[angry_octet]

Yeah, characterising that as rage quitting is disinformation. When an organisation clearly supports misconduct by an institutionally powerful figure it is correct to call into question whether the organisation itself should continue to receive support. I'm certainly never giving a cent to the FSF ever again.

[_qfi9]

creating extreme consequences for unethical behavior unrelated to the mission of the organization itself is problematic because we don't live in a universe where you can know things with 100% certainty.

in fact this whole rust fiasco is an even greater and more blindingly obvious example of causing massive organizational rupture over a minor accidental personal slight.

should there be more process in place for rust leadership? maybe, probably. But I will skip rust and learn zigg if I need to do something low level due to this disproportionate response. It's not appropriate.

Don't tolerate the intolerant, ironically.

[angry_octet]

It doesn't really matter if the ethical issues are tangential to the mission if the organisation can't disentangle itself from them. But in this case of the FSF the issues are not remotely tangential, they are deeply interfering with the mission. Almost all the leadership have been tainted by a clear refusal to put safeguards in place about leadership misconduct. It wouldn't be acceptable at a public corporation, and FSF claims to be a principle-driven organisation.

I don't see the rust situation as a massive rupture -- they did several things wrong and their process for handling it was clearly broken, and they will choose a new team who will have process and policy to the forefront of their considerations. Refusing to use rust because of some (so far, short term) management issues is an excessive response.