[kwlug-disc] Richard Stallman announcing his return to the FSF's Board of Directors

[Andrew Sullivan Cant]

> I can't defend what RMS may or may not have done.  I never worked for
> him, I haven't heard all the stories, I wasn't there, I'm not a judge,
> etc, etc.

Do you really need ALL the stories to make a judgement here, Chris?

You have been in the free software community at least as long as I have,
and I suspect participated more than I ever have. It seems pretty likely
to me that you are aware of RMS's reputation for making people so
uncomfortable that they leave this community.

Or that multiple people who are his friends and allies have told stories
about trying to help him moderate his public behaviour to be less
damaging and a better leader. And he has chosen not do change.
Again over many years and many people.

> I already know RMS is a "unique individual".  That's not news to me.

Towards the end of your message you even mention that you are aware of
this history.

So to be clear, the Minksy/Epstein comments are not an isolated event
they are RMS's latest mistake, and I think you know that.


> But I can read what he has said publically, or what has been leaked to
> the press, and make up my own mind.
> ...
> In that thread, RMS points out the dangers of "accusation inflation",
> points out there were multiple plausible scenarios based on the
> info they had at the time, and cautions against making accusations
> against a dead man (Marvin Minsky) who couldn't defend himself.
> ...
> So from that, RMS was correct.

Chris, you are making the same style of argument that RMS was making in
the CSAIL mailing list. You are looking at each detail individually and
ignoring the overall picture.

Consider a less extreme case:
A friend is telling you something serious and hoping to hear sympathy
and support from you.
You responding by correcting their grammar and explaining how they used
the wrong words about something in their story.

You might be technically correct about everything you said. And they are
not going to care because it was not the most important part of the
conversation to them.

And you will not make things better by saying that you did not do
anything wrong because you were technically correct.


The mailing thread was a conversation about how MIT and its leaders,
including people like Minksy, either ignored or condoned Epstein' crimes
to get his money and support. No one is going to want to get "well
actually"ed about their exact wording about what one of those leaders
did in relation to Epstein. Especially by another high-profile leader in
the MIT community.

Might RMS have felt bad reading comments about his dead friend that he
felt were unfair, and not 100% accurate? Sure, totally reasonable human
reaction.

AND this was not a reasonable context for a him to voice those concerns.


> His "crime" was that he used wording that offended people, and now the
> same "accusation inflation" tactics are being used against him that
> he warned people not to use against Minsky.

RMS was not accused of a crime. In one paragraph you are both decrying
and using "accusation inflation".


> I'm hoping the board members are wise enough to look past the emotion
> and make sure they are looking at facts.

There are emotions on all side this issue and we all have them. Claiming
that the position that you agree with is just the facts and everyone
else is clouded by emotion, is pretty disingenuous.



Andrew