It goes beyond just battles on mole hills: the FSF and the GNU mailing lists are full of extremely time-consuming discussions that are fueled by conspiratorial thinking, feature excessive celebration of nitpicking, with participants that regularly lose themselves in groan-worthy tangents, operate on oversimplified models of society with unjustified arrogance, etc --- they are really bad places for constructive discourse.

There are not many people who are both talented in their fields and have the surplus time and energy to exercise a saint-like restraint to deal with all the draining crap. This environment is the sediment that filters a lot of talent and successfully prevents healthy growth.

This does not necessarily apply to individual GNU packages, but the overarching "project" structure is rotten and resistant to any attempts at reform.

Thanks for following up with more details. You're absolutely right about all of it. After experiencing some/all of those things, most rational people realize there time is better spent elsewhere and move on.

Thanks that explains why their board is filled with drek like a treasurer with a degree in economics from Harvard and Gerald J. Sussman, Professor of Electrical Engineering at MIT.

The FSF could really draw a bigger crowd if instead of something weird like free software it was instead about something everyone loves, like the newest Apple products.

What's the deal with this low-effort flame bait? Have you volunteered for the FSF? Are you or have you been active on the FSF or GNU mailing lists?

Certainly there are countless opportunities for reform away from elitist pedantry that are not tantamount to "being about the newest Apple products", wouldn't you agree?