Libre software, if it ever becomes the societal norm, is revolutionary in the traditional meaning of that word - turning over the societal order (vs. smartphones which haven't changed the existing societal order much at all), and if you are seeking to create a societal revolution, the words and actions of your leadership matter beyond the immediate domain of your movement.

RMS may not have much in terms of money, but he has a lot of influence due to his stature in the libre software movement, and with influence comes responsibility and accountability to those in the movement he started.

Not really. It's the Free Software Foundation, not the Free People Foundation. Stallman's only goal has been to develop an ecosystem of free and open software, and his political and personal opinions have never stood in the way of that. His belief that everyone should have access to quality, open software supersedes whatever personal agenda people perceive to be true.

> Stallman's only goal has been to develop an ecosystem of free and open software

Why is his goal the only one that matters? Is he a prophet, or is he just a guy who created a compelling idea? Should the movement continue to be centered on him as a personality? The FSF movement is by definition far bigger than him, and it can reasonably contain other related goals. Perhaps those with other goals can make peace with keeping him around, perhaps they can't.

It's his foundation, and you are welcome to start your own foundation promoting your own ideals for software.

Software is made by people.

Nothing at all.

But I would understand if people that are part of the FSF would not like to associate with him.