No -- the reason that RMS cannot lead effectively is that he has repeatedly chosen not to. He has chosen to foster an environment that is hostile to women and that is full of abrasive, unprofessional behavior in technical areas. He has stopped contributing technical work, and his attempts at coordination and management are often counterproductive.
The fact that he also commits distracting unforced errors in totally unrelated areas is just another symptom of his personality, which is poorly aligned to leade
The fact that he also commits distracting unforced errors in totally unrelated areas is just another symptom of his personality, which is poorly aligned to leadership of the FSF or in the free software community.
It's not an unrelated area because he made it relevant. When you are an officer of an organization you are always speaking as an officer of that organization whether that is your intent or not. When you're the public face of something, you are always that face. You retain the right to free speech but The Public is not going to keep you separate from your position in their minds. And the organization has to take that into consideration.
There is no such thing as an unrelated area when you are the public face
If we are talking about the Minsky email chain, I still think it is ultimately not related to the FSF or free software. It absolutely reflects on him, and indirectly on his fitness for leadership, but Minsky-at-Epstein's-place was a question about Minsky's private behavior.
Historically, The Public was smart enough to recognize that, and to understand that Stallman's comments on Minsky were Stallman's own opinions. Unless the FSF is effectively his pet project, or Stallman indicates he is speaking as an official, or Stallman were (counterfactually) only employed as a public relations officer, The Public should not treat Stallman's opinions on that kind of fringe/unrelated topic as an statement from his official position. When people attempt to destroy that distinction, they are being intolerant and totalitarian.
How about his advocacy for eugenics or the related comparison of disabled children to abused pets?
Or how for years he claimed that a willing child means that a pedophilic act isn't wrong? (Recently retracted, yes, but it went on for a long time.)
The FSF is absolutely Stallman's pet project. More, it's basically his identity. The man cannot speak for very long without veering off into FSF-related topics. When he resigned from the Board, he maintained his role as a voting member. His life revolves around the
My opinion is the same as to those: They're good examples of why his judgement and communication skills are awful enough to not have hum as a leader, but they're obviously not FSF positions.
If the FSF really is his pet project, and has no real identity separate from him, then the proper outcome of this vote is clear, and everyone should help the FSF close shop and transfer GNU projects to more responsible, independent stewards. The work is too important to be one person's pet project, and it should stop ac
Again, it does not matter and never has mattered whether one is acting in an official capacity. If they do something that reflects poorly on them then it reflects poorly on organizations that will accept them as a member.
If you think it does not, you probably don't understand why Jared is not still the face of Subway.
I'm so torn (Score:5, Interesting)
On one hand, I think Stallman cannot lead effectively under these conditions, and given the long history of accusations.
On the other hand, Debian governance gave us systemd.
On the gripping hand, if the OSI says they won't work with the FSF while Stallman is around, that's a huge bonus. Fuck those fraudulent fucks.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
No -- the reason that RMS cannot lead effectively is that he has repeatedly chosen not to. He has chosen to foster an environment that is hostile to women and that is full of abrasive, unprofessional behavior in technical areas. He has stopped contributing technical work, and his attempts at coordination and management are often counterproductive.
The fact that he also commits distracting unforced errors in totally unrelated areas is just another symptom of his personality, which is poorly aligned to leade
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that he also commits distracting unforced errors in totally unrelated areas is just another symptom of his personality, which is poorly aligned to leadership of the FSF or in the free software community.
It's not an unrelated area because he made it relevant. When you are an officer of an organization you are always speaking as an officer of that organization whether that is your intent or not. When you're the public face of something, you are always that face. You retain the right to free speech but The Public is not going to keep you separate from your position in their minds. And the organization has to take that into consideration.
There is no such thing as an unrelated area when you are the public face
Re:I'm so torn (Score:2)
If we are talking about the Minsky email chain, I still think it is ultimately not related to the FSF or free software. It absolutely reflects on him, and indirectly on his fitness for leadership, but Minsky-at-Epstein's-place was a question about Minsky's private behavior.
Historically, The Public was smart enough to recognize that, and to understand that Stallman's comments on Minsky were Stallman's own opinions. Unless the FSF is effectively his pet project, or Stallman indicates he is speaking as an official, or Stallman were (counterfactually) only employed as a public relations officer, The Public should not treat Stallman's opinions on that kind of fringe/unrelated topic as an statement from his official position. When people attempt to destroy that distinction, they are being intolerant and totalitarian.
Re: (Score:3)
Historically, The Public was smart enough to recognize that
What? When was the public smart?
Re: (Score:2)
How about his advocacy for eugenics or the related comparison of disabled children to abused pets?
Or how for years he claimed that a willing child means that a pedophilic act isn't wrong? (Recently retracted, yes, but it went on for a long time.)
The FSF is absolutely Stallman's pet project. More, it's basically his identity. The man cannot speak for very long without veering off into FSF-related topics. When he resigned from the Board, he maintained his role as a voting member. His life revolves around the
Re: (Score:2)
My opinion is the same as to those: They're good examples of why his judgement and communication skills are awful enough to not have hum as a leader, but they're obviously not FSF positions.
If the FSF really is his pet project, and has no real identity separate from him, then the proper outcome of this vote is clear, and everyone should help the FSF close shop and transfer GNU projects to more responsible, independent stewards. The work is too important to be one person's pet project, and it should stop ac
Re: (Score:2)
Again, it does not matter and never has mattered whether one is acting in an official capacity. If they do something that reflects poorly on them then it reflects poorly on organizations that will accept them as a member.
If you think it does not, you probably don't understand why Jared is not still the face of Subway.
Re: (Score:2)
Which organizations does your intolerant authoritarianism represent? The rest of us need to know who enables you.