Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dragonwriter 1910 days ago
> In situations where two camps ostensibly agree on mission but disagree on execution, why don't we just have two organizations?

That's usually the eventual result if the disagreement can't be resolved, but usually seen as suboptimal by both sides, since both would prefer one organization pursuing the shared goal by the optimum approach.
1 comments
bm3719 1910 days ago
It's been several years of (arguably destructive) culture war; one that shows no signs of abating. Also, being organizationally separate doesn't preclude collaboration on overlapping mission goals.

Side benefit: Those who want to support Free Software can contribute where they feel welcome and where they think their contribution will do the most good. E.g., One might be reluctant to contribute to any organization with a lot of ancillary ideological baggage that distracts from the core mission of Free Software. So, if those ideologues dominate everywhere, now you're left without a home if you only care about user freedom.

link
dragonwriter 1910 days ago
> It's been several years of (arguably destructive) culture war; one that shows no signs of abating

But...the opposing sides already have separate orgs here: the signatories of the Stallman letter include leadership of the OSI, Mozilla-as-an-institution, and both leaders of other FLOSS institutions and other FLOSS and FLOSS-adjacent institutions-as-institutions.

And people that are unhappy that are attached to the FSF are leaving over this.

So...what are you advocating for? That these separate entities and separating individuals shouldn't engage in public discussion that highlights their differences so that people can clearly see what each party represents?

link