[Fice]

> do you think that GNU will just fold when he’s no longer with us?

Either fold, have new leadership, or become a formal declaration of endorsing some values (not really a project). Maybe it will eventually center around one subproject and become mostly associated with it (Guix as THE GNU OS).

The problem is that the Guix maintainers want to remove Stallman from his own project while he is alive and active, and they pursue their intention with methods that are unethical, disrespectful and destructive to the community.

> Even RMS never suggested they leave the GNU Project (to my knowledge) <...> what makes you think it’s a good idea?

I don't really want Guix to leave GNU, I'm questioning the motivation of the maintainers.

[kdtsh]

RMS does not own the GNU Project. Period. Many have said that this action is about removing him from his own project - it is not, it is a statement that he should not lead a collective project which he founded. He is a founder and a leader, not a king. He’s not even a BDFL. It is not disrespectful or unethical to espouse this view. I don’t think it’s necessarily disrespectful or unethical to oppose this view either, but it is disrespectful to the child victims of sex crimes to accuse the signatories of the statement of acting unethically or underhandedly.

It’s good that you don’t want them to leave GNU, but then asking ‘Why wouldn't Guix just leave the RMS's GNU Project then?’ seems strange - why would they indeed? I think it’s not unreasonable to take them at face value: they made a statement about their belief that the personal conduct of RMS made him unfit to lead the GNU Project.

For what it’s worth, RMS is someone who I think can change his mind when he believes he is honestly wrong, which is not something you always get with people in his position. This however doesn’t mean his statements should go uncriticised. Linus Torvalds is a gold standard here, where his professional conduct was called into question and he took a serious look at himself, made some changes to his behaviour, and came back stronger than ever. RMS could take a leaf out of his book.

[craigsmansion]

> It is not disrespectful or unethical to espouse this view.

And rms would agree. In fact, you don't need to like rms or believe in Free Software to become a GNU maintainer. This wasn't about that.

> but it is disrespectful to the child victims

Yeah, no. When Nadine Strossen, former president of the ACLU, takes the time to weigh in on a personal title on the matter, that means Stallman has been vindicated. One can no longer pin their lack of reading comprehension on him. If someone only gets "the facts" from twitter, that is their own problem, not GNU's, not Stallman's.

> accuse the signatories of the statement of acting unethically or underhandedly.

They spammed all GNU maintainers addresses.

Not all the advocacy for their cause was transparent and above board. It's all there in the mailing list for anyone to see and make up their own minds.

[kdtsh]

>This wasn't about that.

What exactly is it about then? All I have really heard as a not-unreasonable repudiation of their actions is that they have somehow misused their position as GNU maintainers, which is neither here nor there - whether you agree with it or not (I disagree, I believe they have the freedom to espouse views like this regardless of their position, and that they didn't misuse their platform in any way), it's a complete non-sequitur to the matter at hand.

>When Nadine Strossen, former president of the ACLU, takes the time to weigh in on a personal title on the matter, that means Stallman has been vindicated.

I'm not familiar with her or her statement. Her former position is irrelevant, what we should all be concerned with is the facts. For that reason I can't comment on her position on this.

>They spammed all GNU maintainers addresses. Not all the advocacy for their cause was transparent and above board. It's all there in the mailing list for anyone to see and make up their own minds.

I don't know what your definition of `spam' is, but a singular message containing a statement of interest to recipients doesn't really constitute spam to me. You would think that GNU maintainers would want to be notified of this - imagine if the Guix maintainers and others had made this statement and _hadn't_ sent such a notification, there would be talk about how they are secretly undermining the unquestionable leadership of RMS or some other nonsense. Let's also not forget the fact that Jean Louis really did spam the Guix mailing lists for weeks after their announcement, to the point that the mailing lists were almost unusable, and the Guix mailing list moderators only banned him after a large number of complaints.

The fact that you are saying that not all their advocacy for their cause was transparent and above board, while also saying that it's all in the mailing lists for all to see, is confusing to me. Sounds very transparent to me.

[nsajko]

> When Nadine Strossen, former president of the ACLU, takes the time to weigh in [...]

The only source I could find for that comes from some sketchy book promotion site. Are you sure that Strossen wrote about Stallman? Do you know of a better source?

[Fice]

That book has both Strossen and Stallman in the list of authors: https://www.wetheweb.org/post/about-the-book

The article in question: https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web