I disagree with the assumption that an organization is simply the sum of the individual members.
so do i. that would be like saying that a person is simply the sum the cells of their body. the organisation of those cells is something that develops in a pattern that is just as substantial as the pattern of each individual cell.
if a leg develops gangrene, removing the leg could save the rest of the body. leaving it alone could doom the entire thing. no doctor worth his degree would deny either of these facts-- but if the leg can be saved too, thats even better. if it cant, it is a threat.
most organisations are hierarchical. stallman is the head of the fsf. whether there are other ways to arrange an organisation or not, this is true of the fsf in particular, and this is a structure where the organisation is designed to hopefully survive a transplant of each part-- though for it to retain a consistent identity, something has to remain the same (the mission? the dna?)
such transplants still count as trauma and are costly, and can affect the overall health of the organisation. they arent to be taken lightly.
Criticism should be pointed towards the organization itself, not a specific member, even if it is autocratic, dictatorial, military in form.
i really think it depends. if members pay for membership, they do so with the knowledge that their influence is limited (i never disputed this) though they are also capable of saying if they find this sufficient (i was not satisfied) and i question why one "should not" direct their critique at the source of the problem.
if the problem is the head of an organisation, why would the critique be at the organisation itself?
obviously, you can say "well now organisation, its your fault for allowing this to persist" but again-- i think it really depends on the organisation and the situation.
and without explanation, the rule of whom to address seems arbitrary.
Once criticism is directed towards the organization it is an internal issue whether it is the fault of leadership, of its internal processes, the internal influences, but it is an organization problem to respond to criticism.
i cant think of any rule or reason this should necessarily be either.
Furthermore I believe it is an illusion to believe that an organization will substantially change because the faces representing it will change.
i think this also depends on the organisation. the director sometimes has a very substantial influence on the direction that the organisation takes. stallman is the founder of the fsf-- its architect. i happen to believe that the ball is in his court on this matter in particular, and either way-- stallman is a person quite capable of commenting on this either as the president of the fsf or as an individual.
there is no reason not to take this matter all the way to the top, as it were.
It is a fallacy that people especially in the west have fallen and it is the same fallacy that the powerful use to portray a good image of good changes to come.
i think this is an overgeneralistion that suggests somewhere in asia (or eastern europe) that things are not generally based on hierarchies or that heads of organisations are arbitrary-- i dont personally believe thats so anywhere in the world, but other than that i think this is just ad hom. my argument doesnt change if i dont make it from "the west."
If the organization has fallen short of its goals, or has violated and stepped all over its own principles, that is the object of criticism. Whose fault that may be, if any, is their own internal problem to address.
again, this is stated as a matter of fact, but i cant think of a single reason why it would be.
At the end of 2018 things have not really changed, but if an organization has remained static on its previous glory and laurels its enemies have evolved to be much more aggressive and effective.
here i agree.
The organization is just the collective vehicle to achieve goals. Once it has been proven that there is no advancement towards the goals it should be terminated and replaced.
to fit with the gangrene metaphor-- this is like saying "if a man has gangrene in his leg, dont bother amputating-- just shoot him."
i think thats wasteful and unnecessary. what makes the fsf disposable? i dont think we are better off without the organisation.
nor do i think we are better off without stallman. it is a fairly indisputable fact that if the fsf is around for long enough, he will have to be replaced someday. im not sure "now" is the right time, but i argue that it could be if something this important has gone untreated in nearly half a decade. thats what this is about-- i dont think the fsf is useless, but it could use some improvement.
Unfortunately the longer an organization lasts the higher the internal priority to maintain the organization is formalized and the achievement of goals becomes secondary.
on this point i believe we agree. this pattern is easy to spot in the world of 501c3 organisations like the fsf, and it rewards the cynic with justification-- at times i am cynical, and even when im not i dont deny that this pattern is unfortunate and also real.
but, whether simply scrapping the entire organisation and starting over is a huge waste of time and resources is still up for debate, as far as im concerned. i think that would be overkill.
in fact i would compare it to the person who has installed too many pieces of bad software on a computer and-- isntead of taking the time to clean up the machine and its filesystem, they simply throw it away and get another computer.
even if the resources are there-- it is wasteful and inefficient and overkill. by all means-- do what is necessary, but do not do a thousand times what is necessary and name this "efficiency."
not that you have, though it is part of my point.
A change in captain will not make the schooner more capable. A carbon fiber trimaran with kevlar sails is needed.
now lets try another metaphor-- where two armies fighting each other have the necessary equipment (that isnt what it think the fsf lacks) and they need a better strategy.
i would bring in a different general, if the one in command is lacking. you would (according to what i am reading, unless i misunderstood) dismantle the troops, send them home, start a new army, and then get all new equipment.
i think the problem here is very possibly the general-- and the general alone-- and thats why i call for making that particular change.
i dont take issue with the army, i think the troops are flagging, but i believe that whats needed here is a change in strategy, not equipment.
im not a military expert in any kind of sense. but generals are associated with strategy at some level, thats the best metaphor for stallman i can come with thats relevant-- and changing from a general who is failing to one who is capable of better strategy isnt some ridiculous western idea-- sun tzu would surely take my side of the argument.
not that i was planning on appealing to military metaphors or ancient chinese philosophers, but if you tell me that changing the person in charge of strategy is useless, and imply that what the fsf really needs is better equipment and i dont understand "because western societal influence."
well...
"victory usually goes to the army who has better trained officers and men."
- sun tzu
no mention of kevlar sails at all. i dont deny that better equipment could benefit the fsf in some way-- but it has basically nothing to do with the problem that i take issue with at this time.
this is about the fsfs strategy, their ability to rank and recognise strategic threats, and the person who is in charge of that.
as for scrapping the organisation-- the troops are already put together and equipped, what they lack (i believe) is an effective plan. we can redo the parts that are already sufficient. but i suggest a solution that cures a specific ill, not one that writes off the patient altogether.
and if "no man left behind" is a western cultural influence, then hey! thats one point for western culture. im not suggesting we leave stallman by the side of the road and move on-- as i said, it is a pretty indisputable fact that he will not remain forever capable of directing the fsf.
i have argued that perhaps he was not capable for the past 4 years. the position remains his, the decision remains his, i only question whether him choosing to stay now is the best possible course of action for the fsf.
i dont know what countries dont give people the option to speculate on such choices-- but that is how politics work in very many places that are not like china.