> However, we do not need to follow leadership from those whose views we fundamentally disagree. I hesitate to bring up Trump in this context but I know many w

> However, we do not need to follow leadership from those whose views we fundamentally disagree. I hesitate to bring up Trump in this context but I know many wish they didn't have to follow a man who casually joked about sexual assault. Yet Americans do have to follow Trump on matters of law related to his office as President, like it or not. > [...] organizations need not and should not elevate spokespeople and leaders who speak regularly on unrelated issues that organizations find do not advance their mission, and/or that alienate important constituents. I agree on "need not" but disagree on "should not". Just because Kuhn chooses to keep his public persona free from conflicts with his personal commitments to organizations does not mean anyone else must as well. Nor does his belief that he is doing something worthwhile mean it is a universal moral law. I appreciate his integrity but I do not consider it a requirement for leadership of software advocacy organizations. I find it troubling that a common tactic when someone disagrees with someone else is they want to ruin them. They want them de-platformed and unemployable. It isn't enough to combat their ideas with better ideas, they need them to go away permanently. I would have preferred both Kuhn and RMS to stay on the FSF and engage in a public healthy debate.