The article seems to be making the case that if you want to foster support for a movement, having somebody in a leadership role who alienates a plurality of your potential pool of members is a bad idea.
Nit picking that the article didn't pick your preferred example to make the same point seems like, well, nit picking.
Re:The Free Software Foundation is dying
by shortrounddev on Tuesday April 11, 2023 @09:07PM
(#35533813)
he alienates people not because hes white or male but because he's an uncharismatic libertarian toad
Re:The Free Software Foundation is dying
by chuddington on Tuesday April 11, 2023 @09:09PM
(#35533823)
He's saying he shouldn't be in charge because he's White, straight, and male.
I was watching the Netflix documentary about Abercrombie & Fitch [1] the other day. At some point they were forced by a court to improve the diversity of the company.
How did they handle it? (a) They created a Chief Diversity Officer position, and hired a black guy to staff it, (b) they padded their diversity numbers with low-pay/0-hour contract employees at the lowest level possible.
Diversity is fostered by initiatives, not mandates.
Then what, precisely, are you calling for when you call for more surface-level diversity in the leadership? How do you achieve proportional representation without manual manipulation?
And why do you think that DEI is the first problem worth listing? If we're criticizing Stallman as an unpopular and uncharismatic leader, it seems like his documented history of comments about child molestation should be #1, not vague hand waving over race and sex.