Re: Support RMS

[Jean Louis]

* Danny Spitzberg <stationaery@gmail.com> [2021-03-26 22:18]:
>    A union certainly helped everyone set and keep healthy boundaries. I
>    have no doubt RMS was supportive. Like Paul suggested, a set of
>    community agreements or a code of conduct or a contributor covenant or
>    whatever is generally a good thing.
>    But as for the reason why staff organized the union — you may call it
>    silly, but here is the testimony in their own words:
>    “ I think that many people do not know that the FSF is a union shop, or
>    why.
>    It is union to try to protect people from RMS.
>    That's it. That's the reason.
>    Knowing some of the story about how this came to be, it really informed
>    my own thinking about what a union can do, and can't do.
>    Unionizing provided protections and standard benefits (like berievement
>    leave) for workers at FSF. It could not remove RMS from a position of
>    power.
>    I think the issue for workers at the time was that RMS held unchecked
>    authority. It did not matter that there was a board of FSF: you could
>    not tell RMS what to do.
>    Using the power that the law provides to force negotiations on a
>    written contract was the only option.
>    That is just... Not normal. Right?“

Those issues you mentioned you can take up with RMS or FSF, right?