Statement on Richard M. Stallman and Free Software Foundation

Board Discuss
#1

Dear LibreOffice Community,
Dear Open Source Community,

all of us at The Document Foundation are following the discussion in the global free software community about Richard M. Stallman’s return to the Free Software Foundation (FSF) board of directors.

We do share your concerns, and we do take this situation very seriously.

Our worldwide community is strongly committed to have a safe, welcoming, harmonious and inclusive environment, based on dignity and support. We absolutely do not tolerate harassment of any kind. Working together in trust requires mutual respect and understanding.

These standards are also part of our guiding statutes that we expect all our community members and affiliates to follow.

We have therefore reached out to the FSF’s representative in our advisory board, asking for details and for a statement which confirms their commitment to our core values.

We are all perfectly aware of the consequences also for our project, given that the FSF is a member of our advisory board.

We clearly expect a strong evidence that the FSF found a proper solution to the severe impact their actions have had on the global free software community. We will suspend FSF‘s membership in our advisory board and cease any other activity with this organization and their representatives, until the situation is healed.

Thanks for your support.

Lothar Becker (TDF Board)
Daniel Armando Rodriguez (TDF Board)
Franklin Weng (TDF Board)
Thorsten Behrens (TDF Board)
Emiliano Vavassori (TDF Board)
Paolo Vecchi (TDF Board)

Marina Latini (TDF Membership Committee)
Gabriele Ponzo (TDF Membership Committee)
Ahmad Haris (TDF Membership Committee)
Dennis Roczek (TDF Membership Committee)
Gustavo Buzzatti Pacheco (TDF Membership Committee)
Shinji Enoki (TDF Membership Committee)
Jona Azizaj (TDF Membership Committee)

Florian Effenberger (TDF Team)
Sophie Gautier (TDF Team)
Olivier Hallot (TDF Team)
Italo Vignoli (TDF Team)
Xisco Fauli (TDF Team)
Christian Lohmaier (TDF Team)
Guilhem Moulin (TDF Team)

#2

Hi,

first thanks for the statement!

Dear LibreOffice Community,
Dear Open Source Community,
(...)
We are all perfectly aware of the consequences also for our project,
given that the FSF is a member of our advisory board.

We clearly expect a strong evidence that the FSF found a proper
solution to the severe impact their actions have had on the global
free software community. We will suspend FSF‘s membership in our
advisory board and cease any other activity with this organization and
their representatives, until the situation is healed.

if I understand this sentence correctly, the advisory board membership
has been suspended. If this is correct, the TDF website needs an alignment.

Thanks for your support.

Lothar Becker (TDF Board)
Daniel Armando Rodriguez (TDF Board)
Franklin Weng (TDF Board)
Thorsten Behrens (TDF Board)
Emiliano Vavassori (TDF Board)
Paolo Vecchi (TDF Board)

Marina Latini (TDF Membership Committee)
Gabriele Ponzo (TDF Membership Committee)
Ahmad Haris (TDF Membership Committee)
Dennis Roczek (TDF Membership Committee)
Gustavo Buzzatti Pacheco (TDF Membership Committee)
Shinji Enoki (TDF Membership Committee)
Jona Azizaj (TDF Membership Committee)

Florian Effenberger (TDF Team)
Sophie Gautier (TDF Team)
Olivier Hallot (TDF Team)
Italo Vignoli (TDF Team)
Xisco Fauli (TDF Team)
Christian Lohmaier (TDF Team)
Guilhem Moulin (TDF Team)

I'm missing some members of TDF bodies and the team here. Had they not
reached in time or are there different views on the topic in general or
only the wording?

Regards,
Andreas

#3

Hi Andreas,

I'm missing some members of TDF bodies and the team here.
Had they not reached in time or are there different views
on the topic in general or only the wording?

  I think I mentioned the difficulty and expense in time of getting a
consensus view quickly from a diverse set of people at the outset.

  I'd would say this is a pretty good showing, and while I personally had
reservations about elements of this approach so didn't put my name to it
- it's certainly not safe to conclude that others who are not present
did not support it in part or total too.

  ATB,

    Michael.

#4

Hi Andreas,

I'm missing some members of TDF bodies and the team here. Had they not
reached in time or are there different views on the topic in general or
only the wording?

I would have preferred a different wording. However, thought I indicated
that I would go with the majority vote. But apparently that was not
understood as to put my name there. But compared to this and other
serious things ongoing around us, that's no big deal for me.

HTH,
Cheers,
Cor

#5

Hi Cor, all,

Hi Andreas,

I'm missing some members of TDF bodies and the team here. Had they not
reached in time or are there different views on the topic in general or
only the wording?

I would have preferred a different wording. However, thought I indicated
that I would go with the majority vote. But apparently that was not
understood as to put my name there. But compared to this and other
serious things ongoing around us, that's no big deal for me.

thanks for your answer.

Keep well and fit,
Andreas

#6

Hi Michael,

Hi Andreas,

I'm missing some members of TDF bodies and the team here.
Had they not reached in time or are there different views
on the topic in general or only the wording?

  I think I mentioned the difficulty and expense in time of getting a
consensus view quickly from a diverse set of people at the outset.

I try to envision all members of TDF's bodies and team would have
followed your approach here what would have been the result?

And to what perception of TDF's bodies/team from the community / the
outside would that lead?

And what would be the perception send to organizations reluctant to act
appropriate on such cases?

What about the perception of the people, involved in such cases (on both
'sides')?

  I'd would say this is a pretty good showing, and while I personally had
reservations about elements of this approach so didn't put my name to it
- it's certainly not safe to conclude that others who are not present
did not support it in part or total too.

The question didn't assume that the missing members of bodies and team
didn't support that TDF publish a statement on this and/or take action.

Stay healthy!

Best regards,
Andreas

#7

Hi Andreas

And to what perception of TDF's bodies/team from the community / the
outside would that lead?

I didn't sign either. Imho it was not appropriate because (besides I'm not a member of any of TDFs bodies) this is not a statement of single persons but a statement of the TDF as an own body. This has to be decided by (a majority of) the BoD only. So Lothars signature, based on a decision of the BoD would have been absolutely enough - all further "good will"-signatures are rather distracting an lead in the end to some kind of strange discussions as we can see here. Case of "contradiction of well done is well-meant".
So - again imho - there are not too less but too many signatures under this document.

But feel free to organize a collection of signatures in this case in parallel. Seeing forward to read the document anyone who has concerns with this case may sign (and I'm sure there will be many).

#8

from the statutes this is correct.

But sometimes there are good reasons in special topics to express your
personal support for a message and an action.

This seemed to be the case here.

Regards,
Andreas

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.