2 ms·

First, I've never meet a FLOSS developer that wants a "leader". A spokeperson would be ok. Second, organizations like Conservancy, EFF, FSFE, and many others d

First, I've never meet a FLOSS developer that wants a "leader". A spokeperson would be ok. Second, organizations like Conservancy, EFF, FSFE, and many others don't seem to have any difficulty finding good public speakers. The idea that we have to choose between RMS and some corporate drone is a false dichotomy plain an simple.

squarefoot 6y ago
"First, I've never meet a FLOSS developer that wants a "leader". A spokeperson would be ok." Well, I don't qualify as a developer, but if I was one I would badly want a good leader. When projects grow, be it in distance, time and number of people, you need good leaders (leaders, not dictators, although sometimes we would have some use for them as well). Broadly speaking a leader is someone who prevents UI wars before they happen, someone who will give the best common base to develop different audio servers without having them stomp on each others feet, someone who will prevent useful but not fun parts of a system to rot because all developers want to work on other parts that are more fun, etc. And with regards to the FSF, being a leader means also acting as the worst possible enemy of any entity wanting to violate open licenses by taking open code, closing it and make loads of money from it giving nothing in return, something RMS has been really good at, including teaching about the problem in very small conferences lots of spokespersons wouldn't accept to talk at. It's a shitty job that brings both friends and enemies, with the enemies being often among the most powerful, not something to be regarded as a prize. Being just a spokesperson, and technically speaking RMS is a good one, isn't enough anymore, IMO. "The idea that we have to choose between RMS and some corporate drone is a false dichotomy plain an simple." In a perfect world I would agree; RMS would step down to be replaced by the best possible candidate, and everyone is happy, case closed. Unfortunately smear campaigns orchestrated with the intent of removing someone from a seat, ready to be occupied by some "friend" aren't new. The way this is going seems to suggest that someone, somewhere, is ready to replace him with someone who would work against the Free Software community interests.
- lupire 6y ago
  FSF is a political organization, not a software project. The people who lead FSF software projects are the mantainers not the board members.

squarefoot 6y ago

"First, I've never meet a FLOSS developer that wants a "leader". A spokeperson would be ok." Well, I don't qualify as a developer, but if I was one I would badly want a good leader. When projects grow, be it in distance, time and number of people, you need good leaders (leaders, not dictators, although sometimes we would have some use for them as well). Broadly speaking a leader is someone who prevents UI wars before they happen, someone who will give the best common base to develop different audio servers without having them stomp on each others feet, someone who will prevent useful but not fun parts of a system to rot because all developers want to work on other parts that are more fun, etc. And with regards to the FSF, being a leader means also acting as the worst possible enemy of any entity wanting to violate open licenses by taking open code, closing it and make loads of money from it giving nothing in return, something RMS has been really good at, including teaching about the problem in very small conferences lots of spokespersons wouldn't accept to talk at. It's a shitty job that brings both friends and enemies, with the enemies being often among the most powerful, not something to be regarded as a prize. Being just a spokesperson, and technically speaking RMS is a good one, isn't enough anymore, IMO. "The idea that we have to choose between RMS and some corporate drone is a false dichotomy plain an simple." In a perfect world I would agree; RMS would step down to be replaced by the best possible candidate, and everyone is happy, case closed. Unfortunately smear campaigns orchestrated with the intent of removing someone from a seat, ready to be occupied by some "friend" aren't new. The way this is going seems to suggest that someone, somewhere, is ready to replace him with someone who would work against the Free Software community interests.

lupire 6y ago
FSF is a political organization, not a software project. The people who lead FSF software projects are the mantainers not the board members.