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.

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.