3 ms·

> Stallman is not exactly what I would call a shining example of the human race, and unsuitable for any sort of leadership position in particular But here's th

> Stallman is not exactly what I would call a shining example of the human race, and unsuitable for any sort of leadership position in particular But here's the thing: He DID become a leader, mostly because of his confrontational nature and strength of conviction (which is how most leaders for change do things - they step on lots of toes). He DID lead these organisations (rocky or not - doesn't matter) and they DID become a strong force in the software world. To call him unsuitable for a leadership position is just ignoring history and his ability to attract followers. You may not like him as a person. You may be creeped out by him. You may dislike a lot of what he says and does (and really, who doesn't?). But removal without due process flies in the face of everything that makes us civilised. The normal process is to issue warnings/rules with consequences, and then implement those consequences when they're ignored. This is how we do things fairly - a shot across the bow first. The alternative is mob rule and capricious, changing ex-post-facto justice, which has time and time again been demonstrated to never end well.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
He led, which is good. But does that mean he is the right person to lead the foundation now? I think the article makes a really good argument on why he isn't. His social awkwardness, his public opinion on contentious issues like abortion or what is considered rape, the fact that he makes people feel uncomfortable. These are distractions that push people away and weaken the foundation's focus on free software. He may be right on those issues, he might not be. Mob rule is bad, cancel culture is bad. His removal at the hands of such a cancel culture mob is probably part of why he is being put back in a leadership position. But I absolutely understand why people are puzzled by the board's move to bring him back.
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
  > But does that mean he is the right person to lead the foundation now? This is one question. Another is: "Should the Twitter mob decide about it?
  - arp242 6y ago
    But the "Twitter mob" doesn't decide anything; they are free to protest and voice their concerns, which are not always done in a way I like (which is why I wrote this), but that's freedom for ya. In the end, it's still the FSF who gets to decide.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago

He led, which is good. But does that mean he is the right person to lead the foundation now? I think the article makes a really good argument on why he isn't. His social awkwardness, his public opinion on contentious issues like abortion or what is considered rape, the fact that he makes people feel uncomfortable. These are distractions that push people away and weaken the foundation's focus on free software. He may be right on those issues, he might not be. Mob rule is bad, cancel culture is bad. His removal at the hands of such a cancel culture mob is probably part of why he is being put back in a leadership position. But I absolutely understand why people are puzzled by the board's move to bring him back.

dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
> But does that mean he is the right person to lead the foundation now? This is one question. Another is: "Should the Twitter mob decide about it?
- arp242 6y ago
  But the "Twitter mob" doesn't decide anything; they are free to protest and voice their concerns, which are not always done in a way I like (which is why I wrote this), but that's freedom for ya. In the end, it's still the FSF who gets to decide.