Proposals to improve FSF (was a thread about FSF union)

[Danny Spitzberg <stationaery@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2778 bytes --]

Jean, what was your proposal to improve FSF? Aaron Paul Deb and I believe a
few others have had their ideas come through via this list.

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 10:03 AM Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:

> * Danny Spitzberg <stationaery@gmail.com> [2021-03-31 19:25]:
> >    Below, history of the FSF union and how it was intentionally created
> to
> >    overcome bad behavior and poor leadership from RMS (he didn’t believe
> >    in time of to mourn dead family members?!). A healthy and sustainable
> >    FSF is important for the free/libre software movement. And... It’s
> >    healthy to have constructive criticism. It shows trust and interest.
> >    FSF Can become better. And from this narrative, it sounds like several
> >    staff and board members struggled to make that happen, instead of
> >    simply denying grievances.
>
> FSF is private nonprofit foundation, not public. Thus it works by its
> legal statutes, not by public decisions. Though management
> listens. But they are not bound by anything from outside but law.. It
> is not democratic, and not necessarily transparent. Financial reports
> are transparent by the law, what is happening inside and internally is
> their own business.
>
> Matters are straight that way.
>
> Me or you, as not being on board, not having any votes, we can discuss
> all day long, it is not in our authority, and it is useless discussion
> that will not convert even one computer to free software.
>
> >    “RMS created non-safe spaces at both MIT & the FSF. When I was at the
> >    FSF, RMS had little to no empathy for the staff. The FSF was not a
> >    healthy, functional workplace. We formed a union to help protect
> >    ourselves from RMS — he controlled our pay, benefits, and workplace
> >    conditions.
>
> It is very interesting, that my proposal on how to improve the FSF was
> rejected by moderator, but this type of yet another bullying passes
> through.
>
> How about moderator to tell us on the list, why is this allowed, and
> my writing not allowed?
>
> Why you not tell to this person "to take it up with FSF" like how you
> told to me "to take it up with FSF"?
>
> Moderator should not be there just to delete and block some of emails
> and pass the others, that is unfair, as you are moderating it
> politically, thus passing other emails related to FSF.
>
>   ___               _     _        __        _______ _____ _
>  / _ \ _ __   ___  | |__ (_) __ _  \ \      / /_   _|  ___| |
> | | | | '_ \ / _ \ | '_ \| |/ _` |  \ \ /\ / /  | | | |_  | |
> | |_| | | | |  __/ | |_) | | (_| |   \ V  V /   | | |  _| |_|
>  \___/|_| |_|\___| |_.__/|_|\__, |    \_/\_/    |_| |_|   (_)
>                             |___/
>
>
> Jean
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 2976 bytes --]

   Jean, what was your proposal to improve FSF? Aaron Paul Deb and I
   believe a few others have had their ideas come through via this list.

   On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 10:03 AM Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:

     * Danny Spitzberg <[1]stationaery@gmail.com> [2021-03-31 19:25]:
     >    Below, history of the FSF union and how it was intentionally
     created to
     >    overcome bad behavior and poor leadership from RMS (he didn’t
     believe
     >    in time of to mourn dead family members?!). A healthy and
     sustainable
     >    FSF is important for the free/libre software movement. And...
     It’s
     >    healthy to have constructive criticism. It shows trust and
     interest.
     >    FSF Can become better. And from this narrative, it sounds like
     several
     >    staff and board members struggled to make that happen, instead
     of
     >    simply denying grievances.
     FSF is private nonprofit foundation, not public. Thus it works by
     its
     legal statutes, not by public decisions. Though management
     listens. But they are not bound by anything from outside but law..
     It
     is not democratic, and not necessarily transparent. Financial
     reports
     are transparent by the law, what is happening inside and internally
     is
     their own business.
     Matters are straight that way.
     Me or you, as not being on board, not having any votes, we can
     discuss
     all day long, it is not in our authority, and it is useless
     discussion
     that will not convert even one computer to free software.
     >    “RMS created non-safe spaces at both MIT & the FSF. When I was
     at the
     >    FSF, RMS had little to no empathy for the staff. The FSF was
     not a
     >    healthy, functional workplace. We formed a union to help
     protect
     >    ourselves from RMS — he controlled our pay, benefits, and
     workplace
     >    conditions.
     It is very interesting, that my proposal on how to improve the FSF
     was
     rejected by moderator, but this type of yet another bullying passes
     through.
     How about moderator to tell us on the list, why is this allowed, and
     my writing not allowed?
     Why you not tell to this person "to take it up with FSF" like how
     you
     told to me "to take it up with FSF"?
     Moderator should not be there just to delete and block some of
     emails
     and pass the others, that is unfair, as you are moderating it
     politically, thus passing other emails related to FSF.
       ___               _     _        __        _______ _____ _
      / _ \ _ __   ___  | |__ (_) __ _  \ \      / /_   _|  ___| |
     | | | | '_ \ / _ \ | '_ \| |/ _` |  \ \ /\ / /  | | | |_  | |
     | |_| | | | |  __/ | |_) | | (_| |   \ V  V /   | | |  _| |_|
      \___/|_| |_|\___| |_.__/|_|\__, |    \_/\_/    |_| |_|   (_)
                                 |___/
     Jean

References

   1. mailto:stationaery@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss