"There is a perverse movement among women to think that they should carry fetuses with Downs' syndrome to term, rather than abort them and try again. ... Next, people will take thalidomide to demonstrate how they can love babies born without limbs." - RMS
RMS may not have much in terms of money, but he has a lot of influence due to his stature in the libre software movement, and with influence comes responsibility and accountability to those in the movement he started.
Why is his goal the only one that matters? Is he a prophet, or is he just a guy who created a compelling idea? Should the movement continue to be centered on him as a personality? The FSF movement is by definition far bigger than him, and it can reasonably contain other related goals. Perhaps those with other goals can make peace with keeping him around, perhaps they can't.
But I would understand if people that are part of the FSF would not like to associate with him.
Does "support RMS being on the FSF board for life" mean supporting him on everything he says, or even suggest supporting him for this quote?
Irrespective of any moral or ethical concerns, keeping Stallman doesn't seem very pragmatic and forward-looking for an organization that is hurting for young blood anyway.
A leader should be able to recognize when he's driving people away, and act accordingly.
He is the single most consistent arbiter of open source, clinging to views we all here admire; With such a dedication that it is hard to imagine ANYONE, even fictional, who would be better suited for that particular position (head of FSF).
Aleniating people is in and of itself not a problem for a leader, it works the same way in any other area: Would you want to attract people to Black Lives Matter who would be alienated by Martin Luther King? Do you really find it problematic that the buddhists don't try to attract people who can't stand the Dalai Lama?
Is it really a Problem that the FSF didn't attract people who would critizise Stallman ONLY on points which have no bearing on the mission of the FSF?
And the article really makes a great point about how most of that criticism consists of misrepresentation, faulty analysis and double standards. Keeping people like that out of the FSF is not only fine by me, it is absolute paramount to keep it working.
FSF is a _fenomenally_ successful organisation in achieving their mission. Free Software is everywhere, it has spawned endless businessess and has completely changed the way people create software.
Of course not.
I just say that I understand if people would not like no associate with him.
Making a choice because of a random opinion voiced once - which is completely immaterial as RMS himself is not a woman and his opinions about personal decisions of women have absolutely zero importance (which does not preclude him from voicing them, everybody can have an opinion, just some of them are pretty worthless and useless) - is just stupid. It's manually disabling your own intellect, removing all the huge body of useful information you could base your decisions on and concentrate your attention on one immaterial detail. It's like you being offered an awesome job in a great company with huge salary and you quitting on the first day because one person in your office has a pen of a wrong shade on his desk. I can only attribute such decisions to performative virtue signalling, because the alternative would be insanity.
We choose to disassociate open source from anything to do with RMS and FSF.
If open source could only be done by sexual abusers and misogynists it would indeed be sad.
> If open source could only be done by sexual abusers
This is an extremely wrong "if" which nobody actually claimed before you. By implying that your opponents said something like that, you are lying. Do not do that.
> it would indeed be sad.
It would be, but it's not because your initial assumption is false. What is currently sad instead is that you have to resort to falsities to advance your point. Or maybe not - maybe it's just a sign you have nothing better in your quiver.
This is the cherry on the top: "Next, people will take thalidomide to demonstrate how they can love babies born without limbs."
I'm sure all the victims of thalidomide with be pleased at this mockery.
FSF doesn't need a chode like RMS.