3 ms·
Did you read the Twitter thread? It cited examples of his quite objectionable opinions. Granted, he might have thoroughly recanted those statements, but they a
by drivingmenuts 6y ago
Did you read the Twitter thread? It cited examples of his quite objectionable opinions.
Granted, he might have thoroughly recanted those statements, but they are always going to be baggage that the FSF is going to be stuck defending, which is not part of their mission.
Surely, there are other people who made better decisions about what is defensible and what is not.
- Bancakes 6y ago>objectionable Things taken out of context, at worst. At best, personal opinions. >FSF is going to be stuck defending From what? Outrage culture? A self-made problem? FSF is about software and software licenses, not blogposting and whataboutism. >Surely, No, there is not one person as qualified on free software as RMS and Torvalds, for as long as those two are alive. It's unacceptable that a non-engineer takes the lead in FSF, a software engineering oriented organisation. Maybe it'll be fine for IBM, Oracle or other profit and customer satisfaction oriented businesses to have a PR person.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> FSF is about software and software licenses Like all advocacy organizations, the FSF is mostly about PR. “Software and software licenses” are the target area of impact.
- drivingmenuts 6y agoI suggest you re-read that thread. The examples cited are his opinions. The FSF is going to be stuck defending him now now, regardless if it’s in their mission or not. Maybe not every press conference but enough to be a distraction at best, no matter the source. I wouldn’t suggest a non-engineer for a lead position in the FSF, but I would suggest they look to someone who hasn’t held such polarizing and objectionable opinions on such a polarizing topic.