Does that not miss the point of decades of unacceptable behavior by RMS, harassing women in person, etc., and the email thing just being the straw that broke the camel's back?
It is a response to (among other things) "An open letter to remove Richard M. Stallman from all leadership positions"[1]. This letter emphasised Stallman's beliefs over his behaviour. So if Stallman's behaviour was "the point", then the authors of the letter failed to make it. They could have focused on his behaviour instead and have an honest discussion. They didn't.
First sentence of the annex: RMS has a history of mistreating women and making them feel uncomfortable, unsafe, and unwelcome. For incidents relating to RMS and MIT, please see 0.
2. This is the only sentence in the annex about it. The rest of it focuses again on beliefs.
Also, I didn't write it wasn't mentioned at all. However, that amounts to a marginal note, suggesting it's just a supplementary supporting point, but not the main issue. The main, damning, issue, according to this letter, are Stallman's beliefs.
Then make him answer for the harassment, not for his views.
When you make a case against a burglar, you don't base it on his views on capitalism and communism. You'd be laughed out of court. You base it on his act of burglary, with evidence/witnesses.
As far as the letter is concerned, it seems that its authors aren't really concerned with harassment. It's those other issues that stir real passion in them.
That the authors are more concerned with this or that isn't the point. Mr Stallman is being rejected _pour l'ensemble de son oeuvre_ and his behaviour at MIT is entirely sufficient to shun him.
Has he been convicted for the crime of harassment? There is a thing called the courts of law, due process.
You don’t get to form a mob and condemn people you don’t like like that.
[1]: <https://rms-open-letter.github.io/>