They aren't completely unrelated to software. One can't divorce community issues from technical issues when the project in question has a "philosophy" page. From said page (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html)

""" “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. """

The way rms treats people involved in GNU goes directly to what is meant by 'community.' Consider, as comparative example, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the phrase "all men are created equal," and that it was penned by a slaveowner and did not lead to a government that freed those slaves for over 80 years (regardless of what the words on paper said).

> One can't divorce community issues from technical issues when the project in question has a "philosophy" page.

Anything can have a philosophy. Just because someone is a communist or a feudalist shouldn't prevent them from contributing or being part of a free software project.

> The way rms treats people involved in GNU goes directly to what is meant by 'community.'

Has RMS done anything to prevent people from using GNU software? Has he attempted to move GNU in a direction that would violate its stated goals or philosophy? Has he made the software any less free or any less respectful of users' freedom and community?

Based upon past travel hosts' interactions with him, having him visit to speak on the topic can involve you needing to burn the sheets he slept on.

Yes, that has material impact on the organization; it decreases people's willingness to hear its leader speak on the topic of what the organization stands for.

A lot of things affect people's interest in a project. RMS being the original creator of GNU is definitely a big plus towards interest in hearing him speak. I don't see anyone who would be a better fit. Furthermore leading GNU is not just about giving talks with maximum popularity - and if popularity is such an important point then GNU is the wrong project.