> It's obvious from any charitable reading Where was that charitable reading when the original accusation occurred? > that the FSF appears unsympathetic to th

> It's obvious from any charitable reading Where was that charitable reading when the original accusation occurred? > that the FSF appears unsympathetic to the victims of harassment, unwilling to apologize for Stallman's behavior You are repeating all that stuff as if it's a known fact, and not the rumors and conjecture that it is. > how people would rather excuse RMS' bad behavior rather than confront it in any meaningful way And here you are also regurgitating the arguments that Sarah Mei and similar orators have provided. People are writing excuses (at least some do) because the punishment has already far exceeded the alleged crime. Don't you think so? > Part of the reputation that RMS built for himself is as a serial harasser Same here. What reputation? Irrespective of the truth in these claims, most people around these discussions are only hearing about this supposed "reputation" now. Now, FSF could issue an apology, but a) they have probably as little ability to verify these claims as you and I, b) issuing that apology independent of Richard would give credence to these claims, and given that there are few actual accusers it would basically have to agree with all the stuff that has been claimed, by whoever, recently. Which would be a significant betrayal on their part. A good PR person could issue a trustworthy-sounding promise/non-apology, but FSF are mostly techies, so I'm not holding my breath. But it would be a good idea, politically-speaking. If you are concerned about actual people is this discussion, though, and are looking for a change in policy, then it, again, will need concrete firsthand accounts and detailed explanations (conveyed to FSF in private, at least). Because a good policy can't be built on vague accusations.