I know you said you don't want to dwell on this matter, but if you are later inspired, please consider contacting RMS, to point out a specific example of something counterproductive to his goals, and how it might be improved.

> if you are later inspired, please consider contacting RMS, to point out a specific example of something counterproductive to his goals, and how it might be improved.

Again, part of my point was that Stallman is uninterested in such feedback, as demonstrated by the quoted exchange. The linked open letter did just what you suggest and was fruitless. His intransigence in such matters is why I don’t think he’s worth emulating. It’s my belief the world needs people open to challenging their own core ideas, to entertain the possibility they might be wrong and evolving their understanding of themselves, others, and the world itself. Stallman comes across as the opposite of that.

Thank you for explaining.

For what it's worth, I have seen him be flexible in thinking, in response to argument, including on famously firm positions. It has happened.

Of course, I'm also aware that many people have been frustrated by perceived inflexibility, and some of those times are very unfortunate.

If it inspires patience, consider that RMS has been flooded for decades with arguments that are often not well-informed, or are not in good faith. And he's only human, with finite time -- some needles in the haystack will get brushed off before he's able to invest enough time to see them. I suspect most of his responses are almost on autopilot, because he'll talk with anyone, but most of the conversations have happened many thousands of times before. (And I'm sorry I just now realize I should've warned of that, before I suggested you invest in reaching out to him yourself.)

I don't go full RMS, myself, and I was thinking that the exact makeup of the proposed 50% RMS level could be cherry-picked by the individual/observer, and include overlap with good qualities they already see from some other sources. I now realize that anything that looked like a quantification or calculus of RMS's qualities or value was counterproductive to discussion. I'd like to modify it to say that I think RMS exhibits some qualities that I'd like to see more in people. (And, on later occasions, I might have time to enumerate some suggestions.)

Anyway, thank you for your patience here, and for prompting me to rethink some things.

Even though I’ve spent more time on the subject than I wished, thank you for the continued discussion.

I appreciate that Stallman is human and has had to deal with ill-intentioned people over the years, which could be the reason he’s less willing to be flexible on certain matters these days. But I see that as less of a reason to ignore said inflexibility and more of a reason to question if he’s the best person to continue to carry his message.

He may be tired of fielding the same questions over and over, but every day there is someone else hearing his message for the first time as he continues to present it. As long as he keeps on introducing his views to new people, he should be responding to their concerns as coming from individuals thinking about them for the first time (because that’s what they are), not as questions he’s tired of addressing.

If our combined hypothesis are that Stallman has a good message but he’s harming it with his delivery, he should consider passing the baton to someone with more patience, if lack of it is indeed the reason for his attitude (a word I use with neutral meaning).

> Anyway, thank you for your patience here

You as well. I feel this was a healthy and respectful way to disagree and discuss a point at length. Thank you.

I might be in agreement with you. I do think we need RMS doing whatever it is RMS sees fit to do. But we also need many other sincere and altruistic people, with other perspectives and approaches, also working on ideas in this broad space.