My apologies! Please accept these two edits: I don’t know *why you say it’s simply a lie. Here’s another testimony from *another former FSF staff member: On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 10:55 AM Danny Spitzberg wrote: > I don’t know you say it’s simply a lie. Here’s another testimony from > former a SFS staff member: > > “I worked at the FSF for 3 years and volunteered for over 6 years — that > ended in 2004. I witnessed misogyny, sexual objectification, and abuse > carried out by RMS. I banded together with my coworkers, formed a union, > negotiated a contract, and was elected shop steward. > > While RMS started the free software movement and the GNU GPL was a > groundbreaking document, the community still has a right to hold him to > account for his abhorrent actions and harmful speech. RMS should not be > part of the FSF. > > The movement has grown larger than one person. We need leaders that are > inclusive and treat all humans with the respect and dignity that they > deserve. I cannot support a Free Software Foundation that enables RMS. > > During my time at the FSF, I helped create the associate membership > program, significantly broadening the financial support base for the > non-profit and encouraging a robust dialogue between supporters and the > FSF. Donors have power over the FSF. Use it.” > > He then adds as a PS that the previous testimony is an accurate account of > why staff unionized: to protect against RMS’s behavior. > > From > https://twitter.com/paulnivin/status/1374499598853545986 > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 10:51 AM Thomas Lord wrote: > >> "It is union to try to protect people from RMS. / That's it. That's the >> reason." >> >> >> As a matter of history that is simply and purely a lie. >> >> I don't see any of that kind of complaint, at this point, as anything >> less or more than direct attempts to sabotage the FSF, the FSM, and >> GNU. It has no place here. You are free not to associate with the FSF >> and you should, it would seem, take that option. >> >> -t >> >> >> >> >> On 2021-03-26 10:46, Danny Spitzberg wrote: >> >> A union certainly helped everyone set and keep healthy boundaries. I have >> no doubt RMS was supportive. Like Paul suggested, a set of community >> agreements or a code of conduct or a contributor covenant or whatever is >> generally a good thing. >> >> But as for the reason why staff organized the union — you may call it >> silly, but here is the testimony in their own words: >> >> " I think that many people do not know that the FSF is a union shop, or >> why. >> >> It is union to try to protect people from RMS. >> >> That's it. That's the reason. >> >> Knowing some of the story about how this came to be, it really informed >> my own thinking about what a union can do, and can't do. >> >> Unionizing provided protections and standard benefits (like berievement >> leave) for workers at FSF. It could not remove RMS from a position of power. >> >> I think the issue for workers at the time was that RMS held unchecked >> authority. It did not matter that there was a board of FSF: you could not >> tell RMS what to do. >> >> Using the power that the law provides to force negotiations on a written >> contract was the only option. >> >> That is just... Not normal. Right?" >> >> From >> https://twitter.com/_msw_/status/1374538607982088197 >> >> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 10:40 AM Thomas Lord wrote: >> >>> That's silly. The FSF was unionized with the encouragement and support >>> of the FSF executives and board, including RMS, because unions are good, at >>> least while the injustice of wage labor still exists. >>> >>> > he also caused harm to people and to the FSF organization and the >>> free software movement. >>> >>> >>> I regard that as a straight up lie because none of the derogatory things >>> said about him have supported that conclusion. >>> >>> Once again, you are free not to associate with the FSF or the movement, >>> but pretending to be an ally while repeating slanders should not be >>> tolerated here or anywhere. >>> >>> -t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2021-03-26 10:32, Danny Spitzberg wrote: >>> >>> Consider the fact that several FSF staff are going public for having >>> organized and joined a union in order to protect themselves against the >>> whims and wills of RMS, like if he suddenly decided to take away health >>> insurance for everyone or other workplace dysfunction. >>> >>> Forming a union and finally talking about it isn't "whistleblowing" >>> because obviously the staff and board chose to contain the problem rather >>> than solve or eliminate it. >>> >>> However, I think we can agree that it's compelling nonetheless and adds >>> to the view that while RMS contributed good things, he also caused harm to >>> people and to the FSF organization and the free software movement. >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 10:25 AM Thomas Lord >>> wrote: >>> >>>> It's wrong to describe people as "whistle blowers" when they >>>> have not produced a complaint that stands up to scrutiny. >>>> >>>> -t >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2021-03-26 08:54, Aaron Wolf wrote: >>>> > I really appreciate seeing the perspective from Georgia. Thanks also >>>> > deeply to Deb Nicholson for engaging here in this space. Obviously, >>>> > these negative reports about RMS being presented *here* amounts to the >>>> > opposite of an echo-chamber. These voices are bring extremely valuable >>>> > perspective — the sort we *lose* if we aren't careful to assure that >>>> > our >>>> > spaces are not only open to anyone but actually in *practice* have >>>> them >>>> > feel welcome and stay. >>>> > >>>> > The Free Software movement is weaker for every loss of perspective. We >>>> > have a duty to be not only gracious but appreciative of people like >>>> Deb >>>> > for engaging and staying with us despite the tensions. >>>> > >>>> > Georgia's line is exceptionally important: "...the fact that he faced >>>> > consequences for his creepy Epdtein-adjacent comments and not the >>>> > decades of shitty behavior..." >>> >>> >>>> > >>>> > These are not people who are dogpiling on hearsay or gotcha online >>>> > statements or whatever else. Those anti-patterns do indeed happen, and >>>> > they polluted and harmed the credibility of the recent open letter >>>> > against RMS. But here we have people who fully understand the >>>> > unfairness >>>> > and yet can express from extensive personal experience the *actual* >>>> > reasons why RMS's leadership is problematic. >>>> > >>>> > As someone who deeply and profoundly respects RMS for various >>>> reasons, >>>> > I >>>> > still don't just simply support his leadership role. I do not want him >>>> > banished, I want him to learn and do better on his pain points. I >>>> don't >>>> > want to be naive though, efforts in this direction have obviously been >>>> > done for years and not been enough. >>>> > >>>> > I would like to continue to get RMS' insightful and pointed >>>> > perspectives >>>> > without having him lead the organization. I would like him to live in >>>> > the zone where his genius most thrives and he contributes the most, >>>> and >>>> > I suggest that the other roles he has had would be better filled by >>>> > others. >>>> > >>>> > If we want a resilient movement, we need to be really open to engaging >>>> > with complaints. An organization that defends the status quo against >>>> > such critics is like the NSA attacking Ed Snowden and people >>>> > insinuating >>>> > that Snowden is working for Russia (similar to people talking about >>>> how >>>> > Deb now works for the OSI and the OSI is connected to corporations). >>>> > >>>> > I'm not suggesting deference to the outside unfair critics, the people >>>> > who do indeed levy unfair attacks, mine quotes, spread FUD, etc. That >>>> > stuff can be real, and we need to defend against it. >>>> > >>>> > But people like Deb are our whistleblowers, they are insiders who are >>>> > bringing attention to serious issues. If we ignore or attack >>>> > whistleblowers, we will fail to learn important lessons. This attitude >>>> > can be fatal to a movement. >>>> > >>>> > In solidarity, >>>> > Aaron Wolf >>>> > (FSF member since 2014, co-founder of Snowdrift.coop) >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > libreplanet-discuss mailing list >>>> > libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org >>>> > https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> libreplanet-discuss mailing list >>>> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org >>>> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss >>> >>>