> The fact that people are still contributing with RMS at the forefront of the FSF indicates that they at least are fine with the way things currently are. Some people do. Some do not. twitter.com/sarahmei/status/99401050146… In Github's 2017 survey, 50% of the 5,500 respondents claimed they had witnessed toxic interactions while working on open-source projects, and that 18% of them had suffered through a negative interaction. Also, 95% of contributors were men and 3% were women. Are you sure people are still contributing or is it just men who do with very, very few women who is willing to put up with this? php.net/credits.php here, count the women. Or rather the woman! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictat… not. a. single. woman. Not all of this is on Stallman but as he is the figurehead of an entire movement, certainly at least some of it is.

The original email thread is not an isolated incident. medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stal…... Edit: additional stuff stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html…... mobile.twitter.com/aprilaser/status/117…... twitter.com/0xabad1dea/status/117254516… twitter.com/sarahmei/status/99401050146… twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/99426… mobile.twitter.com/quince/status/117229…

LIKE LOOK AT THIS twitter.com/sarahmei/status/99401050146…... please lets stop giving a platform to this fake mentally ill people that are at best cointelpro like figures made to destroy free software

Sarah Mei and Richard Stallman appear to be attached to MIT, making them "colleagues". Morals are rules we inherit from our parents and our society. These rules are not shared by everyone since we are all brought up by different parents and differing society influences. Sarah appears to disagree with Richard on moral grounds. This is perfectly reasonable. It is also reasonable to quote public statements by Richard to highlight and debate why she feels that her moral rules are superior to Richard's. Every academic and every public figure can expect debate. I take no sides in this debate. Sarah and Richard are starting from different moral rules and reaching different conclusions. Richard defended his friend and Sarah objects to his defense. Sarah admits to never having met Richard, even though they seem to be "colleagues" at the same university. However, Sarah publicly attacks Richard PERSONALY, an Ad Hominem attack. While it is reasonable to attack a colleagues' opinion, it is a unprofessional conduct to attack the person in public, especially without prior discussion. Her unprofessional behavior has caused a public scandal for MIT. The ad hominem attack on her twitter feed twitter.com/sarahmei/status/99401050146…... has become so vitrolic that we find this quote: "I am increasingly convinced we just shouldn't allow men in software at all" -- Tamzin Blake If I had created such a public storm at any job I held based on such a personal attack on a colleague, I'd be fired. The obvious remedy for this unprofessional behavior is for MIT HR to fire Sarah. This isn't a question about "who is right?", it is a question of professional behavior.

> stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html….... Obsolete, already been updated in other comments: stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html…... > twitter.com/0xabad1dea/status/117254516… self proclaimed SJW reposting the original medium article misrepresenting RMS words and adding nothing. > twitter.com/sarahmei/status/99401050146… Someone who make unsourced claims of having refused to contribute to anything with an open license because of RMS poor taste jokes on mailing list. I wonder if this kind of openmindedness is good to prove a point on how RMS is bad, maybe someone who does not want to contribute to software improving the world but unrelated to RMS on the sole basis that the licensing allows other freedom is not a good basis to support RMS having to be removed. > twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/99426… A reply to the previous tweet from someone who was told an unsourced myth about plants in an office and making up a story about it. She said she's been shown one office with a lot of plants, told that there are many other such offices, that the reason for the plants is to ward off RMS. This piece of lore has been removed from wikipedia for lack of source[1] >mobile.twitter.com/quince/status/117229… also citing the same original medium publication misrepresenting RMS words and calling for his removal on this basis, admitting she actually never met RMS but tells how the same piece of myth was transmitted to her in form of a joke and despite not knowing tries to provide context for trying to ward off RMS: interacting with him is awkward and make them uneasy. I sincerely doubt that RMS being socially awkward is news or supporting the call for his removal in any way. [1]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Stal…...

twitter.com/corbett/status/994012399656… twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/99426… twitter.com/sarahmei/status/99401050146… twitter.com/wiredferret/status/11730428… medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-sta…...