1. 14
  1.  

  2. 7

    Maybe I’m too cynical, but something about this doesn’t add up.

    First of all, the accusations are so vague there’s no way anybody can refute them. I don’t know if this person even exists, and there’s no way to find out. The FSF can’t say anything because it would be a privacy violation for them to publicly discuss the person’s employment. Bringing it up this way makes it look like the FSF is being railroaded.

    Second, it would be completely contrary to the FSF’s philosophy to discriminate in that way. That doesn’t mean it’s not true, but there’s 30 years of reputation against a vague accusation from somebody who (apparently) has an axe to grind against the FSF.

    Third, it’s incredibly unfair to paint everybody on all of the GNU and FSF teams with the same brush. Even if one or two individuals are homophobic or whatever, there are hundreds of other people on those projects who aren’t and have nothing at all to do with it.

    Finally, if it’s true, it should be in court, not on a mailing list. Airing it on the internet will make it worse for everybody involved. The trans person in question (assuming they really exist) is as good as outed once this gets all over the internet.

    1. 1

      Third, it’s incredibly unfair to paint everybody on all of the GNU and FSF teams with the same brush. Even if one or two individuals are homophobic or whatever, there are hundreds of other people on those projects who aren’t and have nothing at all to do with it.

      I want to address this, because this is common objection. Strictly speaking, only FSF is being accused, and GNU is being criticized by association. We know the exact number of FSF staffs: it’s 11, not hundreds. If one FSF staff is homophobic, that translates to ~10% of FSF. At that point, it is reasonable to suspect even if only one staff is homophobic, more staffs are accepting of homophobic viewpoint.

      So “hundreds of other people” in this context can only mean GNU. While FSF’s stated philosophy is anti-discrimination, I never got the impression this applies to wide GNU projects. It is well known many GNU projects members are decidedly not politically correct and proudly so. This is not surprising, since about the only thing they have in common is that they support software freedom.

      1. 6

        We know the exact number of FSF staffs: it’s 11, not hundreds. If one FSF staff is homophobic, that translates to ~10% of FSF. At that point, it is reasonable to suspect even if only one staff is homophobic, more staffs are accepting of homophobic viewpoint.

        That is quite a leap. Homophobia is not a contagious disease.

        1. 2

          Not at all a leap. If you go to work daily with an openly homophobic person, you are implicitly accepting their behaviour as acceptable.

          1. 5

            Sounds like guilt by association to me…

            1. 3

              I thought it was called “tolerance”.

      2. 7

        Hi, sanxiyn told me about this thread, so I stopped by. Here is my take on the issue, in tweets: https://twitter.com/markhkim/status/777477509579407360

        1. 6

          I read this on https://libreboot.org/gnu/ and had a hmmm moment:

          “We regret ever having been a part of the organisation, and Leah Rowe will no longer be donating to it; she requests that her FSF membership be revoked. She would also like the $6120 USD that she donated to the FSF since 2015 to be refunded to her by the FSF. She will then use this money to promote free software, and for better purposes. The FSF never deserved even a penny from her.”

          Really? Donated money returned? I get that Leah is upset but that’s a pretty petty thing to do. It really worries me when entire projects become someone’s sledgehammer of pointing out injustice. Does everyone attached to libreboot feel this way or just Leah?

          1. 3

            Whelp, this answers that: http://zammit.org/libreboot-screwup.html

          2. 5

            Update. Leah Rowe made the statement, saying “the person who was fired … has given permission for this opposition to be made against the FSF”. Aeva tweeted a tweet directly contradicting this, “the statements made nominally in support of her were done so without her consent”.

            Opinion. 1. We don’t have enough information, 2. but “Leah Rowe is overreacting” seems likely at the moment, although we don’t know how much. If (big if) the person who was fired stated “not true” to FSF, FSF’s quick statement looks more reasonable. It is also not impossible both sides are not lying: people are known to change their minds, even within a day. All in all, the situation is unclear to me right now.

            1. 4

              Leah Rowe silently removed words “who has given permission for this opposition to be made against the FSF” from the website in a git commit with commit message “typofix”.

            2. 5

              Some context. Leah Rowe made the initial accusation yesterday. Within a day, FSF published the statement. Both lacked details. Leah Rowe replied with the link, “They’re lying”, with some details and names. No FSF reply yet, but the statement said “we expect this to be our last public statement on the matter”.

              Some opinion. I expected the statement from FSF along the line of “we’re investigating” if any, not “unequivocally … allegations are untrue”. It’s quite hard to imagine how FSF could reach such conclusion in such a short time, although it is not impossible. (For example, if an employee stole and that’s why they were fired, it would be possible to quickly reach the conclusion “not fired for discriminatory reasons”. But such scenarios are unlikely.) To me, this looks bad for FSF so far.

              1. 7

                I’m not very convinced by Stallman’s response. The allegation is that the employee was being bullied in the workplace. Presumably she wasn’t being bullied in the workplace when they hired her, that’s what changed. It gives the impression that Stallman is either missing the point, or dodging it.

              2. 2

                Just what we need… more drama.

                1. 7

                  It’s only drama when it doesn’t impact you.

                  1. 13

                    It would be a lot less dramatic if they made the message less emotional and left out the vague accusations and statements that only serve to dramaticize the issue. For instance, if you think someone made a misjudgement that led to a bad call, it isn’t really fair to shoot down the entire organization for that. I bet most people involved with the FSF or the GNU project are not involved and not aware of this case of bullying.

                    I do not believe that the FSF or the GNU project deserve to exist.

                2. 1

                  I do not believe that the FSF or the GNU project deserve to exist.

                  I see, they did one thing wrong so they clearly need to disappear. Guess we should have hanged Mandela too while we had the chance :-)