   Tuesday 15 October 2019 by Bradley M. Kuhn

   The last 33 days have been unprecedentedly difficult for the software
   freedom community and for me personally. Folks have been emailing,
   phoning, texting, tagging me on social media (— the last of which has been
   funny, because all my social media accounts are placeholder accounts).
   But, just about everyone has urged me to comment on the serious issues
   that the software freedom community now faces. Until now, I have stayed
   silent regarding all these current topics: from Richard M. Stallman
   (RMS)'s public statements, to his resignation from the Free Software
   Foundation (FSF), to the Epstein scandal and its connection to MIT. I've
   also avoided generally commenting on software freedom organizational
   governance during this period. I did this for good reason, which is
   explained below. However, in this blog post, I now share my primary
   comments on the matters that seem to currently be of the utmost attention
   of the Open Source and Free Software communities.

   I have been silent the last month because, until two days ago, I was an
   at-large member of FSF's Board of Directors, and a Voting Member of the
   FSF. As a member of FSF's two leadership bodies, I was abiding by a
   reasonable request from the FSF management and my duty to the
   organization. Specifically, the FSF asked that all communication during
   the crisis come directly from FSF officers and not from at-large directors
   and/or Voting Members. Furthermore, the FSF management asked all Directors
   and Voting Members to remain silent on this entire matter — even on issues
   only tangentially related to the current situation, and even when speaking
   in our own capacity (e.g., on our own blogs like this one). The FSF is an
   important organization, and I take any request from the FSF seriously — so
   I abided fully with their request.

   The situation was further complicated because folks at my employer,
   Software Freedom Conservancy (where I also serve on the Board of
   Directors) had strong opinions about this matter as well. Fortunately, the
   FSF and Conservancy both had already created clear protocols for what I
   should do if ever there was a disagreement or divergence of views between
   Conservancy and FSF. I therefore was recused fully from the planning,
   drafting, and timing of Conservancy's statement on this matter. I thank my
   colleagues at the Conservancy for working so carefully to keep me entirely
   outside the loop on their statement and to diligently assure that it was
   straight-forward for me to manage any potential organizational
   disagreements. I also thank those at the FSF who outlined clear protocols
   (ahead of time, back in March 2019) in case a situation like this ever
   came up. I also know my colleagues at Conservancy care deeply, as I do,
   about the health and welfare of the FSF and its mission of fighting for
   universal software freedom for all. None of us want, nor have, any
   substantive disagreement over software freedom issues.

   I take very seriously my duty to the various organizations where I have
   (or have had) affiliations. More generally, I champion non-profit
   organizational transparency. Unfortunately, the current crisis left me in
   a quandary between the overarching goal of community transparency and
   abiding by FSF management's directives. Now that I've left the FSF Board
   of Directors, FSF's Voting Membership, and all my FSF volunteer roles
   (which ends my 22-year uninterrupted affiliation with the FSF), I can now
   comment on the substantive issues that face not just the FSF, but the Free
   Software community as a whole, while continuing to adhere to my past duty
   of acting in FSF's best interest. In other words, my affiliation with the
   FSF has come to an end for many good and useful reasons. The end to this
   affiliation allows me to speak directly about the core issues at the heart
   of the community's current crisis.

   Firstly, all these events — from RMS' public comments on the MIT mailing
   list, to RMS' resignation from the FSF to RMS' discussions about the next
   steps for the GNU project — seem to many to have happened ridiculously
   quickly. But it wasn't actually fast at all. In fact, these events were
   culmination of issues that were slowly growing in concern to many people,
   including me.

   For the last two years, I had been a loud internal voice in the FSF
   leadership regarding RMS' Free-Software-unrelated public statements; I
   felt strongly that it was in the best interest of the FSF to actively seek
   to limit such statements, and that it was my duty to FSF to speak out
   about this within the organization. Those who only learned of this story
   in the last month (understandably) believed Selam G.'s Medium post raised
   an entirely new issue. In fact, RMS' views and statements posted on
   stallman.org about sexual morality escalated for the worse over the last
   few years. When the escalation started, I still considered RMS both a
   friend and colleague, and I attempted to argue with him at length to
   convince him that some of his positions were harmful to sexual assault
   survivors and those who are sex trafficked, and to the people who devote
   their lives in service to such individuals. More importantly to the FSF, I
   attempted to persuade RMS that launching a controversial campaign on
   sexual behavior and morality was counter to his and FSF's mission to
   advance software freedom, and told RMS that my duty as an FSF Director was
   to assure the best outcome for the FSF, which IMO didn't include having a
   leader who made such statements. Not only is human sexual behavior not a
   topic on which RMS has adequate academic expertise, but also his positions
   appear to ignore significant research and widely available information on
   the subject. Many of his comments, while occasionally politically
   intriguing, lack empathy for people who experienced trauma.

   IMO, this is not and has never been a Free Speech issue. I do believe
   freedom of speech links directly to software freedom: indeed, I see the
   freedom to publish software under Free licenses as almost a corollary to
   the freedom of speech. However, we do not need to follow leadership from
   those whose views we fundamentally disagree. Moreover, organizations need
   not and should not elevate spokespeople and leaders who speak regularly on
   unrelated issues that organizations find do not advance their mission,
   and/or that alienate important constituents. I, like many other software
   freedom leaders, curtail my public comments on issues not related to FOSS.
   (Indeed, I would not even be commenting on this issue if it had not become
   a central issue of concern to the software freedom community.) Leaders
   have power, and they must exercise the power of their words with
   restraint, not with impunity.

   RMS has consistently argued that there was a campaign of “prudish
   intimidation” — seeking to keep him quiet about his views on sexuality.
   After years of conversing with RMS about how his non-software-freedom
   views were a distraction, an indulgence, and downright problematic, his
   general response was to make even more public comments of this nature. The
   issue is not about RMS' right to say what he believes, nor is it even
   about whether or not you agree or disagree with RMS' statements. The
   question is whether an organization should have a designated leader who is
   on a sustained, public campaign advocating about an unrelated issue that
   many consider controversial. It really doesn't matter what your view about
   the controversial issue is; a leader who refuses to stop talking loudly
   about unrelated issues eventually creates an untenable distraction from
   the radical activism you're actively trying to advance. The message of
   universal software freedom is a radical cause; it's basically impossible
   for one individual to effectively push forward two unrelated controversial
   agendas at once. In short, the radical message of software freedom became
   overshadowed by RMS' radical views about sexual morality.

   And here is where I say the thing that may infuriate many but it's what I
   believe: I think RMS took a useful step by resigning some of his
   leadership roles at the FSF. I thank RMS for taking that step, and I wish
   the FSF Directors well in their efforts to assure that the FSF becomes a
   welcoming organization to all who care about universal software freedom.
   The FSF's mission is essential to our technological future, and we should
   all support that mission. I care deeply about that mission myself and have
   worked and will continue to work in our community in the best interest of
   the mission.

   I'm admittedly struggling to find a way to work again with RMS, given his
   views on sexual morality and his behaviors stemming from those views. I
   explicitly do not agree with this “(re-)definition” of sexual assault.
   Furthermore, I believe uninformed statements about sexual assault are
   irresponsible and cause harm to victims. #MeToo is not a “frenzy”; it is a
   global movement by individuals who have been harmed seeking to hold both
   bad actors and society-at-large accountable for ignoring systemic wrongs.
   Nevertheless, I still am proud of the essay that I co-wrote with RMS and
   still find many of RMS' other essays compelling, important, and relevant.

   I want the FSF to succeed in its mission and enter a new era of
   accomplishments. I've spent the last 22 years, without a break, dedicating
   substantial time, effort, care and loyalty to the various FSF roles that
   I've had: including employee, volunteer, at-large Director, and Voting
   Member. Even though my duties to the FSF are done, and my relationship
   with the FSF is no longer formal, I still think the FSF is a valuable
   institution worth helping and saving, specifically because the FSF was
   founded for a mission that I deeply support. And we should also realize
   that RMS — a human being (who is flawed like the rest of us) — invented
   that mission.

   As culture change becomes more rapid, I hope we can find reasonable nuance
   and moderation on our complex analysis about people and their disparate
   views, while we also hold individuals fully accountable for their actions.
   That's the difficulty we face in the post-post-modern culture of the early
   twenty-first century. Most importantly, I believe we must find a way to
   stand firm for software freedom while also making a safe environment for
   victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, gaslighting, and other deplorable
   actions.

   Posted on Tuesday 15 October 2019 at 09:11 by Bradley M. Kuhn.

   #include <std/disclaimer.h>
   use Standard::Disclaimer;
   from standard import disclaimer
   SELECT full_text FROM standard WHERE type = 'disclaimer';

   Both previously and presently, I have been employed by and/or done work
   for various organizations that also have views on Free, Libre, and Open
   Source Software. As should be blatantly obvious, this is my website, not
   theirs, so please do not assume views and opinions here belong to any such
   organization. Since I do co-own ebb.org with my wife, it may not be so
   obvious that these aren't her views and opinions, either.

   ebb ^℠ is a service mark of Bradley M. Kuhn.
