[bm3719]

Here's a suggestion I haven't seen mentioned anywhere:

In situations where two camps ostensibly agree on mission but disagree on execution, why don't we just have two organizations? In this case the "show me the code" camp can collectivize their Free Software efforts and the "diversity and inclusion" camp can do the same, both with the internal rules and leadership structure that appeals to them.

It seems a segment of the community (possibly a loud minority) here is insisting on a monoculture across not just some but all organizations. Obviously that's not going to serve everyone.

Doing this would even let us see objective results about which organizational culture is most effective by various metrics.

[dragonwriter]

> In situations where two camps ostensibly agree on mission but disagree on execution, why don't we just have two organizations?

That's usually the eventual result if the disagreement can't be resolved, but usually seen as suboptimal by both sides, since both would prefer one organization pursuing the shared goal by the optimum approach.

[bm3719]

It's been several years of (arguably destructive) culture war; one that shows no signs of abating. Also, being organizationally separate doesn't preclude collaboration on overlapping mission goals.

Side benefit: Those who want to support Free Software can contribute where they feel welcome and where they think their contribution will do the most good. E.g., One might be reluctant to contribute to any organization with a lot of ancillary ideological baggage that distracts from the core mission of Free Software. So, if those ideologues dominate everywhere, now you're left without a home if you only care about user freedom.

[dragonwriter]

> It's been several years of (arguably destructive) culture war; one that shows no signs of abating

But...the opposing sides already have separate orgs here: the signatories of the Stallman letter include leadership of the OSI, Mozilla-as-an-institution, and both leaders of other FLOSS institutions and other FLOSS and FLOSS-adjacent institutions-as-institutions.

And people that are unhappy that are attached to the FSF are leaving over this.

So...what are you advocating for? That these separate entities and separating individuals shouldn't engage in public discussion that highlights their differences so that people can clearly see what each party represents?

[lastgeniusua]

The article discusses the issues with this approach in Andy's situation (hosting, rights etc.)

[ralph84]

Hosting is trivial. Copyright less so, but forking a project when you don’t agree with the direction of the copyright holder is a long-established tradition in open source. FSF and GNU will forever be associated with rms. If maintainers don’t like that association they should fork and rebrand.

[howeyc]

Because the "diversity and inclusion" camp aren't pragmatic, they are dogmatic. The cancelling is more important than the actual work being done.

[tticvs]

Because one camp (guess which) won't accept this solution since their actual goal is complete dominance.