Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Ludovic Courtès (civodul@toot.aquilenet.fr)'s status on Sunday, 12-Jan-2025 23:32:00 JST Ludovic Courtès

   Philosophy class homework: Does an activist organization require authoritarianism to protect itself from infiltration and to preserve its integrity and its values?

   Illustrate your work with examples of activist organizations, showing the impact of their governance structure on its integrity.

   https://www.fsf.org/news/anchoring-the-fsf-in-its-values

   #FreeSoftware

   • Embed this notice
     Anthk (anthk@paquita.masto.host)'s status on Sunday, 12-Jan-2025 23:34:04 JST Anthk

     in reply to

     @civodul look what happened with Lisp in the 80's and open computing from the MIT.

   • Embed this notice
     Ludovic Courtès (civodul@toot.aquilenet.fr)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 02:25:19 JST Ludovic Courtès

     in reply to

     • Else, Someone

     @nobody “Teenage sickness” may not be the right term for a 40yo org.

   • Embed this notice
     Else, Someone (nobody@mastodon.acm.org)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 02:25:20 JST Else, Someone

     in reply to

     @civodul I think (or hope) authoritarianism in communities and organizations is just a teenage sickness, manifested by people's irrational desire for the community as a "virtual entity" or a "thing in itself" to "exist", to be "constituted", and for its members to "align" and "share values", to be homogeneous, all of which requires setting up "standards" and "filters", and institutionalizing "rules"

   • Embed this notice
     Rocketman (slothrop@chaos.social)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 02:31:09 JST Rocketman

     in reply to

     @civodul Oh, for fuck’s same.

     They’re steadfastly refusing to learn anything at all.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 02:37:37 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to

     • Rocketman
     • Janneke
     • Anthk
     @slothrop @nobody @civodul @anthk @janneke
     
     if someone were to push (suggest, recommend, demand, command, whatever) you to do something, and you, based on your own values and principles, decided not to go along with it, would you label yourself authoritarian, for resisting the attempted infiltration?
     翠星石 and Parafestas Nikos 🇵🇸 like this.
   • Embed this notice
     Janneke (janneke@todon.nl)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 02:52:35 JST Janneke

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)
     • Rocketman
     • Anthk

     @lxo @civodul @slothrop @anthk
     https://todon.nl/@janneke/113816277227443381

   • Embed this notice
     Janneke (janneke@todon.nl)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 03:00:18 JST Janneke

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)
     • Rocketman
     • Anthk

     @lxo @civodul @slothrop @anthk then you switch to more "modern/evolved" structures of democratic government auch as #sociocracy, wich was invented over 100 years ago, that fixes many (other) problems with the 2000 year old majority vote implementation of democracy?

   • Embed this notice
     Ludovic Courtès (civodul@toot.aquilenet.fr)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 03:12:06 JST Ludovic Courtès

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)
     • Rocketman
     • Anthk

     @lxo We’re talking about a registered non-profit, not about an individual. That you make such a comparison is baffling to me.

     @anthk @slothrop

   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 04:11:06 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     @civodul Seeing the damage you personally have caused, there is clear precedent for this.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 05:22:08 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to

     • Rocketman
     • jannekeⓋ?
     • Alfred M. Szmidt
     • Anthk
     @amszmidt @civodul @janneke @slothrop @nobody @anthk
     
     baffling because you see your contradiction that my question leads to, or because you don't really get it?
     
     there's nothing authoritarian about a person, an organization, or any group really wishing to remain loyal to their values and principles.
     
     it doesn't matter how much third parties ask or demand or scream or make things up to push the person/org/group to do otherwise.
     
     you don't have a say on what I am going to have for lunch, and if you did, you'd be the authoritarian, not me, for striving to retain my autonomy.
     
     your argument is entirely fallacious.
     
     just like you can choose whom to listen to and trust WRT decisions pertaining to yourself, so can any person, organization and group. that's not authoritarian, that's autonomy and self-direction.
     
     when someone cannot respect that, and tries to force others to do as they bid, that's authoritarian. it's the opposite of accepting that others can and will stick to their own values and principles if they wish, without being swayed by outsider's opinions when they conflict with those values and principles.
     翠星石 and Sajith like this.
   • Embed this notice
     Stefano Zacchiroli (zacchiro@mastodon.xyz)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 05:48:32 JST Stefano Zacchiroli

     in reply to

     @civodul they're also conflating two unrelated issues in that (super weird) "announcement": (1) the fact that supporter-elected boards are more prone to hostile takeovers than self-perpetuating boards (which is true as a general proposition), and (2) the FSF baroque voting/board members split, which does not protect against anything at all and is currently helping rms to stay in power. Total non sequitur.

     Alfred M. Szmidt repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Ludovic Courtès (civodul@toot.aquilenet.fr)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 05:52:55 JST Ludovic Courtès

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)
     • Rocketman
     • jannekeⓋ?
     • Alfred M. Szmidt
     • Anthk

     @lxo All I’m saying is that an org cannot claim to represent a movement while at the same time explaining that it’ll remain forever a club of a dozen pals.

     @anthk @amszmidt @janneke @slothrop

     Mike Gerwitz likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 05:58:35 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to

     • Stefano Zacchiroli
     (2) is noise, it makes no difference to (1); it's there to meet a legal requirement, that's all. IIUC, IANAL.
     
     if it was just a self-perpetuating board, do you think that would make any difference about your perception of rms's remaining in the board? way to make a tempest in a teapot!
     翠星石 and Alfred M. Szmidt like this.
   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 06:09:53 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)
     • Rocketman
     • jannekeⓋ?

     @civodul

     The FSF has always been a organization that includes anyone and everyone that wants to join and shares the goals of software freedom. Even people like yourself who have caused immeasurable harm by doxing, and bullying others.

     No single individual, or organization solely represents the software freedom movement, we all have our own personal goals and interests.

     @lxo
     @slothrop @janneke @anthk@paquita.masto.host

   • Embed this notice
     dave (dthompson@toot.cat)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 06:35:26 JST dave

     in reply to

     • Alfred M. Szmidt

     @amszmidt @civodul hey just wondering if you know how much of an asshole you sound like right now or if this the first you're hearing about it

   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 06:42:32 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     • dave

     @dthompson Rather sound like an asshole than be one.
     @civodul doxxed hundreds of people, made them change their addresses, to the point of deadname them .. and you're coming in hot .. maybe get some history before you say something?

   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 07:24:28 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     • Stefano Zacchiroli

     @zacchiro So you're arguing that the way the organization is structured is more important than its goals?

     You claim (with quite much fluff ..) that how the structure of the FSF doesn't "protect against anything at all" .. for an organization that has been under constant attack by adversaries and allies for 40 years ... seems to have worked out quite well .. this sounds more like a personal vendetta than anything else...

     @civodul

   • Embed this notice
     Vagrant Cascadian (vagrantc@floss.social)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 09:08:45 JST Vagrant Cascadian

     in reply to

     @civodul

     The Founder Syndrome Foundation requires authoritarianism, not sure that a hypothetical organization dedicated to, say, Free Software, would.

   • Embed this notice
     Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@pleroma.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 17:00:20 JST Mike Gerwitz

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)
     • Rocketman
     • jannekeⓋ?
     • Alfred M. Szmidt
     • Anthk
     @civodul @lxo @anthk @amszmidt @janneke @slothrop The phrasing of this message caught my eye.
     
     I think the FSF's strategy is one legitimate way to attempt to preserve its integrity and values, though certainly not the only way. But that strategy also comes with an unavoidable consequence: you lose the ability to say you represent anything more than the majority-consensus values of your voting members.
     
     A movement is a fluid thing; you can seed it, you can grow it, but you cannot control it unless a vast enough majority of individuals in the movement recognize you as the leader. Without unanimous leadership, [suggested] claims over an entire moment only divide it further.
   • Embed this notice
     Stefano Zacchiroli (zacchiro@mastodon.xyz)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 17:10:27 JST Stefano Zacchiroli

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     @lxo if anything, the tempest comes straight from the FSF here, making a weird, full-blown "announcement" just to say « we will keep voting members »

   • Embed this notice
     Anthk (anthk@paquita.masto.host)'s status on Monday, 13-Jan-2025 19:52:37 JST Anthk

     in reply to

     • Alfred M. Szmidt

     @amszmidt @civodul

     And let's not talk about this:

     https://dthompson.us/posts/installing-guix-on-a-10th-gen-thinkpad-x1.html

     Then there's the Guile maintainer coup against the FSF with,
     ahem, some another Guile user.

     If I were an FSF user I'd never use a GH account. That's my stance.
     I'm tired of the doublespeak from open source bootlickers against
     the free software, among the NonGuix support under the table.

   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 14-Jan-2025 06:37:34 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)
     • Stefano Zacchiroli

     @zacchiro First y'all complain that transparency is needed .. when there is transparency, y'all complain that it is too much. Which is it?

     I'm happy that the FSF posted this, it shows that they wish to keep their mission of working for software freedom, and not willy wally with other unrelated things.

     @lxo

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Tuesday, 14-Jan-2025 12:46:40 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to

     • Stefano Zacchiroli
     I'm surprised that the main point you seem to get from the article is something it doesn't even state. it looks like you're not trying really hard to understand what it says about resisting infiltration attempts and maintaining integrity in the face of frequent attacks from various kinds of opponents.
     
     your frustration seems to suggest that you want the organization to be vulnerable to this sort of attacks, and that we're to blame for not opening our flanks to opponents. how would that even make sense?
     翠星石 likes this.