has in fact had more girlfriends than some people assume. I on the other hand, consider Lawrence Lessig marriage-material — from his brainy brain to his adorable beard. (I actually think he’s nearly the most attractive man alive).
Having spent years complaining about the FSF selling out (around the same time Debian did — this is a bigger problem than just the FSF, to be certain) I started a small organisation with a goal of lobbying and reforming the FSF to renew its commitment to both users and freedom. When I realised this was not possible, I disbanded it.
“I know what rms thinks of my position, he thinks that I am being too pessimistic. That’s understandable, I think he is being (rather uncharacteristically) too optimistic.”As a result of this (some might argue “ridiculous”) act, I learned more about the FSF than I ever thought I would. I (along with others) predicted the ousting of rms — but all that’s changed is thinking that the FSF could be reformed and that the problems were a result of excessive devotion to one person, when actually it was the precise opposite. The FSF has had problems for a long time.
I know what rms thinks of my position, he thinks that I am being too pessimistic. That’s understandable, I think he is being (rather uncharacteristically) too optimistic. He asked several people, including everybody really, to continue to support the FSF. And I really gave it my very best effort. But the FSF continued to betray both rms and us.
I think I know what’s going on now. For one, rms underestimates the scale of the coup. I believe he sees it as isolated incidents caused by a few troublemakers, the same way that Douglas Adams’ factory planet of Magrathea was commissioned to build Earth by “mice”. However, it is bizarre to conclude that these things must have happened at Debian, FSFE and the FSF both simultaneously and by sheer coincidence.
“For one, rms underestimates the scale of the coup. I believe he sees it as isolated incidents caused by a few troublemakers, the same way that Douglas Adams’ factory planet of Magrathea was commissioned to build Earth by “mice”.”Instead, the “few troublemakers” are actually “protrusions” into the Free Software world by corporate corruption on a broader scale — even Perens knows that. Mako Hill’s comment at LibrePlanet about Open Source reminds me of Eisenhower’s famous farewell address. Instead of a science-fiction world where the “mice” are actually a facet of interdimensional beings, we simply have manifestations of corruption from multinational corporations. It’s really nothing new at all, only the specific examples we face are new.
On the surface it sounds of course like a really grandiose claim. But harder to believe is that it could “happen here”, when we know Free Software is “the real thing” and unlike Open Source, would never corrupt itself this way.
But as wild a claim as it is on the face of it, believing that Free Software was ever 100% immune is even wilder. RMS himself is quoted as saying he doubted it would ever get as far as it did, so it is time to face the failures. They will never get fixed if we don’t (and that’s exactly that point).
If I thought nothing could be done, I would stop talking. I stopped lobbying the FSF when I decided nothing could be saved there. The only thing I still advocate trying to salvage is the GNU Project, and Stallman’s legacy.
“The only thing I still advocate trying to salvage is the GNU Project, and Stallman’s legacy.”Although I am against treating him as a has-been (it is chiefly in the interest of Open Source to do so) his legacy is of both historical and symbolic importance to what we still do right now — and that’s why they’re attacking it — to hurt US. If you want to destroy Free Software as a movement, you strike at the root. That’s what they did.
Of greater relevance to this article than anything else, is the way that rms was lied to by lots of people he considered friends and confidants — a reality he was ultimately made aware of. Given the number of people who lied, it is possible some people he still calls friends attacked some people he now thinks of as betrayers, due to some of the traitors “poisoning the well” for those defending him. This is definitely not a defence of anybody in particular.
I’m not trying to make it sound more complicated than it is — but it is at least possible that one or two key allies were actually cut off from rms by someone pretending to protect him. This isn’t a hint that I know of that happening. It is only a possibility, but I have no examples of this (not even ones I won’t name).
But either way, I think rms underestimates the scope of the coup and the betrayal. I do of course think there are still people who care about Free Software and rms, obviously — but many of them also underestimate the scope of this, because they are focused primarily on what happened inside the FSF. The best reason to think it is bigger than that is to look at what happened outside it.
“But either way, I think rms underestimates the scope of the coup and the betrayal. I do of course think there are still people who care about Free Software and rms, obviously — but many of them also underestimate the scope of this, because they are focused primarily on what happened inside the FSF. The best reason to think it is bigger than that is to look at what happened outside it.”I sympathise with the situation rms is in. After he was attacked by his own organisation and some treacherous volunteers and/or staff, here are the things he has to figure out what to do about:
1. I think he would (very naturally) like someone who represents Free Software properly and sincerely to represent the FSF.
2. I think we all would like the GNU Project to remain viable. I personally think it is more important than the FSF itself.
3. The FSF holds copyright, officially maintains the FSD, and can create policies (if left in the wrong hands) to do to rms what Debian has done to Daniel Pocock, trying to get between rms and the rest of the community. I think 1 & 2 are more prominent issues, but this is worth mentioning. (You could argue this has happened already).
I can’t know for certain if the people in charge now really intend to help rms, but I know that he was lied to already. He was lied to before and during the coup. It’s possible he is being lied to now, as a carrot for him to go along with things that he normally wouldn’t:
“This is temporary…”
“When people are desperate, organisations will at times work with an attitude that they can do no wrong.”That is a classic lie used to manipulate people who stay on the right side of something: just be patient, this will all get sorted out.
Sometimes it isn’t true, and is used as a stalling tactic to allow for continued corruption.
I think this is more likely than the FSF coming back. If we imagine any kind of promise being made to rms for his silence, it is almost certainly a promise that can’t be made. We don’t have to question the honesty of the people making these promises directly then — only the ability of anybody to make such promises.
I’ve heard lies about the capabilities and lack thereof with regards to the organisation before. These are things that anybody could look up for themselves (such as whether or not something can be said without putting the mission statement and organsiational status in jeopardy) but they were used as excuses before.
The people who fell for those lies could be innocent, but such lies were used to convince rms to step down in the first place.
I’ve actually read in detail about people who lost their own families due to such lies about official policy. Someone would call an organisation about a problem and would be told (incorrectly) that they were required to take certain actions, or they would end up in court. In fact, taking those actions created entirely new problems, leading to the person calling for advice to end up separated from their family.
“Plea deals are used to coerce people who happen to be innocent…”I do not think it is any stretch to say that this is the real reason rms is no longer the president or on the board — I’m very fairly confident of it. So promising him some return if he plays his cards right sounds like a similar, and very dubious lie to manipulate him and get his cooperation.
I’ve volunteered with both the homeless and the mentally ill. Drugs and alcohol sometimes get people into cycles of trouble that they can’t find their way out of. I’ve seen people turn their lives around too, but it’s given me many glimpses into the ugly side of “assistance” and help from well-meaning volunteers and organisations. I’m really not against the fact that organisations exist, but it is important to know that they come with their own pitfalls, and sometimes make things even worse.
When people are desperate, organisations will at times work with an attitude that they can do no wrong. After all, some think they are the only chance that a person will get, and they should just be grateful under any circumstances. Organisations that operate with that attitude certainly should not exist.
But given the situations of some of these people, they will find themselves in various kinds of trouble, including legal. Plea deals are used to coerce people who happen to be innocent (there are plenty of guilty people too, but they’re guilty people who have a chance to turn around for themselves and to be there for their families — and this also happens to people who were in fact innocent) to take the fall, in return for promises that are not always kept.
“As a matter of principle, censoring the founder of a movement for strategic (and allegedly sympathetic) purposes is no better than censoring him out of spite, betrayal or mutiny. RMS should be able to speak!”I think rms could easily be the victim (metaphorically) of such a deal — not based on his guilt, but based on his stature with the organisation.
So they will keep him silent (while Bruce Perens — yes, at least it’s someone! talks about problems that rms should be speaking about Right Now) but the FSF remains in damage control mode an entire year later; give or take a week or two.
I said YEARS AGO that the FSF was failing, but now it is stuck in that position. Just a little while longer, Chief, and you’ll be back where it counts.
C’MON! Fool him once, shame on you… Fool him — “you can’t get fooled again.” (Why not go with the Bush version? It almost sounds like The Who…)
People that assume this is just about my experience or instincts are missing a more important point — for me, this is a matter of principle.
“This is an organisation that just one year ago, was censoring its own supporters on the mailing lists. It still censors its founder — this is NOT how you fight for freedom.”Yes, it is important to freedom that we not ignore the long-term benefits of a choice for the short-term benefits of the alternative. But it’s not acceptable to abandon the mission (or ask rms to abandon the mission) now, for the promise of being able to speak later. As a matter of principle, censoring the founder of a movement for strategic (and allegedly sympathetic) purposes is no better than censoring him out of spite, betrayal or mutiny. RMS should be able to speak!
This is an organisation that just one year ago, was censoring its own supporters on the mailing lists. It still censors its founder — this is NOT how you fight for freedom.
Note that we were saying less than a month prior to his cancellation that “Free speech [is the] basis for Free software”. You aren’t fighting for MY freedom while rms goes censored!
But it’s also quite relevant that this scheme has every hallmark of a lie. It is a plea deal, a ruse, designed to keep rms quiet when it is most important for him to speak up.
Even if it’s not, it has that exact effect.
So whatever the real intentions of those involved are, to me this just like the coup continuing to do what it does — silence freedom, silence rms and keep his supporters hushed while we promise to fight for your freedom REAL SOON NOW.
Bullshit, it’s as good as a lie.
The title is a tongue-in-cheek reference to South Park teasing Tom Cruise by insisting he “come out of the closet”, but for me Tom Cruise’s preferences (I’m mostly certain the allegations regarding his sexuality were fake and media manufactured, actually) are not important — coming “out of the closet” to talk about organisational problems is what matters here.
The bottom line here: rms is still the founder of this movement, and rather than keeping him quiet (probably as a ruse) in his older years, he should be speaking on behalf of users and freedom — just like he always has.
And the FSF should know better, but of course it only pretends to care about your freedom — and the freedom of rms.
RMS has been defended by the former head of the ACLU, as well as book authors, software authors, Techrights, and others. The comments Perens made one year ago about rms are part of the reason I don’t trust him now, though I will say that some of the things he’s said lately are very noteworthy and I agree many are worth commenting on. Some are even worth considering.
The FSF’s “strategic” reasons for convincing rms to step down were lies. The “strategic” reasons for convincing him to stay down are also lies. And they aren’t just lying to one person, they’re lying to the entire world.
Stop the lies, get rms out of the closet, and let the man speak. If you’re afraid of him talking, you’re cowards — and you’re on the wrong side of freedom. Cowards don’t fight for us. They make lousy decisions and are swayed easily by liars.
And it’s as safe for rms (and Free Software) now as it will ever be. As with the Constitution and the PAT-RIOT Act, the worst thing that could happen is that we give up what really matters, due to what we fear could happen if we don’t.
The FSF is still selling him (us) out — and if they don’t know that, then they’re fooling themselves. They’re not fooling us.
We don’t get to keep rms forever — the last thing we should be doing is playing along while the same FSF that stifled him under FALSE pretenses insists that the right thing to do is continue along those same ridiculous lines. This is still a fraudulent imposed retirement, only now with icing on top.
We need more Stallmans as well — but either way, Silencing activists is NOT what people who care about freedom DO. If rms isn’t speaking up for your freedom, then the FSF isn’t either. The new de facto FSF policy hasn’t changed in a year — it’s nothing more than “Exile-in-place” (c/f Julian Assange). “Freedom” can do better than that, and the FSF could too, if it still cared about freedom.
If they won’t do it for rms, why won’t they do it for us? We don’t matter, so they’ll lie to us, too. “This is temporary…” Yeah, so when does it sunset, assholes?
Fool me — you can’t get fooled again!
Free rms, Free Assange, and Happy Hacking. █
Licence: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 (public domain)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Debian, Free/Libre Software at 8:34 pm by Guest Editorial Team
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
IT all started with a non-native-English speaker choosing the wrong pronoun in reference to a developer who identifies as non-binary. What, then, is the basis for this concern? Why do we give a damn about it?
Is it because Sage Sharp is a great friend of Debian? Or is it because we would have the same concern for all LGBTQ+ people? In other words, is it about egos or is it about principles?
I suspect and hope most people would agree it is about principles. We would expect the same respect to be shown referring to any person from a minority even if they have no relation to Debian whatsoever.
If it is about principles, then, do we need to identify the principles that guide us, to ensure consistency in decision making? Recent posts on debian-project suggested human rights may not apply in Debian as we are not a Government, the same attitude has been repeated more strongly in a private email of the Debian account managers (DAM):
This is not involving anything from the universal declaration of human rights. We are simply a project of volunteers which is free to chose its members as it wishes.
If that is true, what is the basis to protect Sage Sharp’s rights? If that is true, then we have to go back to the question, why was any action taken at all?
In fact, if human rights principles are not present, what is the basis for Debian’s anti-harassment team and the Code of Conduct?. If we don’t want to be guided by human rights principles then could we take Norbert Preining’s advice and dispense with those things?
Yet I suspect that is not about to happen. People may prefer to understand them better and improve upon the way they are designed and used.
When the Trump administration rescinded guidelines protecting transgender rights in education, they nonetheless allowed the following phrase in the new guidelines:
All schools must ensure that students, including L.G.B.T. students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment
Let’s transpose that into the Debian context:
Our non-LGBT developers need to be able to learn about LGBT issues, making mistakes along the way, because that is part of learning. To thrive, they should not fear making mistakes. People learn in different ways too, if one method of helping them doesn’t work, we need to try others.
We will continue to see people do things like deadnaming by mistake and we need to be able to deal with it patiently each time it happens. Given that anybody can post to the Internet and social media, there are a plethora of bad examples out there and people may not realize they are doing anything wrong. But if our reactions appear too strong, we run the risk that they never learn and just continue doing the same thing somewhere else.
Thousands of messages have been exchanged, thousands of man hours consumed reviewing recent actions that have an impact on individual members. Would those decisions have been easier to defend, or mistakes more easily avoided, if human rights principles were involved more explicitly from the beginning?
Let’s consider some of Debian’s guiding principles, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which relate to intellectual property. It turns out intellectual property is not a Silicon Valley buzzword, it is a human right, firmly enshrined in article 27 of the declaration. Gotcha. Debian has been promoting human rights all along when we make a distinction between code that belongs in main and code that belongs in non-free.
So why do we put the rights of users on a pinnacle like this but do so little to document and protect the rights of members and contributors?
Another significant topic of debate now is the right to be heard. It appears that the Debian account managers consider it acceptable to summarily expel members without giving a member any evidence and without respecting the member’s right of reply.
The Debian account managers have acknowledged they operate this way.
Yet without hearing from a member, they run the risk of operating on incomplete or inaccurate evidence, making decisions that could both be wrong and bring the project into disrepute.
In fact, when evidence is taken in secret, without review by any party, including the accused, we run the risk of falling back to a situation where decisions are made based on egos rather than principles. Ironically, the Debian project’s widely respected reproducible builds effort aims to ensure a malicious actor can’t insert malicious code into a binary package. A disciplinary process operating without any oversight or transparency may be just as attractive for infiltration by the same malicious actors (name a state) who would infiltrate Debian’s code. Fixing the process is just as imperative as the Reproducible Builds effort.
By jumping head-first into these processes, the account managers may have also failed to act on information related to other human rights. Imagine if they made the mistake of subjecting somebody to a degrading or humiliating interaction, such as “demotion”, at a time of personal tragedy. Society at large would find such a proceeding and the outcome quite repulsive. It may be unreasonably harmful to the person concerned and do severe and avoidable damage to the overall relationship: there are many times when it would be completely inappropriate for Debian to blindly send a member a long written list of their perceived defects, with no trace of empathy or compassion. There is never a good time to start gossip about a member but at certain times, it may be even more outrageous to do so. How can Debian target a member like that at a time of vulnerability and then talk about being a “safe space”? Is sending emails like this an abusive practice itself?
Wouldn’t it be paradoxical to see the Debian account managers taking action against a member accused of violating gender identity rights while simultaneously the account managers are failing to observe due process and violating another member’s rights in a multitude of different ways?
In fact, the violation of rights in the latter case may be far more outrageous than what may be a blogger’s mistake because it has occurred at an institutional level, rejecting every opportunity to meet the person in question for almost a year and multiple pleas to act humanely and consider facts.
We wouldn’t dismiss Sage Sharp’s gender identity rights as “minutiae”, yet there is no doubt whatsoever that dismissing another member’s circumstances as “minutiae” in this specific case was extraordinarily callous and grossly offensive. People wondering where mutual trust and respect was damaged may wish to focus on interactions like that and ignore everything said since then.
Is it right to pick and choose human rights when convenient and ignore them when it isn’t convenient, even in the same decision making process? Or is that the very reason why there is now so much confusion and frustration?
So there is a new reason to heed the UN HRC’s call to Stand up for human rights: doing so may help Debian roll back the current mistakes more quickly, avoid repeating them in future and avoid the reputation damage that would occur if a vote was taken on an issue that both contravenes a member’s human rights and appears manifestly abusive and callous to society at large.
It is my view that any processes that started without respecting the rights of the member should be rolled back and furthermore, everything that has happened since those rights were violated can be disregarded as part of a process to re-establish mutual trust. █
Links
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Debian, Free/Libre Software at 12:22 am by Guest Editorial Team
Reprinted with permission from Debian Community News
Yesterday, the message below was posted to the debian-vote mailing list.
Censors blocked it. It wasn’t received by list subscribers and it isn’t visible in the debian-vote list archive.
Can you see any possible way that this message violates the code of conduct used by this free software community?
In many free software communities, we accept that we contribute without the promise of anything in return.
In Debian, they gave us the promise of membership. Membership doesn’t mean much either, except the right to vote. But it turns out even that was a hollow promise. Enrico Zini from the Debian account managers team simply deleted a candidate from the Debian keyring in the same way that he would delete an unwanted file, just days before elections were announced.
enrico@debian:~$ dpkg --purge person
enrico@debian:~$ rm -rf serious/questions
Consider the countless things that volunteer has done for Debian and free software over more than twenty years, eight visits to new communities in the Balkans over the last two years and acting as an admin in Google Summer of Code, a huge responsibility that brought in significant revenue for Debian.
When Zini tampered with the keyring, no due process was followed, no reason was given to the volunteer and any reason made up after the fact has no credibility. But making stuff up retrospectively to justify bullying isn’t new.
Let me make that clear: for people not in the cabal, this ballot feels like it has been rigged before it even started. Certain people resented an independent candidate succeeding as FSFE Fellowship representative and think they can obstruct similar candidates in Debian.
Given there has already been extraordinary stress for people during the crisis, it is more important than ever for the debate about this platform to take place. An event this serious has ramifications for all free software communities because volunteers everywhere are losing faith in all of us.
If you would like to see a transparent and credible election debate proceed in Debian or if you would like to comment for or against any candidate, please write to the debian-project mailing list (subscribe, post). (NOTE: multiple people complained their attempts to send messages about voting were censored/blocked on official Debian mailing lists) █
Subject: Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2019: Call for nominations
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 06:16:06 -0700
From: Mike Bird <mike@soundsailors.com>
To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
CC: Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx <secretary@debian.org>
On Sat March 9 2019 19:44:17 Steve Langasek wrote:
> There are no provisions in the Debian constitution for non-Developers to be
> nominated for the position of DPL.
The Debian Constitution provides that Developers may nominate
themselves. There is no prohibition against non-Developers
nominating themselves. There is no requirement that the DPL
be a Developer.
Compare the Speaker of the House in the US for whom membership
is not required[1,2]. The members may if they choose elect a
non-member Speaker.
Under the Debian Constitution there is now a candidate, the
nomination period has closed, and no more candidates may be
nominated.
Should you disagree with the long-overdue reforms highlighted
in Daniel's excellent platform you can of course vote None Of
The Above.
--Mike
[1] "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker".
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA