Libreboot is not GNU Libreboot anymore
lists.gnu.org
lists.gnu.org
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.
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.
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.
And I don't know about you, but if events actually went down as described, I'd want to know.
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.
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.
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.
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreboot/2016-09/msg0003... https://notabug.org/vimuser/libreboot/commit/b204a20ba798301...
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.
[1]: https://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-statement
"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"
> 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.
Having said that, there are still many layers of information that needs to be provided to get a clear picture.
I understand the rage, but "live by the sword, die by the sword"
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.
Where did you get that from?
Perhaps there is more to this story than we know so far, but as it stands I can understand Leah's reaction.
I understand the sentiment, but this sentence alone has the potential to devalue everything the author has to say.
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.
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.
Your comment really seems to be an attempt to turn that presumption and balance on its head.
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.
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.
"[...] 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."
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreboot/2016-09/msg0003...
Funny how one can only see the hate on one side.
Other than that, really childish and pathetic post. Fork and forget this huge ego.
Signature: > Use a free operating system, GNU/Linux. > Support freedom. Join the Free Software Foundation.
lel
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.
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.
I would say "Extremism does not deserve to exist.", but then I would be extremist.
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.
What does that mean?
Wow, those commit messages and changes in them are really crap ;/ Does this project have any code/merge review process?
But seriously, even the fragments of an argument presented on the original message do not support that response. I hope they sort it out.
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.
There's no escape.
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)
Also FSF <> GNU.
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.
Is there some back story we don't know about? Because all I can see is an accusation that someone was fired for being trans.