Really feeling lately like people (especially Red Hat, Canonical etc.) use the term "community" the way that the Regional Manager at Papa John's uses the word "family", and that both are red flags about how you're about to be treated by someone who considers you a captive audience and extraction-ready labor resource.
I like the way @ireneista defines community (https://adhd.irenes.space/@ireneista/statuses/01M6YE9SP2BYVT463H4JR4BQPH), and I think what people are really looking for in broader movements are *coalitions.*
A coalition is a group-of-groups. They're allowed to be unlikely bedfellows who wouldn't agree on most topics. The most dramatic example I know was when the Black Panthers and the KKK found something they could agree on (second-amendment rights) and put aside some differences to push for their shared goals. It didn't mean those groups got along in general.
1/2
I think - hear me out - that it makes sense for a coalition to exist in favor of software freedom. There would be many groups with more specific values, who could find common ground on there, and be able to work towards common goals *without* leaving their values at the door. I think in such a coalition, it's likely that the current movement toward socially responsible software would be highly influential, and GNU would be there, but the weird kid in the corner.
What we have right now is a situation where GNU is trying to declare itself the organizational figurehead of the free software coalition, recasting it in terms of community to impose an illusory amount of values cohesion (and importantly, move some values out of scope, like aversion to slavery), and maintain this "community's" legal dependency on GNU/FSF resources. And we've seen how well it goes with them "in charge."
Gross. Not a fan of that. But at least we can learn some lessons from the grossness.
2/2