Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix

FSF Adopts New Governance Measures: a Board Member Agreement and Code of Ethics (fsf.org) 72

The Free Software Foundation's board "has approved and implemented two new measures designed to help make FSF governance more transparent, accountable, ethical, and responsible," according to an FSF announcement.

First a Board Member Agreement "enumerates the responsibilities of board members." And there's also a Code of Ethics "that lays out principles to guide their decision-making and activities." The new measures are the first products of a six-month, consultant-led review. They formalize crucial aspects of the FSF's governance, and will guide board members to understand and embrace their responsibilities to the nonprofit's worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom.

The new Board Member Agreement spells out nineteen duties and responsibilities, including minimum expectations for organizational and financial oversight, participation in board activities, the recruitment of associate members, and annual performance reviews. The Code of Ethics details thirteen specific provisions establishing how the board of directors will conduct the business affairs of the organization in good faith and with honesty, integrity, due diligence, and competence.

All current board members have signed and committed to upholding the new governance standards.

The agreement clarifies that Board members "do not have individual direct authority over FSF staff. Individual board members will not try to give staff instructions about what to do in their FSF work, nor try to pressure them about what to do." Board members also agree not to participate in discussions and votes where they might have a conflict of interest.

"In signing this document, I understand that no quotas are being set, that no rigid standards of measurement or achievement are being formed. I have confidence that other board members will operate in good faith to carry out these agreements to the best of their ability."

"The FSF has always been a steady beacon for freedom and against the widespread mistreatment of computer users," says FSF president Geoffrey Knauth in the announcement. "In the last year, the board realized that we faced a challenge and opportunity to improve our governance practices and recruit new leaders to the FSF board. I'm proud of this important step in that ongoing work."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FSF Adopts New Governance Measures: a Board Member Agreement and Code of Ethics

Comments Filter:
  • by groobly ( 6155920 ) on Saturday December 18, 2021 @11:00AM (#62094093)

    "steady beacon for freedom," but not for RMS, or for you, if we don't like you.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      In his case he was the one limiting other people's freedom, which was ironic considering how much he has done for software freedom.

      I wish it could just be resolved, but Stalman sticks to his position. Sometimes that's a very good thing, other times not.

      • by nagora ( 177841 )

        In his case he was the one limiting other people's freedom,

        In what way? There was so much ballcocks said about RMS in the last year that it's hard to know if you're referring to something that really happened or something someone made up.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Stuff like the pleasure cards and his general behaviour around his students.

          • Stuff like the pleasure cards and his general behaviour around his students.

            You personally are (I think) trying to push for someone to be removed from their position in the organisation they founded. That might be justified. But surely you can support it better than "stuff like". What are your top three specific complaints?

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              It's a well documented pattern of behaviour that others have reported finding creepy, and with good reason. The pleasure cards are only an example.

              I won't bother repeating the details here, there are plenty of sources if you are really interested. His Wikipedia page is a good place to start.

              If he just acknowledged the problem and apologised, with a genuine conviction to change his ways, he could restore much of his reputation and continue in his roles. It's such a damn shame that he persists like this, beca

              • Interesting. I take you to be, publicly at least, on the opposite side to the Qanon supporters but you follow the same playbook of 'do your own research' rather than being willing to actually stand behind concrete claims yourself.

                I hope you never have to experience this sort of campaign being directed against you.

                • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  Nah, I just realized that all I'll do is waste my own time gathering links that you won't read, and get mobbed. If you were remotely interested in the facts you would have already looked them up.

          • by nagora ( 177841 )

            Stuff like the pleasure cards and his general behaviour around his students.

            If you find this:

            http://korea.gnu.org/image/rms... [gnu.org]

            so offensive that he should be sacked then I can only assume you never leave the house.

            I know, I know. You just don't like the guy and it's some sort of personal crusade. But that's still pretty weak material.

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Offering someone you met in a professional or academic context "tender embraces" is not appropriate.

      • by uufnord ( 999299 ) on Saturday December 18, 2021 @12:21PM (#62094343)
        Stallman was not "limiting other people's feedom". What kind of tripe is this? Some terrorist on some crappy social media network threatened to burn down MIT if he or she didn't get what he or she wanted, and that person appeared to want to harm RMS. Don't try to rewrite history, we can read those posts again. I'm sure they're archived somewhere.

        I found a link. The terrorist in question is named "Selam G". The link is here: https://selamjie.medium.com/re... [medium.com]

        burn it to the ground

        This position against RMS is indefensible. But, sure, go on thinking that it was Stallman attacking other people. You live in a fantasy world.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Just because you don't agree with that person (and nice one calling them a terrorist, clearly you are thinking about this rationally and calmly), that doesn't make Stallman right. They can both be in the wrong.

          When someone goes to a professional conference to further their career, they probably don't want to get hit on by RMS. It's certainly inappropriate to proposition them in that setting. If they are discouraged from going, that's bad. That's limiting.

          Don't give me any of that macho shit about "it's just

          • by uufnord ( 999299 )

            Thanks for understanding that I'm the one here being rational and calm. I really do appreciate that because I know it's not sarcasm. Of course, people who threaten to blow up buildings aren't _all_ terrorists. Or something like that. I really don't know what your argument is here, because supporting that kind of crap is unconscionable.

            Your literal words were "limiting other people's freedom". Nothing about about getting propositioned at a conference. Nothing about macho shit. The only limitation on people

    • "steady beacon for freedom," but not for RMS, or for you, if we don't like you.

      In what way? Richard Stallman is still on the Board of Directors of the FSF despite attempts by people outside the FSF to pressure for his removal. The FSF making clear statements of their governing principles and ethical stances is entirely resonable in itself. Is there some specific part of ths agreement or code that you find objectionable or feel treats rms unfairly?

  • by Jamu ( 852752 )
    When the last F in FSF is more important than the FS, then F the F.
  • Maybe, just maybe (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 )
    its in an organizations best interests to be represented by people who DONT instantly spew their innermost thoughts about any topic that enters their consciousness. Oh, wait, I’m sorry, I forgot what century we’re in. We elected a president that mocks disabled people, calls immigrants rapists but also “grabs women by the pussy”, and labels his political opponents as enemies of the state.

    Carry on, FSF, Stallman’s comments about rape and child sex are benign compared to wher
    • Please enlighten us what "hummdingers" Stallman posted -- whatever a "hummdinger" is.
      • Yeah, the term is old-timey. I’m old. Get off my lawn. With regards to Stallman’s comments, look em up yourself. Twiddling over the nuances of the definition of “rape” and having to roll back previous comments about how great underage sex isyeah, that’s just fine in some circles. Not so fine in others. Most organizations would consider that a boat anchor that would seriously distract from the mission. But, again, we live in different times now.
        • by nagora ( 177841 ) on Saturday December 18, 2021 @12:22PM (#62094347)

          Yeah, the term is old-timey. I’m old. Get off my lawn. With regards to Stallman’s comments, look em up yourself. Twiddling over the nuances of the definition of “rape”.

          I guess you mean the bit where he said that if someone doesn't know the other person is being coerced by a third party then that someone isn't morally guilty of rape. I'm curious (a bit) as to what you see as the flaw is in that argument. Is everyone supposed to be psychic?

          and having to roll back previous comments about how great underage sex isyeah, that’s just fine in some circles.

          I'm not sure what this is a reference to but it is true that RMS has pondered the logic of having the same act performed by the same people classed as under-age sex in one place and not in another possibly very nearby place. I mean, that's sort of life - different jurisdictions have different rules - but it does undermine the idea that the "underage" part of "underage sex" is an objective thing clearly visible and understood by all right-minded people. On the other hand, since the act probably never happened it's all a bit moot and certainly not something worth, for example, sacking someone for talking about it.

          • if someone doesn't know the other person is being coerced by a third party then that someone isn't morally guilty of rape

            The funny thing that this argument, however true, wasn't even necessary. All that was needed was to point out that this situation presented by some defamators in the media couldn't even have happened as claimed. If it didn't happen in the first place, it's irrelevant whether Minsky would have been guilty of anything had it happened.

          • You dont get it. You just dont get it. Thats all fine for a personal musing in the privacy of your own home, with your best friend that you trust, and no recordings and no trace. Its very different to spout off about rape and child sex in public.

            If you fail to see the difference, Im gonna assume that youve never held public office or been in a highly visible job. Although, again, with the president we elected in 2016, maybe standards have collapsed and this sort of public blather is fine from our leade
            • What you're describing seems an awful lot like hypocrisy to me. If an opinion you have is something you believe you should not tell people, then it's almost certainly not something you should think even in private. And if you believe that an opinion you have is "all fine", then pretending not having it is dishonesty. Maybe if you're a dissident under a dictatorial regime that would throw you into prison for speaking out could justify something like that, but I imagine that most people here aren't anywhere n
            • Eh, Clinton, Bush and Trump all did far worse things than RMS has ever been accused of.

            • by nagora ( 177841 )

              You dont get it. You just dont get it. Thats all fine for a personal musing in the privacy of your own home, with your best friend that you trust, and no recordings and no trace. Its very different to spout off about rape and child sex in public.

              If you fail to see the difference, Im gonna assume that youve never held public office or been in a highly visible job.

              I was thinking about this last night - how do you think these laws get enacted without people debating their meanings in public? The fact that the rule for child sex is different in one place from another shows that there is disagreement about it - do you think the disagreement is caused by everyone being too shy to talk about it so they rolled some dice or something?

              As to the rape thing, he was specifically addressing an allegation - made in public - against someone he knew. You seem to be saying that it's

        • Are you referring to the fact that Stallman had some wrong opinions and changed them when confronted with the science refuting his opinions? I wish more people were capable of what he did.
          • Stallman, who in 2006 wrote, "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children," also wrote in September 2019 that he had changed his mind about sex between adults and children.

            It took him 13 years to figure out having sex with children might be frowned upon? Wrong opinion is quite an understatement. How can anyone possibly defend that?

            • Defend what? Do you think he dedicated years of continuous thinking to that problem alone? Hell, I imagine that most people don't even bother to think about corner cases at all in the first place , since we're all engrossed in our own lives. I would be surprised if that "took him 13 years" claim were even remotely true.
          • You just dont get it. Its a question of leadership. Im gonna assume youre some sort of scientist, so let me try to put it in language that you might comprehend: human beings are NOT STATE FUNCTIONS. You cannot just return to a previous variable state and expect the function to return to it’s initial value. Human beings are extremely path-dependent. Large groups of humans even more so. This is why you cant just “roll back” a public comment about rape and child sex. In other words is extrem
            • Were people like Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kant etc. "leaders"? No. Is Stallman "a leader"? He's never been. His job is to come with ideas, so I don't see what your political diatribe has to do with this. If fact I would consider it criminal if he didn't publish his thoughts. Leave leadership hypocrisy to hypocrite leaders, such as politicians and CEO.
              • There are different types of leaders. People like Kant and Nietzsche belong in universities, where they can publish their thinking for others to read. Because their thinking is decades or centuries beyond their time. I would agree that Stallman is in that category. Meaning that he belongs IN A UNIVERSITY.

                Civil or organization leadership is a very different beast. A board-of-director position means that a person is the public face of an organization, or foundation, or some other sort of institution. The
      • Stallman, who in 2006 wrote, "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children," also wrote in September 2019 that he had changed his mind about sex between adults and children.

        That and saying the 17 year old Epstein girl that Minksy was fucking (courtesy of Epstein) was a willing participant. Most places call that statutory rape.

        • Re:Maybe, just maybe (Score:4, Informative)

          by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Saturday December 18, 2021 @02:38PM (#62094787)
          Minsky didn't have sex with a 17 year old girl. Hell, according to all evidence we have, he didn't even have sex with 19-year-old Giuffre despite Epstein's pressure on Giuffre since he refused her offer according to a witness and anyway he spent all time near her with his wife who did not corroborate any such sexual encounter either. Oh, and Stallman didn't even claim that Giuffre would have *been* a willing participant in that situation, as opposed to Epstein telling her to pretend that she was. Triple defamation on your part. Are you *sure* you're not a journalist?
  • I'm only aware of the FSF/RMS controversy via Slashdot and don't have a dog in that fight. But I found this quote from TFS to be interesting.

    "... that no rigid standards of measurement or achievement are being formed."

    That's a pretty cushy position to take . Minimally are we still allowed to say that people should show up to work at a certain time/place. Complete their assigned duties satisfactorily. Behave towards their co-workers in a respectful and polite manner. If they are unwilling or unable to p

  • Code of Ethics summarization:

    "The Free Software Foundation is a nonprofit with a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom . Me"mbers of the board of directors must strive to speak and act with the mission and effectiveness of the organization in mind . Board members will not engage in or facilitate any discriminatory or harassing behavior directed toward staff, members, officers, directors, suppliers, contractors, or others .

    As a member of the FSF's board of directors, I affirm my endorsem

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...