Re: Truth matters when writing software and selecting leaders

[Jean Louis]

* Akira Urushibata <afu@wta.att.ne.jp> [2021-03-25 05:14]:
> Richard Stallman recently announced at LibrePlanet that he would
> return to the FSF board.  Soon after this announcement, many articles
> appeared online stating strong objection to his return.
> 
> I have read several of them and I do not like what I see.  Repeatedly
> I encounter the false claim that RMS "defended" Jeffrey Epstein.
> I also see voices which criticize RMS employing vague terms such as
> "bad behavior" which those not properly informed would interpret as
> being fond of Epstein and antagonistic toward women who fall victim to
> sexual exploitation.

Many websites earn from their visitors, sales of advertising, and any
famous names are quickly picked up and replicated with intention to
draw few more dollars.

Some websites are politically oriented, and may support causes that
are opposite to free software movement. And then we have some websites
run by people who never look into any facts and support their own
whatever view points on the world.

> In response to the storm of criticism, the FSF Board has decided to
> vote to determine whether RMS should return to the board.  I observe
> that both sides have initiated petition drives:
> 
> https://github.com/KenjiBrown/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md

Nice.

I just don't get it why that has to be published on Github, people
don't know any more how to open up their own websites?

> In my opinion the FSF leaders are not doing things in the right order.
> First they should make an official statement saying that there are
> serious errors in recent news articles.

One has to understand the nature of a friendly foundation that
supports control of users over their data. Regardless of the money
available, do they want to use money on correcting numerous statements
online or forwarding their cause? 

There is freedom of expression, too many times FSF and GNU, RMS and
related parties do not make much of a reaction on online reactions,
but just keep forwarding their cause. 

Putting focus on what really matters, not on what were reactions is a
virtue.

> They should also consider legal action.  The decision whether RMS
> belongs on the FSF Board should wait until those who are spreading
> misinformation are brought to justice.

What you describe is possible, legal actions are possible, but as I
said forwarding their cause to promote free software, helping
distributions spread free software is what really matters. Each party
has to put priorities in their activities.

Another issue can be that FSF does not know nothing about those
articles, and that they maybe don't read this mailing list, so if you
think they should know about it, just write directly to FSF or RMS and
notify them.