That is a straw man. Stallman has been quite effective in most areas, certainly more than the interim presidents who quickly got very corporate with all the familiar BS language.

We don't need another infiltrated Linux Foundation.

A blind pilot isn’t capable of doing the job of piloting.

You have to pass a visual exam for the AME to certify you as a pilot; once you get the certification, however, going blind later won't necessarily revoke it.

Is an extremely obnoxious man capable of doing the job of a publicly visible board member?

If history is any indication, then yes, he can. He had created the movement that has transformed the industry forever and motivated dosens of thousands developers to contribute their efforts towards Free Software.

And he did it because of the very qualities he is vilified now: persistence, pedantry, having strong opinions.

Regardless of whether he created the movement, the FSF has IMO largely been on the wrong end of the movement for years. FSF has been a poor so-called leader of the open source movement for many years.

This entire focus on his supposed personal failings is a distraction. Even if RMS had completely reformed his behavior, he should not be running the FSF —- someone with a vision for the FSF that is still relevant should be in charge.

Would you please kindly provide some more expanded argumentation about FSF being "on the wrong end of the movement for years"?

I would also like to hear your ideas what should a "vision for the FSF that is still relevant" include? It will be OK for me if you will please kindly tell what is wrong with current 'FSF vision'.

For example, in 2008: https://lwn.net/Articles/301135/

And now: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/CAHk-=whA6zru0BaNm4u...

Or as a more personal example, I will not contribute directly to any open source projects under the FSF umbrella because I won’t deal with their obnoxious contributor agreement process. As far as I can tell, the world and the FSF gain nothing except maybe prestige from this process, but they definitely keep contributors away.

Can you explain how technical disagreements about implementation of technology make FSF "on the wrong end of the movement for years"? FSF has valid reasons to be wary of potential threats to software freedoms, and they are extremely dedicated to their mission of providing and protecting said freedoms.

Also, you probably do not understand the mindset of this movement. It is not a priority to have the best and shiniest toys and instruments. It is about freedoms, and freedoms only, even despite this way will cause significant inconveniences. It is unacceptable to compromise even the slightest part of freedoms to provide better convenience. This path is not for everybody, but I'm glad someone walks on it, if only to be a safeguard against abuse done by major software vendors. And FSF is very successful in acting as such.

> because I won’t deal with their obnoxious contributor agreement process

This process is in place for a very valid reason, perfectly explained here [1].

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html

> Can you explain how technical disagreements about implementation of technology make FSF "on the wrong end of the movement for years"? FSF has valid reasons to be wary of potential threats to software freedoms, and they are extremely dedicated to their mission of providing and protecting said freedoms.

I’m pretty sure that almost everyone involved thought that the IR approach was technically superior. This included the people writing the code and the people who wanted to use the code. The FSF’s dedication to the cause caused a bunch of users to move to LLVM, which is not GPL.

As for the copyright assignment, the amount of paperwork and annoyance when I tried to sign up was absurd, so I gave up.

Friendly reminder that he founded the FSF.

>Is an extremely obnoxious man capable of doing the job of a publicly visible board member?

Clearly he can.

Didn't he found the organization to begin with?

Yes.