[former fosshost member] We did not (as far as I'm aware) have a treasurer, but did have a volunteer as the CFO. After appointing them, the CEO never fully gave them access to finances and after many requests, eventually just started taking away financial access from everyone else too.
I'm a former FC employee who was around when the acquisition went down. It was definitely a drama at the time. One could possibly even say a debacle. But to be fair to Joel, he had long moved on from the company and was focused on Stack Overflow. The new (at the time) CEO of the company is a merciless, self-absorbed jerk who couldn't care less about the product, its customers, or the employees who got sold along with the product.
Actually, we just started a paid plan with them. We had been considering the move to GitHub, but wanted to see how this scenario played out before doing so. The issues Julie-Ann faced are important to me personally and to my company, and we couldn't support an organization that allowed such behavior to remain unchecked.
I was impressed by GitHub's response in this case. A founder being forced out* of the company s/he founded, especially one as white hot as GitHub, is not a decision made lightly. It signaled to me that the issue had been taken seriously, albeit too late. But I am comfortable supporting them going forward.
*That Mr. Preston-Warner was forced out is my own between-the-lines reading of his resignation once he lost support of the board.
The CEO of one of the companies I worked for hired without any consultation with technical folks. The company barely exists, and he is no longer the CEO.
I believe the person quit the organization, wasn't pushed out.
At one point in time there was problems with the storage space that VCF has. I believe it was fixed. VCF is not a wealthy organization, and is hosted by another underfunded organization. Needs capital to renovate for expansion but it's slow going.
>When Redhat and others pulled funding, the board was clear they weren't interested in prudent governance of the organization, but solely about petulantly supporting their geek deity. His refusal to step down, and the board's refusal to remove him, irreparably harmed their reputation and finances.
Alternatively, they decided they weren't going to be strong-armed into doing something that they saw no need to do.
No vesting schedules, so that makes it all the more hairy from a founder leaving stand-point. At the time we started working with him he was a responsible individual who knew what he was doing. It is only recently that these issues have popped up.
My guess would be that the founders were not happy with him abandoning the company's non-profit/open source ideals and selling out to Microsoft. Wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft is where he ends up.
pretty much—according to wikipedia, he resigned, though apparently moz actually tried to keep him around (just not as CEO, his appointment as which flagged the donations initially)
It wasn't true. The founders didn't quit because of it, they quit because of the same reason founders always quit when they get bought by big companies.
Presumably by "one of the sysadmins" you mean me, because I ended up (somewhat badly) handling most of the PR for this debacle (I'm the Russ Garrett referenced in both of those TechCrunch posts), but I don't remember deleting any of my posts.
It didn't happen. I would have known if it had happened. I would have had to pass the data, and it didn't happen.
> Because of the forseeable adverse impact on other people to whom thet are responsible?
Some people don't want to have anything to do with an FSF in which Stallman is still involved. Other people don't want to have anything to do with an FSF in which Stallman is definitely excluded. Whatever they do is going to have an adverse impact, so they have to make a judgement call.
> The at least one FSF board member who departed, and the FSF’s management who likewise resigned over the issue, OTOH, are in at least an equally good position to the Board members who supported the move.
I don't know if we should interpret their resignation as a judgement that Stallman can't change (or isn't interested in changing), or as an expression of the view that other factors are more important in deciding whether he should be on the board than that one.
It's somewhat incredible this guy went through six articles but couldn't find the actual resignation, which is very short and settles the question very clearly. How do we explain this?
To the FSF board,
I hereby resign as president of the Free Software Foundation and from its board of directors. I am doing this due to pressure on the Foundation and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of what I have said.
Richard Stallman
edit. Downvoters: You never belonged here. You're the reason this place is garbage now. Don't you dare follow me to the next place. You stay on HN now. When the time comes even you can recognize only utter ruins, I'm not letting you in. You deserve what you make.
Microsoft has a new CEO, and all major execs have been replaced. This is apparently not enough, so I hardly see how the situation of SourceForge is better in this regard.
reply