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

[Mikalai Birukou]

>> Related thought: where would you look for a wise board member, after seeing
>> this.
> 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.
>
> But I can read what he has said publically, or what has been leaked to
> the press, and make up my own mind.
>
> The issue that got RMS to resign the first time, as I understand it,
> was the email thread on the CSAIL MIT mailing list.  The only copy
> of that thread I can find is found here:
> ...

I am unhappy at the fact that MIT essentially diverted attention away 
from them in Epstein case by having cancel-culture act. My question to 
MIT, why all-knowing administrators haven't instructed nerds like Minski 
about Epstein.

Tech genius brings something to org. Social types bring something else.

The difficult part for MIT was to say no to money, coming from Epstein.

The difficult part for FSF was to carve for RMS a role that uses his 
drive, while completely removing a chance for his "quirks".

Following twitter comment is about diverted attention: 
https://twitter.com/georgialyle/status/1374512705768353802


There is no correct reaction in this case.

If you focus only on RMS defence of Minski, and focus on minutae of 
comments, then what follows is an example of cancel culture, and a 
revolting feeling of why institutions are pushing this.

If you had an experience of those staffers, which is not as public as 
aforementioned articles, then you wanted some resolution years ago.

Institutions used 2019 comments as an excuse to do something. 
Unfortunately, when difficult conversations are postponed, emotions pile 
up, and problems turn into crises leaving less and less options open for 
action. And so it was here, the only option left to orgs was to burn 
bridges.


There is no correct reaction in this case.

If you are honest, your reaction will 100% correlate with context that 
is available to you. In other words, anyone's reaction on this issue 
can't be used as value judgement indication, because the contexts may be 
different.

Opportunists will try to benefit from this situation, following "divide 
and rule" mantra.


Observation. There was this video-comment from a person who isn't from 
the day-to-day inside. On another hand, there are staffers who 
essentially put their work and livelihood under fire in this time of an 
incredible economic turmoil. Which one of these has more skin in the 
game? Which one should I listen to closer?

Let's say you are an ex-leader, planning return. Would you time it so 
that possible friction is less stressful to the org? Would you care?


- Mikalai