[Clewza313]

So expressing sincerely held beliefs in a personal forum like his own website is in and of itself "toxic"? Many of RMS's beliefs are indeed well outside the mainstream, but as far as I'm aware nobody has ever accused him actually doing anything abusive to anybody.

[Arainach]

https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix...

>I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.”

>Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him.

There's also his office door at one point: https://miro.medium.com/max/1050/1*lDSkAjF1958TpEafxuJsLg.jp... (source: https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...)

Even before his indefensible statements about Epstein, RMS was toxic and there's no denying it.

[boomboomsubban]

>I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.”

The idea that Stallman would only violate women who use emacs is cartoonish levels of absurd. Personally, I'd expect he'd be thrilled they're at least using free software.

Besides that, the door thing seems to have been graffiti. And though I agree the dating anecdote makes him look bad, but also sounds like the actions of a person suffering from some mental illness.

[seebs]

There is a big difference between what's reasonable and acceptable in random people and what's reasonable and acceptable in people who are established or establishing themselves as Community Leaders. We expect leaders to model good behavior and take additional steps to avoid modeling harmful behaviors, because other people will emulate them.

He's been accused of things that are at the very least Somewhat Creepy. "Abusive" is a pretty high standard to reach, but I also think it's irrelevant. The way he treated people, coming from a person with power or authority, was likely to make people feel unsafe, and he was unwilling to recognize that the desire to have that position of social authority implied an obligation to mitigate such behaviors.

I think the community would be richer and better (and probably noticably more diverse in a number of ways) if either he'd changed his behavior and recognized the importance of these effects, or he'd been considered a non-leader of the community and merely an active contributor with strong opinions.

It's easy for people not familiar with these dynamics to massively underweight how much implied social pressure comes with being hit on by a person in a position of power within an organization. My usual assumption for someone with as much implied social authority as he had at MIT would be that it would basically be generally inappropriate for them to be hitting on anyone who wanted to be in or work in the lab or department they were affiliated with, because even if this specific person genuinely wouldn't abuse their power, many other people in comparable situations would and it's not really reasonable to expect people not to react to the possibility when it's such a widespread problem. (And yeah, that can sorta suck if you're lonely but in a position that makes it hard for you to hit on people without making them uncomfortable or afraid. One alternative is not to pursue or remain in such a position if it's a problem for you.)

[rtpg]

How is there any controversy to judging people for what they believe? This seems so normal! At every level of society we judge people for what they think, for their sort of moral philosophy. That's morality on some level (or some sort of meta-morality).

Though I think the added point here is that people who believe something _and_ have some power over other people can effectively apply these beliefs. If I say "I don't think that hiring women is a good idea cuz they might go on maternity leave" and I'm also the managing director of some non-profit, well... I feel like suspicion about my capabilities in that role are judstified!

[klodolph]

> So expressing sincerely held beliefs in a personal forum like his own website is in and of itself "toxic"?

That's a loaded question... it looks like you're making some wild assumptions about whether I think Stallman is toxic, and the reasoning for that.

> Many of RMS's beliefs are indeed well outside the mainstream, but as far as I'm aware nobody has ever accused him actually doing anything abusive to anybody.

So, I'll share a couple articles.

https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...

> RMS’s loss of MIT privileges and leadership of the FSF are the appropriate responses to a pattern of decades of poor behavior.

Speaking of the FSF / GNU project leadership itself... I think it's clear that the GNU project needs a code of conduct, and if the leader is opposed to the idea as much as Stallman is, then it's correct to replace him. He has a vision for software freedom, but he's to averse to good community management (which is what the GNU project needs).

[Rule35]

>> RMS’s loss of MIT privileges and leadership of the FSF are the appropriate responses

> I think it's clear that the GNU project needs a code of conduct

Why? It seems from your quote that people can be removed without a code and, as the FAANGs show us, a written criteria just gets gamed. A code of conduct is redundant and problematic. It victimizes the trustworthy.

> if the leader is opposed to the idea as much as Stallman is, then it's correct to replace him

The ultimate crime - even above anything in a code of conduct - is not wanting a code of conduct? Is anything else an absolute?

[klodolph]

> Why? It seems from your quote that people can be removed without a code [...]

Just because someone can be removed from a position of power without a code of conduct does not mean that the process was correct. You can also throw people in jail without a trial, but you shouldn't.

The code of conduct provides a process for people to address grievances. I believe this makes it more likely that grievances get addressed, and reduces the amount of personal bias.

> ...as the FAANGs show us, a written criteria just gets gamed.

I don't think it's easy to game a code of conduct. Could you explain, or give an example?

> The ultimate crime - even above anything in a code of conduct - is not wanting a code of conduct? Is anything else an absolute?

You're confusing "crime" with "not doing a good job". I said that he should be replaced because he wasn't doing a satisfactory job.

His job was to run the FSF and the GNU project. He was doing that job poorly. Therefore, he should step down and let someone else run it.

Honestly, I think that some of these problems could have been avoided if he made a stronger distinction between the GNU project and the FSF. He could have handed management of the GNU project off to someone else and focused more on the FSF, which is where his strengths lie.

Not wanting a code of conduct is not a "thoughtcrime". It's just bad policy for large projects. "Bad" as in "incompetent", not as in "morally wrong".

[Rule35]

> The code of conduct provides a process for people to address grievances.

No, that's the general procedure for handling adding and removing board members. It's the same procedure you'd follow if someone was arrested in the middle of the meeting.

A code of conduct is about the specific conduct. Picking your teeth, insulting tall people, etc.

> I don't think it's easy to game a code of conduct. Could you explain

If there is a written code it has to declare where the lack of gender recognition offense is compared to screaming at someone, for instance. If the code lists your pet offense above screaming, which they all do, then you can scream at people about your pet issue all day with zero risk.

If none of this is mentioned then it all falls back to the law. This is better because more skilled people have done more work on it, and because it's outside of the group's mandate so they can let members deal with it outside of the group. I can't follow you through a 7-11 yelling at you so you can apply the same rules to our official interactions and call the police if I act unruly in a meeting, no vote required.

Also, how does voting work when not only the level of offense, but the standard of offense itself is subjective. Does an accused director get to vote on whether the claimed offense falls into a listed class, but then have to recuse themselves for the vote on the seriousness of the specific claim? Or are they expected to recuse themselves from everything? How many directors do you need to accuse at once before quorum is you alone?

Generally nobody sees why you can't tell people about the specific anti-fraud rules until they work in a fraud-rife industry and watch the arms race. If you haven't been involved with multiple non-profits you might not have experienced this yet.

> I said that he should be replaced because he wasn't doing a satisfactory job.

But the thing he wasn't satisfying you by doing was enacting a code of conduct?

> I think that some of these problems could have been avoided if he made a stronger distinction between the GNU project and the FSF

Good point. I think everyone running things should try not to co-mingle their jobs. But this isn't a code of conduct issue, it's more appropriate as one of the basic requirements for a director. No conflicts of interest.

> Not wanting a code of conduct is [...] just bad policy for large projects

No, a code of conduct is a kiss of death. It adds nothing that honest members of the group need but gives trolls and ideologues a field day.

A group should never have rules about things outside of its core tasks, unless it wants 90% of its time to be spent arguing about things outside of its core tasks.

[Clewza313]

I'm asking you a genuine question. I note you didn't call RMS out by name, but you certainly seem to be imply it.

Re: the article you shared, I didn't really see much evidence either way there? It's clear that RMS is, to put it mildly, "difficult to like", but there's a big difference between that and being straight up abusive, particularly given that it seems quite obvious that the mens rea is missing: as far as I can tell, most of the time RMS genuinely has no idea when he is being offensive.

[klodolph]

> I'm asking you a genuine question. I note you didn't call RMS out by name, but you certainly seem to be imply it.

I don't think the question is interesting or relevant, so I'm not answering it. I explained that I considered the question to be a loaded question. If you want me to answer a question, you will have to ask a different one.

> ...as far as I can tell, most of the time RMS genuinely has no idea when he is being offensive.

Someone who genuinely has no idea when he is being offensive should not be at the head of an organization like the FSF. "Mens rea" is a term from criminal law. It's used for figuring out the difference between murder and manslaughter, for example. It's not relevant to figuring out whether you are good or bad at your job.