I thought it important as this is a direct bit of official information from the libreboot.org website itself, and libreboot is often mentioned in many other threads on HN with regards to privacy, laptops, and Free alternatives. I imagine it would be of interest to many here. Please forgive me if the submission is flagged, I can understand the distaste for drama. Let's keep the discussion civil.
It's also worth mentioning that one of the main contributors of Libreboot responded[0] on that mailing list thread, and on his website[1] that "[..] Leah Rowe is the only person who has git commit access to the website, libreboot.org, and also the only person who has git commit access to the codebase, [..]".
I do feel there is an important discussion to be had, and the first half of the post seems quite reasonable. Punishing the victims of harassment can never be acceptable.
I don't understand the second half, though; it seems that the demands for mass removal of FSF leadership are not proportional and would not have the desired effect of preventing harassment. Do these types of demands commonly work, and I am just unaware of the examples?
Breaking down the unity of the GNU system is unwise and a childish fit, at best. Promoting unity among GNU should be the first priority of every project in the system. It is not immediately clear that Libreboot leadership did anything to address their concerns, they simply walked away.
Energy going to causes like this detract from the real mission of GNU: a free operating system. That should be its only concern. There's going to be a lot of flamage on this comment, but the community needs to prioritize technical progress over other things. Other organizations exist to deal with those issues, and so we shouldn't confuse GNU's real purpose.
The OP's point is a bit off topic but this statement deserves a response.
> You shouldn't need to compromise your basic values to write software.
If you believe this then you must also believe that Brendan Eich should still have his job at Mozilla. And that his believe that the state should not grant homosexual marriage licences is of no consequence to his participation in software development. Brendan Eich should not be forced to compromise his basic values to write software.
Basic values does not = (your values). Within the 7+ Billion people on this planet there are quite a lot of conflicting 'basic values'. If you can not embrace them all in your programming community (or better yet exclude values altogether) then the core assertion is disingenuous and false.
Society is multidimensional. The separation of vectors is out of necessity to ensure the integrity of each vector. Without this integrity you have abandon the possibility for any vector to move towards enlightenment and progress. Politics, Ethics, Values, Religion Sciences and the Arts are all different dimensions. With a wide spectrum of ideas and beliefs in each one of them. Many of these ideas are contradictory and in conflict. That is the healthy and necessary state of an enlightened society.
You separate Software development from beliefs for the same reason that you separate Mathematics from beliefs. The progression of Mathematics has no political or social bound. If you can not accept that Mathematics is distinguishable and separate from your beliefs then you have truly embraced an intellectual and cultural regressive ideology.
Likewise if you can not accept that people who you do not share beliefs with can and are advancing the breath and depth of programming and computer science then you have embraced an intellectually and culturally regressive ideology.
Of course like you said Brendan basic values were being questioned. But I think you're taking the comment you're replying to a bit too literal. What it probably meant was that things besides technical points, especially interpersonal ones do actually matter.
You could argue that a lot of people's basic values were compromised by Brendan Eich.
And I think you're right that you should try to keep things as separate as possible.
But that's never 100% possible. Underlying the technical problems there lie social ones. If you tell yourself that you're keeping things purely rational and technological you are lying to yourself. You still need to work with other people to get things done for instance. Even the GNU project is strongly occupied with moral thoughts about their definition of freedom of software. Being the greatest genius doesn't help you one bit if you can't communicate those ideas and get help spreading them.
> Of course like you said Brendan basic values were being questioned.
> You could argue that a lot of people's basic values were compromised by Brendan Eich.
This sort of highlights the irreconcilable dilemma of the claim that your basic values who ever you are and what ever your values are should be supported by a software project.
That simply can not happen. Its a false statement. You either have to have one persons/groups basic values as prerequisite for participation and exclude everyone else who has different values. Or you mutually exclude personal basic values as a prerequisite and invite everyone to participate in solving the larger technological goal.
What I think is being lost here, intentionally or not is the idea of mutual respect. You can have mutual respect with people you do not share common values with and still work together, share friendship and solve problems.
If Open Source / Free Software, can not produce projects where people with different values can have mutual respect and compassion for one another and work together to achieve a common goal then there are serious, serious problems for FLOSS going forward.
> Other organizations exist to deal with those issues
For the alleged issue of someone being fired due to being transgender, I fail to see how other organizations can deal with her being fired from the FSF. Do you suggest transgender people should only work for organizations promoting transgender rights, who can "deal with their issues"?
Also, please consider that if all organizations and communities behaved as you suggest, then just as the FSF might not organizationally care about transgender rights, every other organization in the world might not care about free software. As a free software supporter, do you really want that?
* Obligatory disclaimer: this comment is not intended to imply any factual assessment of the various claims about the firing.
This is a serious issue and you're not helping by trying to dismiss it as childish or otherwise delegitimizing it. It's very easy to say “technical progress” should be a priority when the issue in question doesn't affect you personally but that reflects a gross failure of empathy on your part rather than an argument against the Libreboot decision. Open source development, especially in the FSF's area, is generally about people volunteering their time and valuable expertise to contribute to a public good. It is simply unreasonable and unrealistic to suggest that people prioritize that goal over every other consideration. As a hypothetical, suppose the issue in question was anti-Semitism and a Jewish maintainer decided to leave – would you really tell them that they should just be focused on creating a free operating system?
To be clear: I am not saying that this is a valid complaint, that the FSF is in the right or wrong, etc. I don't know any details about the incidents in question but I can see that it's a serious allegation which should not be arbitrarily dismissed. I hope that the FSF works to ensure that the community and potential new contributors can trust them to follow their stated policies.
Why should the lead developer of a software project need to stay with harassers? Holding "unity of the GNU system" is what is childish. There's basically no difference if a project is an official GNU project or not anyway.
The statement initially contained words "the person who was fired ... has given permission for this opposition to be made against the FSF". Later, Leah Rowe silently removed these words with commit message "typofix".
I think RMS' intervention is appropriate as reference:
> The dismissal of the staff person was not because of her gender. Her gender now is the same as it was when we hired her. It was not an issue then, and it is not an issue now.
But the libreboot post says the same, the staff person was let go because of standing up against bullying, the gender doesn't matter directly to the firing
Word to the wise... anything that you comment here could be used to end your career today or 5 years later when someone discovers this thread. Please choose your words carefully.
Wise words. Like anything having to do with identity, this issue is radioactive. It's become very difficult to criticize members of certain groups, because a vocal minority of people will invariably attribute your criticism to your crypto-hatred of the group to which the subject of your criticism belongs, then attempt to ruin your career over the perceived "hate".
As someone hearing about this only now, what actually happened? I find it extremely difficult to believe that the FSF fired anyone based on any one trait. This post says that the trans person "stood up for themselves", and because of the ambiguity, this makes me think that it might not have been as simple as all that.
Well, given the rise of contributor covanents and several people throwing around identity politics on technical mailing lists, it definitely looks like it's happening already. But I highly doubt that the free software movement will shatter. There have been bigger threats to software freedom, and the community has overcome them too.
With such little information out there at the present I don't believe there is any point to discussion right now. With just unverified speculation, people are resorting to their imagination for any explanation which is never a good idea.
I mean, I'm just going to come out and say it - unless there are emails or something it's got to be hard for the FSF or the employee to make any sort of claims.
If there is not a lawsuit this probably shouldn't even be a thing.
The libreboot founder wrote:
> Libreboot is not part of GNU or FSF anymore. I hereby denounce both GNU and FSF. Long live the LGBT community, and long live the free software movement. Meanwhile, FSF and GNU can both go fuck themselves.
To be honest, because I see no evidence - just a bunch of pointing fingers, this seems super unprofessional and possibly just downright defamation on the part of libreboot. Now if evidence is provided I'd be happy to change my mind, but overall this seems pretty childish.
Some of the Reddit comments:
> Having had interactions with this particular developer before, they are a very ...impulsive individual and given to extreme snap judgements and opinions (banning discussion of using any *BSD with Libreboot on the IRC channel for the project because BSD isn't "free enough" comes to mind).
> This reaction doesn't really surprise me, regardless of however accurate it may or may not be (and I lean more towards giving the FSF the benefit of the doubt here)
Then there's another who supposedly knows the people involved:
> Leah has psychological problems. Don't let that be reflective of the majority in the Free Software Community. It is certainly a risk to the LibreBoot project. The problem is she is the primary person behind LibreBoot. It's a good project otherwise.
> I know Leah and I know the people accused. Leah's statements are without merit and twisted into things because she is mad. She has a clear history of making false and/or misleading statements against people and organizations she perceives to have wronged her."
Again, because there is no evidence this seems to just be a way to punish FSF because someone got mad.
How is Leah Rowe (the Libreboot maintainer) in a position to know better than the FSF why the FSF fired someone?
Is she directly involved? Does/did she also work for the FSF with the people in question, or does she just have some relationship with the person who got fired and is getting their side of the story?
She's now publicly calling for the firing of several people of the FSF & the destruction of their livelihoods and careers.
I have no involvement in any of this, but as someone on the sidelines who's been reading about it here on HN this just seems like he said she said hearsay resulting in the tech equivalent of tabloid dramas & trials in the court of public opinion.
I find it very difficult to believe that anyone experienced and conscientious enough to work for the FSF "harassed by a transphobic colleague for being trans". Even if someone is anti-trans, it should be clear that in the current political climate, openly expressing these views is a career death sentence.
Is it possible that things went down as the post suggests? Sure. I find it much more likely that the individual involved interpreted neutral comment of some sort as an attack on her gender, then stirred up trouble. Why do I have such a dismal view? Because it keeps happening, over and over. The perpetually offended have ruined too many good careers, and we need to stand up to them.
1) Trans person is qualified for job
2) Hiring a trans person is now risky because of a perception of a potential "shitstorm" should "something" happen
3) Admission that this perceived risk exists regardless of the trans person's experience, aptitude, or temperament.
Is this not a textbook example of discrimination?
Edit: used "risk exists" instead of awkward phrasing "risk is true"
> The Free Software Foundation recently fired a transgendered employee of the FSF, just for being trans.
> I do not believe that the FSF or the GNU project deserve to exist.
> Libreboot is not part of GNU or FSF anymore. I hereby denounce both GNU and FSF.
> FSF and GNU can both go fuck themselves.
This sort of unsubstantiated accusation in public about GNU/FSF internal personnel decisions looks rather unhinged. It's a crude attempt to give the GNU/FSF and its members/employees a public black eye and solicit an internet outrage mob. Even if this person feels they have some legitimate concern these tactics are deplorable and should be denounced.
That's what you get from a movement that more resembles a religious cult. Everything has to bow to their arbitrarily defined software freedoms first and foremost. IMO an even better reason to leave the GNU project and the FSF is that Richard Stallman is a pedophilia apologist. (See the quotes at https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pedophilia of him)
Why do you care who makes your software as long as it is good free software? If I started judging people as opposed to appreciating what they do It would be very dehumanizing.
When you are a public person, publishing opinions on your website is something you do, and should be judged. Still supporting RMS and seeing him as a visionary how he often is, gives legitimacy to such dispicable ideas.
One person does not an organisation make. One claimed instance of 'discrimination' - I use quotes on this word as it is often used in circumstances where other terms would be a better fit - does not a policy make. One person who feels violated in some way does not an indictment against a whole organisation justify.
If someone at FSF knowingly and willingly acted in a discriminatory way against someone and said discriminatory behaviour was sufficiently serious that the person being discriminated against can be assumed to feel violated in a real sense, action should be taken against that person at FSF. If FSF as an organisation has a policy promoting such discrimination this policy should be held to the light and discussed in the open so the reasons for that policy and the instigators thereof can be revealed. If the policy turns out violate basic human rights it should be changed or repealed. If FSF refuses to do so... then is the time for actions like this one. Assuming that the claims made in this thread are serious and provable the end result might be the same, or it might not. Maybe FSF would change its ways instead and remove any such policies and/or people from its organisation?
Sending accusatory messages to a mailing list and 'taking your marbles to go home' is not the best way to induce change in society, no matter how aggrieved you feel.
38 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 88.2 ms ] thread[0]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreboot/2016-09/msg0006...
[1]: http://zammit.org/libreboot-screwup.html
I don't understand the second half, though; it seems that the demands for mass removal of FSF leadership are not proportional and would not have the desired effect of preventing harassment. Do these types of demands commonly work, and I am just unaware of the examples?
Breaking down the unity of the GNU system is unwise and a childish fit, at best. Promoting unity among GNU should be the first priority of every project in the system. It is not immediately clear that Libreboot leadership did anything to address their concerns, they simply walked away.
Energy going to causes like this detract from the real mission of GNU: a free operating system. That should be its only concern. There's going to be a lot of flamage on this comment, but the community needs to prioritize technical progress over other things. Other organizations exist to deal with those issues, and so we shouldn't confuse GNU's real purpose.
A free operating system may be your only concern; it isn't everyones. To have other priorities is not childish.
> You shouldn't need to compromise your basic values to write software.
If you believe this then you must also believe that Brendan Eich should still have his job at Mozilla. And that his believe that the state should not grant homosexual marriage licences is of no consequence to his participation in software development. Brendan Eich should not be forced to compromise his basic values to write software.
Basic values does not = (your values). Within the 7+ Billion people on this planet there are quite a lot of conflicting 'basic values'. If you can not embrace them all in your programming community (or better yet exclude values altogether) then the core assertion is disingenuous and false.
Society is multidimensional. The separation of vectors is out of necessity to ensure the integrity of each vector. Without this integrity you have abandon the possibility for any vector to move towards enlightenment and progress. Politics, Ethics, Values, Religion Sciences and the Arts are all different dimensions. With a wide spectrum of ideas and beliefs in each one of them. Many of these ideas are contradictory and in conflict. That is the healthy and necessary state of an enlightened society.
You separate Software development from beliefs for the same reason that you separate Mathematics from beliefs. The progression of Mathematics has no political or social bound. If you can not accept that Mathematics is distinguishable and separate from your beliefs then you have truly embraced an intellectual and cultural regressive ideology.
Likewise if you can not accept that people who you do not share beliefs with can and are advancing the breath and depth of programming and computer science then you have embraced an intellectually and culturally regressive ideology.
And I think you're right that you should try to keep things as separate as possible. But that's never 100% possible. Underlying the technical problems there lie social ones. If you tell yourself that you're keeping things purely rational and technological you are lying to yourself. You still need to work with other people to get things done for instance. Even the GNU project is strongly occupied with moral thoughts about their definition of freedom of software. Being the greatest genius doesn't help you one bit if you can't communicate those ideas and get help spreading them.
> You could argue that a lot of people's basic values were compromised by Brendan Eich.
This sort of highlights the irreconcilable dilemma of the claim that your basic values who ever you are and what ever your values are should be supported by a software project.
That simply can not happen. Its a false statement. You either have to have one persons/groups basic values as prerequisite for participation and exclude everyone else who has different values. Or you mutually exclude personal basic values as a prerequisite and invite everyone to participate in solving the larger technological goal.
What I think is being lost here, intentionally or not is the idea of mutual respect. You can have mutual respect with people you do not share common values with and still work together, share friendship and solve problems.
If Open Source / Free Software, can not produce projects where people with different values can have mutual respect and compassion for one another and work together to achieve a common goal then there are serious, serious problems for FLOSS going forward.
For the alleged issue of someone being fired due to being transgender, I fail to see how other organizations can deal with her being fired from the FSF. Do you suggest transgender people should only work for organizations promoting transgender rights, who can "deal with their issues"?
Also, please consider that if all organizations and communities behaved as you suggest, then just as the FSF might not organizationally care about transgender rights, every other organization in the world might not care about free software. As a free software supporter, do you really want that?
* Obligatory disclaimer: this comment is not intended to imply any factual assessment of the various claims about the firing.
To be clear: I am not saying that this is a valid complaint, that the FSF is in the right or wrong, etc. I don't know any details about the incidents in question but I can see that it's a serious allegation which should not be arbitrarily dismissed. I hope that the FSF works to ensure that the community and potential new contributors can trust them to follow their stated policies.
https://notabug.org/vimuser/libreboot-website/commit/18c0a56...
> The dismissal of the staff person was not because of her gender. Her gender now is the same as it was when we hired her. It was not an issue then, and it is not an issue now.
If there is not a lawsuit this probably shouldn't even be a thing.
The libreboot founder wrote:
> Libreboot is not part of GNU or FSF anymore. I hereby denounce both GNU and FSF. Long live the LGBT community, and long live the free software movement. Meanwhile, FSF and GNU can both go fuck themselves.
To be honest, because I see no evidence - just a bunch of pointing fingers, this seems super unprofessional and possibly just downright defamation on the part of libreboot. Now if evidence is provided I'd be happy to change my mind, but overall this seems pretty childish.
Some of the Reddit comments:
> Having had interactions with this particular developer before, they are a very ...impulsive individual and given to extreme snap judgements and opinions (banning discussion of using any *BSD with Libreboot on the IRC channel for the project because BSD isn't "free enough" comes to mind).
> This reaction doesn't really surprise me, regardless of however accurate it may or may not be (and I lean more towards giving the FSF the benefit of the doubt here)
Then there's another who supposedly knows the people involved:
> Leah has psychological problems. Don't let that be reflective of the majority in the Free Software Community. It is certainly a risk to the LibreBoot project. The problem is she is the primary person behind LibreBoot. It's a good project otherwise.
> I know Leah and I know the people accused. Leah's statements are without merit and twisted into things because she is mad. She has a clear history of making false and/or misleading statements against people and organizations she perceives to have wronged her."
Again, because there is no evidence this seems to just be a way to punish FSF because someone got mad.
One of the main contributors to Libreboot points out that only Leah has commit access to the website, and
"(the contributors) are not consulted about any of the views expressed on the libreboot.org website when they are hastily published by Leah."
http://zammit.org/libreboot-screwup.html
Is she directly involved? Does/did she also work for the FSF with the people in question, or does she just have some relationship with the person who got fired and is getting their side of the story?
She's now publicly calling for the firing of several people of the FSF & the destruction of their livelihoods and careers.
I have no involvement in any of this, but as someone on the sidelines who's been reading about it here on HN this just seems like he said she said hearsay resulting in the tech equivalent of tabloid dramas & trials in the court of public opinion.
Is it possible that things went down as the post suggests? Sure. I find it much more likely that the individual involved interpreted neutral comment of some sort as an attack on her gender, then stirred up trouble. Why do I have such a dismal view? Because it keeps happening, over and over. The perpetually offended have ruined too many good careers, and we need to stand up to them.
I don't want to be the one responsible for someone's career death sentence, but it _is_ posted on a public mailing list: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreboot/2016-09/msg0005...
1) Trans person is qualified for job 2) Hiring a trans person is now risky because of a perception of a potential "shitstorm" should "something" happen 3) Admission that this perceived risk exists regardless of the trans person's experience, aptitude, or temperament.
Is this not a textbook example of discrimination?
Edit: used "risk exists" instead of awkward phrasing "risk is true"
"Textbook example" indeed...
[1]:https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreboot/2016-09/msg0003...
> The Free Software Foundation recently fired a transgendered employee of the FSF, just for being trans.
> I do not believe that the FSF or the GNU project deserve to exist.
> Libreboot is not part of GNU or FSF anymore. I hereby denounce both GNU and FSF.
> FSF and GNU can both go fuck themselves.
This sort of unsubstantiated accusation in public about GNU/FSF internal personnel decisions looks rather unhinged. It's a crude attempt to give the GNU/FSF and its members/employees a public black eye and solicit an internet outrage mob. Even if this person feels they have some legitimate concern these tactics are deplorable and should be denounced.
If someone at FSF knowingly and willingly acted in a discriminatory way against someone and said discriminatory behaviour was sufficiently serious that the person being discriminated against can be assumed to feel violated in a real sense, action should be taken against that person at FSF. If FSF as an organisation has a policy promoting such discrimination this policy should be held to the light and discussed in the open so the reasons for that policy and the instigators thereof can be revealed. If the policy turns out violate basic human rights it should be changed or repealed. If FSF refuses to do so... then is the time for actions like this one. Assuming that the claims made in this thread are serious and provable the end result might be the same, or it might not. Maybe FSF would change its ways instead and remove any such policies and/or people from its organisation?
Sending accusatory messages to a mailing list and 'taking your marbles to go home' is not the best way to induce change in society, no matter how aggrieved you feel.