RMS and open letter

[Nate Graham]

Hello all,

I would like to re-frame the discussion a little bit into terms we may 
all be more familiar with.

This letter we are being asked to sign is a lot like a controversial and 
flawed merge request: it contains elements that probably all of us agree 
with, elements that are controversial, and methods the address the 
problem that are controversial.

Thus many people who agree with the goal or some of the claims cannot 
approve the merge request (i.e. sign the letter) because of legitimate 
concerns about the implementation. This is a situation many of us run 
into daily, and we are familiar with the solution: revise the merge 
request (letter) so that it is less controversial but still accomplishes 
its stated aims. This way more people will be comfortable signing it and 
the discussion doesn't become a referendum on people's personal views on 
extremely sensitive subjects, which cannot end well.


So how would we revise this letter? We'd find the common ground that I 
hope all of us can agree on:

1. RMS is polarizing figure with close to zero social skills who has 
repeatedly put his foot in his mouth over a long period of time, making 
him a terrible ambassador for the movement he created.

2. The FSF board has exercised poor judgment and acted inappropriately 
both in reinstating RMS, and in even considering him for a public-facing 
leadership position in the first place.


Thus, the real problem here is the FSF's institutional structure and the 
judgment of its current members. A healthy body would have discarded RMS 
long ago due to his total lack of fitness for a public-facing leadership 
role. The fact that the opposite has happened shows that the FSF board 
does not function properly. The details of RMS's objectionable 
viewpoints are only relevant in that they serve to illustrate the 
board's poor judgment.

Accordingly, I feel that this letter ought to be revised to target the 
FSF board specifically, without so much of a focus on RMS himself or 
calling for blanket boycotts of the FSF (what would this even entail?). 
I think probably everyone could get behind that.

Nate