[bloaf]

So many of these nonprofit software orgs seem to be run like small town churches. Board members are selected through some combination of ideological purity, zeal, and nepotism rather than any sensible measure of competence or efficacy.

Andy's complaint seems to me to be that they are selecting for the wrong kind of ideological purity (i.e. yesteryear's free software ethos instead of today's gender issues), and I think this criticism misses the forest for a tree.

[dragonwriter]

> So many of these nonprofit software orgs seem to be run like small town churches. Board members are selected through some combination of ideological purity, zeal, and nepotism rather than any sensible measure of competence or efficacy.

This is somewhat less surprising when you realize that that's pretty much the way virtually every human organization, and especially political/advocacy/ideologically-centered ones (not just “small town churches” but also global churches, national political parties, small-and-large issue- and service-oriented no profits, etc., and even very many businesses, governments of all scales, etc.)

On the specific issue of ideological purity, there are also very good efficacy-related reasons why both purity with regard to the ideology of an organization with an ideological purpose and overt consistency outside of that with the ideology of the target population is an important selection factor for people in prominent public roles with organizations focussed around ideological advocacy.

[lastgeniusua]

I am curious as to where did you find Andy mentioning anything about a new kind of ideological purity? Or is this the typical 'SJW' scarecrow to prevent any kind of meaningful change whatsoever?

What if, I don't know, we update that free software ethos and acknowledge its dark history of discrimination and abuse?

[encryptluks2]

What abuse do you allege Stallman participated in specifically?

[bloaf]

> Of course I would rather that the FSF wouldn't allow itself to be seen as an essentially misogynist organization. So clean house, FSF!

[hospadar]

Yeah OP certainly is pushing an ideological agenda, but although "don't be misogynist" is certainly an ideology, it does seem pretty related to the FSF being an effective force in the modern world. If women don't participate or contribute, the FSF _won't_ be effective (or at least, much less effective than it could be).

From the FSF website: "The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom. We defend the rights of all software users."

I don't see "make sure RMS feels important and in charge" anywhere in the mission, but I do see "the rights of all software users" in there. Maybe the FSF hasn't noticed women using computers yet?

[bloaf]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. When I see a slogan like "don't be seen as misogynist" my brain fills in "don't be seen [by whom?] as misogynist."

Is Stallman actually impeding the FSF's mission, or just pissing off a vocal silicon valley minority who are already on board with the mission?

[lastgeniusua]

Is not continuing to employ abusers what you are questioning here and trying to portray as the new gender issue ideology?

Free software and misogyny aren't the same in the way you might think they are, the former can exist without the latter.

[bloaf]

You asked "where did you find Andy mentioning anything about a new kind of ideological purity?"

I answered with a line where he specifically demands the FSF get rid of people "perceived" as misogynist. I.e. apply a modern gender issue ideological purity test.

Now you have claimed this is a defense of abusers. That is an equivocation, an intellectually dishonest rhetorical tactic. The discussion up to this point was about perceptions of misogyny, which is not the same thing as abuse.

[bitwize]

We're dealing with a man who thinks it's fascist to concern yourself with freedom of speech: https://www.wingolog.org/archives/2017/09/04/the-hardest-thi...

And who has advocated hiring only people who give "correct" answers to an ideological purity test: http://www.wingolog.org/archives/2017/09/05/a-new-interview-...

Hint: The correct answer is structural misogyny. Any accounting for the fact that less than 50% of programmers are women, that does not attribute 100% of the imbalance to structural misogyny, would presumably disqualify you from the role. So there's your Unicru answer key, in case you run into this sort of question in the wild.

Basically, Andy Wingo has certain political positions, and if yours differ, you are racist, misogynist, or otherwise "fash" and toxic to the organization, therefore should not be hired or recognized as a contributor.

I happen to disagree strongly with Wingo on a number of counts -- which is why I'm glad he's around to hack on Guile! But I don't think his advice on who should be included or excluded should be taken by the FSF or other free software organizations.