[Raphael_Amiard]

> I just think the FSF (and opensource as a whole) would be more successful with someone other than RMS as the figurehead.

I appreciate the moderation you show in your comment. That's why I'm going to answer that here rather than on a less thoughtful comment: free software and open source are not the same. Open source is a movement that today is trying to increase rentability and profits via information and code sharing. The rules that apply make it completely straightforward for a company to share only the part of code that they feel won't diminish profits, or even will increase them.

On the other hand, free software is a militant movement and ideology that is seeking to destroy a large part of the proprietary software that exists. While you would expect an open source proponent to shower, and even wear a tie, because he has to be entreprise friendly, the same codes don't necessarily apply to militantism. Going further, what you seek as the figurehead of some kind of consensual vision of open source will probably not be the same as for a militant organization.

I'm of course exaggerating a bit, but this is at the core of a lot of misguided arguments I see here and there. RMS is basically being accused of being shocking in his viewpoints and in who he is. Well, the very idea of free software was extremely shocking 30 years ago, so maybe it's no coincidence. I'm not condoning all he did or all he said, but I certainly wouldn't like some watered down open source ideologist as the head of the FSF, which has so far been a necessary uncompromising force in the ideological landscape of open source software.

[josephg]

Thanks; this is an insightful perspective and I appreciate the thoughtful reply.

My question then is this: would the FSF be more or less effective in their political goals with someone else at the helm?

My worry is that RMS’s prickliness and generally poor social skills harm the free software movement more than they help it. Every story about RMS from people who actually interact with him seems to be really cringe inducing. And that’s not what I want from a leader. And I don’t see how abandoning respectability outside the software/political arena helps them campaign for their goals.

What they need to do is to set out a clear vision for the future, make useful code and inspire young engineers to carry the flame. Reading comments here shows me that some people find RMS inspiring, which is good. And maybe the FSF doesn’t have anyone better suited for the job. But in any case, the FSF as it stands now isn’t an organisation I’ll ever want to be involved with.

[Aloha]

Often the visionary is the wrong person to carry the vision beyond some point.

I know people who are serial doers of things - be it starting a business, an organization, a whatever, but are lousy at running and shepherding their creations, if they're lucky, they're aware of these limitations, if not, well... I think RMS is in the not category - and while he can and should continue as the spiritual leader of the movement, he probably should not be the one doing the day to day leader for the future, beyond that, what of succession planning, the man is 68.

Most of the complaints I've seen about RMS are.. well.. pretty normal among geeky people, he's socially clueless, applies logic instead of empathy, etc. He has no doubt, said many problematic things but the paucity of actual harms from these things is notable.

In short, I agree with the sentiments here, FSF needs an effective leader, and whatever annoying/clueless things RMS has said, isn't really relevant to that discussion.

[jfengel]

I don't think his behavior towards women should be so easily dismissed as "not actual harms".

That behavior makes women uncomfortable. I suspect he feels like "I made an offer, you said no, and it's done." It doesn't work that way. The best analogy I can draw is if a stranger came up to you before a meeting and asked you to give him your watch. That's going to feel uncomfortable and weird, for the rest of the day and longer.

Even if neurodivergence makes it difficult to discover that for himself, it's surely been explained to him. That means he knows he's making people uncomfortable and doing it anyway.

That is relevant to the discussion. He's driving off half the potential population of people to work on things. That half is under-represented -- and part of the reason they're under-represented is that the community keeps making excuses for people who behave like that. Then they wonder why nobody has ever explained women to them -- and why women keep being upset.

The "problematic" things seem to me like the least of it. He's rude to people whose help he needs -- not just women, but to women in a way that's specific to women in addition to all of the other ones. That's exactly the opposite of what a leader does. Leaders get people to work together, especially when the worker are volunteering.

[krapp]

The free software movement is only militant to a degree. They're not the Black Panthers or the Weather Underground. They're not going to destroy proprietary software by mailing nail bombs to Microsoft or beheading Larry Ellison on video. The war they're fighting is a war of ideas and their ammunition is argument. Having as your figurehead a man who doesn't shower, eats his own skin tags, constantly creeps women out and has, let's say, "controversial" views makes the free software movement look ridiculous, hurts recruiting, and gives ammunition to the enemy.

I would ask you to consider the possibility that one can be an idealist about free software, even a militant extremist, while not being a viscerally offensive human being. You're trying to ascribe nobility and necessity to traits in Richard Stallman which bring no benefits to the cause free software, and which often work to its detriment. And a truly militant organization would recognize when their leader has become a hindrance to the cause and put them out to pasture.