transparency and succession

Lori Nagel jastiv at
Tue Oct 1 15:11:23 BST 2019

 The FSF has a private associate members forum that is only for associate members who pay their dues ($120 a year last I checked).So yeah, for just $120 a year, no only do you get free libre planet admission, but you get access to a private forum as well. 
There are people there who feel that RMS should have stepped down a long time ago.  There are also people who support RMS and strongly disagree with thesmear campaign against him.  I think the reason that the FSF hasn't made an official statement on it, is that they lose either way.  Either all the RMS supporters leave because 
the FSF said they disown him, or the people who think he should have stepped down leave because of all this negative publicity (people who feel RMS makes the free software movement look bad).Richard Stallman encourages people to join the FSF at this time to ensure they stick to their original mission, promoting the four software freedoms.  

    On Monday, September 30, 2019, 4:42:31 PM EDT, Daniel Pocock <daniel at> wrote:  

On 30/09/2019 22:20, Brendan Kidwell wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019, at 16:08, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> On 30/09/2019 21:53, Brendan Kidwell wrote:
>>> To be clear: I have no personal conflict with you right now over politics and I have no ongoing protocol issues relating to MY email addresses, but please understand that breaking protocol in email or anywhere else is not a good way to win friends.
>> Last Monday, John Sullivan, the FSF Executive Director posted a nasty
>> put-down on the libreplanet-discuss list, maliciously misquoting[1] what
>> I wrote and minimizing my concerns.  Has anybody seen other examples of
>> misquoting recently?
>> When I attempted to reply, he censored me from posting any further
>> replies on the libreplanet-discuss list.  How many other people are
>> censored there too?
>> Ultimately, libreplanet-discuss is a channel that is the property of FSF. Some staff member or committee at FSF sets the rules and makes final judgment on what is or isn't allowed on this email list.

>FSF explicitly uses the phrase "free as in speech" to explain[1] their
philosophy.  People who donate time or money to FSF may be curious to
find that "free as in speech" is not so free.  Censorship effectively
deceives people by creating a distorted perception of what other
community members have to say.

>Different people also have different perspectives on the term
"property".  After all, if we all contribute, either directly or
indirectly then many people would feel no guilt about using those
channels or communicating with people they met through those channels.

When you write "property", you conjure up images of tangible property.
If somebody steals Mr Sullivan's mouse, it will be harder for him to use
his computer.  But if volunteers work around censorship, they are not
preventing other people from doing something.

> I don't respond well to misleading email headers unless I'm in a curious mood or some other good mood.
> How many people detected email header shenanigans and privately blacklisted every domain you use?

We know that hundreds of people simply quit FSFE after being shunted
into the Supporter program without consent.  Some people will be
quitting FSF after the RMS lynching too.

The people who blacklist a domain are mostly people who ignored that
exodus and pretend everything is OK in a bubble that is getting smaller
and smaller.

> Maybe you should use other channels that are less centrally controlled, to call out censorship. It's a lot of work, but it's the clean way to do it.

There are cleaner solutions in the pipeline.

In the meantime, if something is critical, I personally welcome a BCC
from anybody who has no other way to share it.



Discussion mailing list
Discussion at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Discussion mailing list