Recent searches
Search options
As someone who’s contributed to GNU, promoted it, and also spoke up in the past, I feel like I should publicize this report by @report_press:
https://stallman-report.org
Many of these things were described in 2019 (some of which I was unaware of at the time) but this report is thoroughly documented and has it all in one place.
It’s also a reminder that leadership must be held accountable, for the common good.
To me though, that ship has sailed: I have long stopped regarding RMS and the FSF as leaders, and so did many in the free software movement it seems.
I wrote about my perspective on GNU last year:
https://toot.aquilenet.fr/@civodul/111137935678652241
The recommendations of @report_press for the GNU Project seem uninformed to me.
1. GNU has always been an informal group: historical contributors stopped caring; newer contributors probably never did; it’s pretty much an empty shell.
2. The “big” GNU projects don’t recognize the authority of RMS in their governance.
3. Stallman’s “Kind Communication Guidelines” were denounced early on; Guix, GCC, glibc, etc. adopted a code of conduct, some way before that.
In 2019–2021, some of us attempted to create a “new GNU” (not mentioned in the report) to take the user empowerment torch *and* get rid of the founder’s syndrome and everything that the report highlights:
https://gnu.tools/
Support wasn’t there at the time, which is one of the factors that brought the effort to a halt.
Good news is other projects, orgs, and people are leading the movement these days: Framasoft, sr.ht and Forgejo/Codeberg, the folks behind the Fediverse, Tor, Spritely, FSFE, LQDN, and many more.
Most in this list consider autonomy beyond mere “software user freedom”, and I think that’s what we need.
That and making sure our passion/hobby/work doesn’t contribute to making the planet unlivable.
@civodul Why did people denounce the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines?
@mpjgregoire @civodul because they represent an effective statement of privilege, prioritise the calcification of that privilege over the needs of contributors, and, unlike a code of conduct, fail to set any consequences for those who violated them.
I mean, that's a basic overview, there's lots more can be said about the guidelines, the accompanying commentary and the context for their introduction. But I'm guessing you already knew that.
@dgold
I was busy in 2018, and didn't follow the discussions very closely at that time. As I recall, there was a desire by many that the GNU project adopt a code of conduct, and those people were disappointed when the Kind Communications Guidelines were released instead. But my recollection is that people felt the guidelines were insufficient, not that they were bad in themselves.
If you know of a post with detailed criticisms, could you please send a link?
@mpjgregoire @dgold Stallman published his “Kind Communication Guidelines” post-2019 and many, myself included, already explicitly rejected his authority and mostly ignored it, so I don’t think there were public reactions.
These guidelines looked obviously bad: they were a move on his part to avoid having a proper code of conduct (which he despises), wording is terrible, and above all, they lack enforcement provisions, making them useless.