<story><title>Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman</title><url>https://www.fsf.org/news/statement-of-fsf-board-on-election-of-richard-stallman</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>WesolyKubeczek</author><text>One can&amp;#x27;t deny, sadly, that a software freedom geek with consistency and integrity as applied to that philosophy and insight therein of RMS&amp;#x27;s caliber doesn&amp;#x27;t yet exist.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m afraid, for this reason alone quite a few people get to think that if you consistently apply software freedom principles in all parts of your life where you use or produce software, it must come with the baggage of all other flaws of RMS&amp;#x27;s character, complete with questionable hygiene habits and abrasive personality.&lt;p&gt;As if you just can&amp;#x27;t have the same principles, but bring in flaws of your own.</text></comment>
<story><title>Statement of FSF board on election of Richard Stallman</title><url>https://www.fsf.org/news/statement-of-fsf-board-on-election-of-richard-stallman</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>kmeisthax</author><text>This past month has completely destroyed my confidence in FSF leadership. I hope they can earn it back.&lt;p&gt;Say what you want about the open letter - and it is an inaccurate open letter - the fact is that most people who had legitimate criticisms of RMS&amp;#x27;s leadership decided to sign onto it anyway. You might argue that this is malice. I&amp;#x27;d argue that the open letter&amp;#x27;s ultimate conclusion - wipe the FSF management slate clean - was still warranted. Remember: the FSF did not attempt to defend, explain, or rehabilitate Stallman&amp;#x27;s behavior or character. That was individuals within the community doing that - and themselves making the mistake of, say, ignoring other, better criticisms of RMS&amp;#x27;s behavior than misreading his personal quirks as inherently sexist.&lt;p&gt;I find it hard &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; to read the FSF&amp;#x27;s conduct as anything but &amp;quot;let&amp;#x27;s just quietly bring RMS back once the mainstream media gets off our case&amp;quot;. They ignored the fact that people within the community had significant problems with his conduct, completely unrelated to the Epstein thing. The Minsky e-mail was just a catalyst, like putting a spoon in superheated water. If they had handled this the way Linus Torvalds did - i.e. making a show out of toning down his toxic behavior, and then &lt;i&gt;actually&lt;/i&gt; toning it down, this could have worked. It&amp;#x27;s possible for the FSF to actually still do this, despite having been apparently(!?) caught on the backfoot... but that&amp;#x27;s going to be far harder than if they had actually messaged this properly.&lt;p&gt;Since nobody&amp;#x27;s head is actually going to roll for this terrible PR nightmare, I can only hope that the organization tries to tone down RMS&amp;#x27;s toxic behavior, and maybe we&amp;#x27;ll get something useful out of deliberately reopening year-old (or for some, decade-old) wounds. Still, I feel like this is akin to Mozilla&amp;#x27;s crippling Google dependency - it&amp;#x27;s not like RMS is going to live forever, he&amp;#x27;s pushing 70. His number will come up sooner or later. His remaining tenure with the FSF should be wholly dedicated towards making the organization relevant to those who aren&amp;#x27;t already &amp;quot;in the know&amp;quot; so that we have suitable replacements when we lose RMS.</text></comment>