There are people protesting against RMS, and especially how he's non-inclusive of women. I understand why people want to remove him from his position of power, but I fear that by removing him we would lose one of the uncompromising figures of software freedom. For example, the author refers to "the other open source compiler", which I suppose is LLVM. But LLVM allows Apple to not release some optimizations because it's not copyleft. I fear that by insisting so much on removing RMS we may move from "activist open source" to "corporation allowed open source".<p>Is this paranoia on my part? Or maybe I'm valuing freedom more than inclusivity because, as a white male, I don't feel the need for inclusivity as much as other people? I'm not sure of the answer, but I feel that there's a tradeoff that is made by removing RMS that isn't explicit and calculated.<p>I'd like to hear other views on that and what people think.
I see the argument. Essentially:<p>- RMS doesn't contribute code to GCC
- RMS scares off other people from contributing to GCC
- RMS has made questionable decisions in treating women
- RMS does not fully condemn everything we call pedophilia.<p>Hence, according to the argument, there is little to no upside to having him in there, and quite some upside to removing him.
Curious as to why this has been flagged? I haven't editorialized anything, this isn't a repost, and the OP has a voice that holds weight in the community (making this newsworthy).<p>To those reporting this due to it being critical of RMS, is "free as in speech" just a fun tagline vs. a guiding principal?
The important bits of this are at the end. The guy just doesn't like RMS and thinks since he hasn't made a commit recently he should be kicked off. The author states "this isn't a court of law" as justification for why it doesn't matter if the random accusations are true or not, then says removing him from gcc is "actions have consequences". True, but making a few social faux pas (assuming they are true, despite many being proven false) does not deserve this bizarre punishment.<p>Can this mob at least try or be intellectually honest? If RMS is a nuisance and you don't like him, just say so. Vote him off the board, don't organize a mob and collect a series of false accusations.
The ritualistic language in the "proposal" and the fact that Facebook and RedHat developers agreed without discussion is disturbing.<p>If they want him out for technical reasons, then say so and don't do it <i>now</i> of all times.<p>But like this they are just good foot soldiers for their corporate masters. How about examining everything Zuckerberg has said and done on this mailing list?
Why exactly is the leaky tech pipeline a fallacy? I see it claimed as such frequently, but then I see other SJWs argue it is the biggest thing that needs addressing(I think I recall a big-shot diversity person at FB saying the pipeline needs to be fixed, and a big-shot diversity person at Google say the pipeline is a distraction).<p>To me, it doesn't make sense how the pipeline <i>couldn't</i> be a major issue. I took an intro to programming class in 9th grade (1999), and there was literally one girl and 29 boys. How can you ever overcome that and hope for a 50/50 split at the end when, for whatever reason, 14 year olds choose such drastically different paths based on their genders. And I know for a fact that no one took the class or didn't take the class because of the demographics of the GCC steering committee.
> Representation matters, we’re the problem.<p>Bold claims, not much explanation. If the amount of privileged, white, male, socially awkward people in a project would clearly correlate with its popularity or success I am sure people like the author would have shouted it from the rooftops long ago. I wonder if the author talked to one of the minorities he finds too underrepresented to see what they think of RMS, and what their real reasons and motivations are. Because, as much as he likes to throw all "privileged white males" into the same bucket and all the minorities into another one(both with the usual obvious connotations), opinions differ and reality usually disagrees with this binary good vs. evil thinking.<p>Meanwhile the obvious explanation, that a decades old complex project written in a language with decreasing popularity might not attract many contributors in general, is ignored.<p>> This is not a court of law. So many are pointing in the same direction that you cannot ignore the implication.<p>Yes, the majority is always right! Let's just get rid of the guy who sometimes didn't know when to shut up, and maybe later consider why the court of law's principles were introduced in the first place. Flawless reasoning.