The poster levels accusations at members of GNU but does not substantiate them with evidence (at least in that thread which I can see). I should hope we still live in a society where the accused are innocent until proven guilty. Can we see some evidence before any conclusions are drawn?
If it is just one member of GNU who acted inappropriately then I also have to ask why the poster is attacking the whole organization. Evidence ought to be presented for GNU's complicity in any sort of bias as well.
If someone punches hour friend in the face, you should not have to wait for public evidence and a court conviction before you stop working with them.
More evidence would be nice, but libreboot as a project can choose to leave GNU for reasons they know.
One obvious reason they are not providing more evidence is that I am sure it is going to lead to large amounts of public abuse of the person who was fired.
If I'm reading the parent post correctly, it is calling for evidence for the sake of everybody else. Libreboot should of course be free to leave GNU/FSF regardless of the reasons behind it, but Leah accused them of extremely inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour. So yeah, it's normal to ask for evidence.
And I don't know about you, but if events actually went down as described, I'd want to know.
Not only do we not know if the person was fired for discriminatory reasons the poster likely cannot even know for sure why this person was fired. All we see is poster acting very unprofessionally.
Perhaps these accusations will be proven true on a later occasion. More likely even if true nothing will be proved either way and both poster, the person that was fired and the employer all end up looking poorly. Perhaps this could have been thought out better.
As personal reaction it may be reasonable. As a reaction from maintainer of the software piece, that's childish. Mailing list contains no details, just literally "Fuck GNU, Fuck FSF". She can tweet, post it in facebook, personal blog, it is okay. But when it affects software, this is a sign that she cannot separate conceptions. Your users are never guilty (except when you write extremist-oriented software), why should they trust someone with that fuck-fuck on mailing list reputation? I hope they both will get proper respect in this situation, if her claims are true. But this is another coin into 'don't use gnu if possible' rule.
Suddenly not wanting anything to do with the FSF because of extremely bad news is a perfectly reasonable personal reaction.
Withdrawing Libreboot from the GNU project is not only a meaningful formal step but also a practical implementation of that decision, because it means eliminating reasons to interact with FSF members.
I agree that the poster is entitled to leave GNU for whatever reasons she likes.
However, in the process she also made defamatory statements against GNU, with a clear intent of harming GNU. These are the statements which ought to be evaluated against evidence before drawing any conclusions.
This is sad in many ways. I can understand that Leah and others would've suffered a lot of anguish and frustration because of a set of actions and decisions by some people/office of/in FSF. The frustration would've been like, "Who needs more of this discrimination since there's already so much to deal with in society?"
Without the entire context and all the back stories of the different sides, this looks like a blanket accusation on the entire FSF/GNU community with a similar punishment, which, ironically, is exactly what some majority groups do for classes like LGBT, people of color and other oppressed groups - try to paint everyone with the same brush and attempt to banish them from their world on this basis. I personally don't think this is very helpful to all involved, concerned and affected.
I strongly feel FSF ought to do the following:
1. Analyze what happened in a neutral way (as objective as possible).
2. Provide an explanation, a polite and calm one, on this matter without blaming Leah or others who're in the affected group.
3. If the findings on the firing of the person show damning evidence of discrimination, then take appropriate action against the specific people involved.
4. Commit to making the environment more open and transparent so that such drastic actions wouldn't be necessary to draw attention in the future.
Silence on the part of FSF will only help make stronger the impression that the accusations are pervasive in it, and could trigger more of such reactions from other people/groups involved with FSF.
That thread doesn't prove anything, no links, no other threads mentioned, no verification, we don't know who was fired from FSF, no justification or anything. Instead author of the email started it with quickly made decision to leave GNU, crying, showing their lack of professionalism to at least give them a try to justify their decision on public forum, ends the thread with fuck FSF, and "fuck GNU" in commit message. How can this be taken seriously? 4chan trolls behave the same way. I expected much more from people behind libreboot (, FSF and GNU).
With the passage of time and after reading more from different parties, I wanted to add this as a reply to my previous comment.
There are now statements from FSF [1] and libreboot. [2] And of course, there are longer discussions on other forums.
I don't see any hope for reconciliation or redemption here. It's not clear (at least to me) if this issue was raised internally before the public departure of the project from FSF/GNU. Further messages and statements from Leah don't seem helpful, and are actually reducing empathy from others.
After reading all the mails on that thread so far (and the statements), I'm of the opinion that FSF, as an entire organization, is being unfairly targeted, and that Leah could do a lot better by talking to people privately and waiting for a few days before posting anything in a burst of anger. Given a chance, time has a way of changing perspectives and seeing different ways to approach issues.
I don't know the details of this, but I think the first response in the thread makes sense and reflects what I thought straight away:
"I'm sorry to hear about this unacceptable prejudice, as you've described it.
My question is: should this be taken as an indictment of the entire GNU
project, or those individuals managing personnel at the FSF's offices? I would
hate for the intolerance of one or a few people to be construed as a reason
for the entire GNU project not to exist"
There is a more forgiving interpretation. Even if the FSF has not actively discriminated, it chose not to help support one of its members from the effects of discrimination. This can be seen as a protest against inaction.
How big is the FSF? If the organisation is pretty small, I would be concerned.
Matt Levine recently had a piece on the Wells Fargo events:
>“The 1% that did it wrong, who we fired, terminated, in no way reflects our culture nor reflects the great work the other vast majority of the people do,” he said. “That’s a false narrative.”
>You hear bank CEOs say that sort of thing all the time when a few rogue employees do bad stuff that incurs a big fine for the bank, but there are never 5,300 of them. It is the sorites paradox of "a few bad apples": If one or two or eight rogue employees don't reflect the broader culture, why should 5,300?
At one point actions do reflect on the entire project, though the line is fuzzy.
I think the last line is a bit strong. I've seen much worse language elsewhere, of course, but I don't know if it serves the point. Though empathy should be had for Leah, I imagine it was not a decision taken lightly.
> There is a more forgiving interpretation. Even if the FSF has not actively discriminated, it chose not to help support one of its members from the effects of discrimination
Assuming the story is accurate, the problem was not just with the people who bullied the transgendered person, the problem was also that nobody with authority in the GNU project backed her (or at least, not enough people). Therefore it is fair to also blame those with authority that did nothing/not enough to avoid this outcome. The fact that it's taken somebody quitting the GNU project over it to highlight the problem shows that the GNU leadership did not do enough to denounce this type of behaviour.
Perhaps there is more to this story than we know so far, but as it stands I can understand Leah's reaction.
Yes. This seems like a situation where individuals should be blamed, not an entire group, who may not even be aware of the actions of specific individuals. If the group is aware of the actions of the individuals and sanctions it, then that's a different scenario.
> The FSF fired her because they thought she, rather than the assholes bullying her, was causing the FSF potential damage. As a result, she was fired from the FSF.
It also seems worthwhile to understand what is the other side of the story about this.
On the other hand, this individual has the authority to make the decision on behalf of the FSF. So at this point in the time and until more evidence is provided, this _is_ the decision of the FSF.
Having said that, there are still many layers of information that needs to be provided to get a clear picture.
I suppose I can't speak for the FSF, but I highly doubt they would ever come out and publicly say why they fired someone. Most companies/similar would never be willing to do that - so it is entirely possible we'll never hear the other side of this story.
I have a former friend who developed a drug habit and exploded nearly violently at his neighbors with no provocation in the lobby of his apartment building making a huge scene which resulted in the gentlemen in blue having a talk with him. He turned his reaction to too much meth into a wholly fictitious trans hate scenario in which he was victimized. None of this actually happened.
People lie and the presumption of innocence isn't just the law its a reasonable reaction to the imperfect, screwy world around you.
Expecting people to back up accusations with proof isn't hate.
Presumption of innocence is reasonable because most people are innocent. It is not because the world is imperfect. It follows from the base rate, which is experimental, not from any fundamental principle.
For example, if most officials are corrupt, you should not presume the official you are dealing with is not corrupt. That's just stupid. Legal case still should be backed by evidence, but your personal presumption should consider the base rate, not just presumption of innocence.
A presumption of innocence decreases the value in telling damaging lies which in turn disincentives lying. It would be valuable in the face of most people being guilty.
How does some trans person you know with a drug problem have any connection to this situation? Are you trying to generalise from one trans person to ask others?
Presumption of innocence implies that the default attitude towards accusers is healthy skepticism plus a willingness to listen. This is necessary because if we are not skeptical nearly anyone can successfully attack anyone else with impunity and destroy their reputation and if we aren't willing to listen we risk ignoring victimization.
In this case the proposed victim is silent on the matter and there is not only no proof there aren't even any details. My default assumption of skepticism leads me to conclude in the total absence of any other information that the individual was fired for some other reason and the accusations of bias was erroneous.
The email strikes me as strange within itself, it doesn't appear to be a calm and collected decision. Forgetting whether it's the right or wrong decision, never write angry - you always make yourself a fool.
That said, I would like to know more about what actually happened. If somebody was singled out for whatever reason, that's unacceptable. I'm not LGBT, but my position on that stands regardless. It is possible for somebody from the LGBT community to not be a good person to work with, so that should also be considered.
Lastly, it doesn't seem right from the outset that the entire GNU project suffers from the actions of one individual. This seems like an ill thought out demonstration who's intentions aren't completely transparent.
It's sad that something like this happened, but I have to agree with one of the following posts [1]:
"[...] as an FSF volunteer and a GNU maintainer, I'm also sad to see all FSF employees, volunteers, and GNU maintainers being blamed collectively. I don't agree with collective punishment, and don't think that it is ever the right choice."
This is par for the course for libreboot. The developers have been known to fly off the handle in highly unprofessional ways.
For example, their FAQ states this:
> It is extremely unlikely that any post-2008 Intel hardware will ever be supported in libreboot, due to severe security and freedom issues; so severe, that the libreboot project recommends avoiding all modern Intel hardware. If you have an Intel based system affected by the problems described below, then you should get rid of it as soon as possible.
That's some of the most unprofessional editorializing I've seen from a software project.
The FAQ then goes on a lengthy rant where they elaborate on how it's because they have moral objections to the Management Engine and AMT, ending with:
> In summary, the Intel Management Engine and its applications are a backdoor with total access to and control over the rest of the PC. The ME is a threat to freedom, security, and privacy, and the libreboot project strongly recommends avoiding it entirely. Since recent versions of it can't be removed, this means avoiding all recent generations of Intel hardware.
The Management Engine is, by the way, intended to help large enterprises automate administration of PCs on their network. Calling it malicious is intellectually dishonest.
With that said, I don't think a fork is feasible, or even a good idea. Libreboot is already a fork of Coreboot, and it's a fairly small fork that's not particularly in demand; in fact, the project goes out of its way to be hostile to anyone running modern hardware. Most forks are a result of the community being fed up with the intransigence of the developers; I'm convinced that libreboot doesn't even have a community. As someone else mentioned, Leah is by far and above the most active developer, and there are maybe 3-4 other people who have contributed. Unless GNU is just going to mirror her git repo and slap a different name on the tarballs, you're not going to have a fork. And, developers aside, how many people actually use it? Are there enough people who specifically insist on libreboot over coreboot and care about how it's developed to fork it?
>> It is extremely unlikely that any post-2008 Intel hardware will ever be supported in libreboot, due to severe security and freedom issues; so severe, that the libreboot project recommends avoiding all modern Intel hardware. If you have an Intel based system affected by the problems described below, then you should get rid of it as soon as possible.
> That's some of the most unprofessional editorializing I've seen from a software project.
How is that unprofessional? Recent Intel hardware does contain binary blobs that you cannot disable and that have full system access, which does raise both security and freedom issues.
>> In summary, the Intel Management Engine and its applications are a backdoor with total access to and control over the rest of the PC. The ME is a threat to freedom, security, and privacy, and the libreboot project strongly recommends avoiding it entirely. Since recent versions of it can't be removed, this means avoiding all recent generations of Intel hardware.
> The Management Engine is, by the way, intended to help large enterprises automate administration of PCs on their network. Calling it malicious is intellectually dishonest.
I didn't see them call it malicious in their FAQ. Yes, it's purpose is to provide a backdoor for legitimate owners of the computers to administer them. That something has a legitimate use that does not threaten freedom, security, and privacy doesn't mean that there is no risk that someone will find an illegitimate way to use it.
What it comes down to is that they value having only free software on their systems, and you cannot do that on recent Intel hardware. Hence, they recommend avoiding said hardware.
If you think that's unprofessional, you should see some of the drivel the FSF itself puts out.
I understand taking a position against proprietary code and systems. But to take an extremely hardline stance like they do, and to do it as childishly as the FSF often does, doesn't strike me as something that advances the cause of Free Software.
At least this is just editorializing. The FSF often engages in rhetorical flourishes that would be at home in an elementary schoolyard.
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.
I too think that was overreaction and who wrote it is some kind of... emotionally unstable and childish. The email lacks a lot of context, sources and proves. The thread itself is less verifiable than accusations of JAppelbaum of rape.
If only one person stepped up to run the project (which is my impression from another thread), it's not very likely someone would suddenly fork it now. Especially since this changes nothing about the project, except reverting the comments to the non-GNU state of May this year.
Aha, but even if you accept no support from GNU or FSF, they can continue to promote, support, and maintain this project, including any future work you do on it. Maybe with a different name or slightly diverged feature set, but the same project.
Imagine the agony of knowing every time you publish new work on the project, it will be quickly slurped up by the machine and distributed by the villains you so despise.
I don't know the answer, but GNU has really lost its way.
My main connection with them is through GCC, where I believe years of bad to level decisions has lead to a huge movement of to talent to clang ,(requiring copyright assignment then taking months to complete the forms, forbidding plugins for years, etc)
Is their list of contributors small enough that they can actually change licenses without a fork? I was under the impression it could take a ton of finding people and getting their sign off to move a project like this.
It would be difficult because the project appears to have accepted contributions from many authors under the GNU General Public License. One of the terms of the license is that any derivative work must be released under the same license terms. I'm not an expert, but I believe changing the license would require a sign-off from all copyright holders within the project.
No comments yet supporting the maintainer? She experienced real prejudice from issues at these orgs. No matter what the cause likely needs to be changed. But of course, I'm sure the super diverse community of core fsf and gnu did nothing wrong.
Actually it seems a friend of his/her was fired not the maintainer. Now, how do we know the facts? I don't think blind support is a good thing.
Without full disclosure I hope GNU will just fork the libreboot project and take further measures to protect itself from such situations.
Don't see what good forking would do since AFAIK Leah Rowe is by far the biggest contributor to libreboot. I think the contribution of the GNU project was more in project infrastructure than actual code. I only see 3 - 4 people appear in the libreboot commit logs, and as long as they all agree with Leah's direction, a fork doesn't mean anything and is still born.
Also, there is no reason for the GNU project to fork libreboot since they can still use it as before. The beauty of free software.
As additional information has appeared recently, I add it here. Allegedly, some contributions from others have been committed in Rowe's name, and at least one contributor published his opinion of Rowe's leadership:
If it is just one member of GNU who acted inappropriately then I also have to ask why the poster is attacking the whole organization. Evidence ought to be presented for GNU's complicity in any sort of bias as well.