💾 Archived View for tilde.team › ~benk › 2bf0c8af.gmi captured on 2021-12-05 at 23:47:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-03)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Authors: Ben K. <benk@tilde.team>
Date: 2021-04-02
https://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-council-statement-on-richard-stallman-rejoining-fsf-board/
This bit of news caught my eye in my feed today. As a long-time Fedora user and admirer of the project, I take an interest in its activities.
People lately have been weighing in on Stallman and how they feel about him. A good recent post elsewhere on Gemini makes the case that he's being unfairly vilified. Not that he didn't do or say things that he shouldn't have (everyone agrees about that), but then there's the debate of taking the anti-Stallmanism too far.
In my opinion, the Fedora Council statement is not very helpful. It's possibly even misinformed, though I personally can't claim to be more informed about the matter. My understanding is the controvery surrounding him started with something he wrote in an e-mail, which I myself have read. If the issue is something else, then I don't know about it.
The part of the statement that's the most suspicious is this point where they provide the rationale for their judgement:
...given his history of abuse and harassment.
Here there's a genuine question for me. I'm not aware that he has abused or harassed someone. Has he done that? Well, maybe. I'd like to be informed in that case, but if the matter is only his foolish remarks that I recall from last year, then really that does not constitute abuse or harassment.
I think RMS comes from an era where computer software was something that held less general interest to the public. He embodies that kind of "computer nerd" stereotype, which is someone who codes but personality-wise is just weird or abnormal. Not malicious or harmful, but basically someone with no social skills or sensibility.
Nowadays you wouldn't stereotype computer people in that way. We probably wouldn't want to be regarded like that, but on the other hand in some way it was kind of nice that some people like that used to be able to find a place where they could fit in or be valued in the computing or programming community.
I don't think anyone has ever cared for Stallman's personality. When I was a teenager I read some of his writing on free software and agreed with his philosophy. He made a great contribution to that end, and I still maintain his fundamental stance on free software is correct. However, I don't confuse people and ideas. Being interested in some of his ideas or work doesn't make me interested in him as a person.
I have no particular fondness for anyone such as Stallman or Torvalds, et al. To me they don't represent things. I don't even think they're "leaders", but that's what the whole question of the day is. Should they be regarded as leaders or representatives of "big" ideas? Of social movements?
Well, probably not. I'm not going to go on a crusade against Stallman, but there's some things that we have to consider. Now that free software is like a cool movement with broad appeal, it is politicized by necesity. A lot of people hate that, but as I said it's simply a necesity. To be a movement with organizations and stuff, you need PR types, social types. Clean corporate types to be slick and sell it.
So we just have to accept the social aspect of what we do, which will mean putting on a pretty face and being "the right kind of people" to appeal to the mass audience. No undesirables, etc. Maybe there is no place anymore for antisocial types like Stallman, at least not as a leader or representative. As a worker who can contribute labor, yes; we'll take his work, not his self.
But then the next question is; is his work valuable? That's another tricky bit. To be completely blunt, it seems Stallman is a kind of has-been. His time has passed, he made great contributiong decades ago, but now what? Is he entitled to just be a lauded public figure for the rest of his life? I don't think so... I don't even know what he's done lately that's worthwhile.
Another problem is that he does actively position himself as a public figure and if you've ever seen his website, you know he fancies himself as a political leader, throwing himself at this or that cause. You can't say he didn't play the game, so if he lost then maybe he can accept defeat gracefully.
What I'm saying, is that it's probably best if he step aside and let the movement go on without him. He played his part, and still many people would respect what he did in the past, but maybe we don't need him *now*. If he cared a lot about the movement, he would primarily be interested in fostering a younger generation and handing the reigns over to them.
So as you can tell, my sympathy for him is rather low, but I do have some. I think the best thing for him is to step down, even as I don't wish for him to be burned at the stake for this or that heresy. The FSF is also more important than he is individually, so I feel some regret for the FSF losing support just because of him. That may just be a pressure tactic to see if they can get him to step down or be expelled.
Of course, that also raises the question of how relevant the FSF is anymore. Maybe it isn't, but if not then let some other organization come and continue the work it started. It's still important, and someone's gotta do it.