Re: Remove Richard Stallman - Selam G. - Medium



Morning folks...

What an interesting first day back to work... I noticed this topic in
my inbox while cleaning up the spam... and before reading it, noticed
the slashdot article on the very same subject... wasted some of my time
there:

  
https://news.slashdot.org/story/19/09/14/2033212/richard-stallman-challenges-misleading-coverage-of-his-comments-on-marvin-minsky

More comments below...

On Mon, 2019-09-16 at 11:43 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
Robert McQueen <ramcq gnome org> wrote:
...
[...]
But to understand your specific concern: are you concerned that were we
to take a decision to eg remove RMS from our infrastructure that it
would generate controversy that we wouldn't be able to handle/resolve,
or do you think that taking action as a board outside of the context of
a COC procedure would somehow interfere with / prevent the new COC and
committee from being successfully implemented / empowered?

Mostly the latter. My concerns are:

 1. I don't think that the board is a good vehicle for dealing with
conduct issues. This issue needs to be dealt with by a small team that
can review the evidence, is familiar with the issues and the process,
and can make decisions based on established criteria. I don't think
the board is equipped to do this.
 2. If we exclude RMS outside of the CoC, it could be perceived as a
political move, which could subsequently undermine the new CoC and the
work of the CoC committee. Future code of conduct decisions could be
tarnished by the whiff of political whim.
 3. It seems strange to me to make a decision on this without the CoC,
when this is exactly the type of situation that the CoC is intended to
deal with. (And there's an implied devaluing of the CoC, if we choose
to proceed without it.)

I very much agree especially on Allan's point (2) above.

I'm not about to read a whole dissertation and try to analyze
everything that happened, which would be required to even form any
opinion on the matter really... I'm not particularly interested in
having an opinion either.

Point being, in any case of a he said she said situation which is
followed by some public outrage, I think it is of the utmost importance
that we do not get ourselves into a position of arbitration - it is
both dangerous and exhausting to our resources, to publicly take any
side of a given "scandal of the week".

The safe thing to do would be to have a CoC that is clear cut enough to
police without risking personal opinions clouding decisions, and if
there are grounds to ban RMS from our infra in that code, then use
those grounds to do so.

Cheers,
    -Tristan





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]