This is simple:

Are the ideas worth it or not?

To me, they are worth some effort. How likable RMS happens to be is an entirely different matter.

And, frankly an excuse I have seen used to dodge a meaningful discussion about the ideas.

My only interest in RMS is related to those ideas, put another way.

RMS came to speak at my university. He probably did more damage to general student perception of anything associated with the FSF than industry-ass-kissing professors did in the 3 years prior in that one day. Thus if you want the ideas to succeed, you want to make them matter independently of the "brands" of RMS and FSF, especially now the FSF has decided it wants to continue to tie its "brand" to RMS going forward.

("brand" in quotes because it's not quite what we usually mean with that term, but I can't think of a better English word right now)

RMS literally created the thing.

Others can and should be doing active, mass outreach.

Leader does not have to mean public figure.

Someone has to really mean it. RMS has no peers in this regard.

Maybe the right thing to do here is firm up a 5 year plan, go on a donation drive and fund organizers, who can work the crowds.

I'd not bet anything on the FSF being capable or even just willing to commit to anything like that and seeing it through without sabotaging it or cancelling it because it stepped on someones toes internally. They do not appear to have a culture that would permit doing so, but rather one of focusing to much on backing RMS and driving people who might succeed at new ways of doing outreach away. Even if they didn't have RMS around anymore for whatever reason, it'd be far from given they'd migrate away from that culture successfully, there's more to this than him.

> Leader does not have to mean public figure.

> Someone has to really mean it. RMS has no peers in this regard.

This IMHO conflicts, you can't have a leader that you view as "has no peers in this regard" but has no public presence. Having the "weird extremists" (=really mean it) in some corner has some value, but negative perception of other traits hurts their usefulness in that role too.

Which is overall why I think supporting the ideas behind Free Software is best done outside that. Times have changed. If I'm wrong, I'll be positively surprised.

I didn't say no public presence.

What I did suggest what's a standard effort well-trodden ground to go out and do the public advocacy and Outreach.

And in terms of the ideas the leadership and all of that, I put that in my first comment. I sincerely hope people can keep the focus on the ideas.

Regarding the rest of your comments, they're valid, and solidarity on ideas is hard.

Software Freedom really matters to me. I'm willing to act with others to advance those ideas. I don't have to like some of the people all that much. Neither does anybody else.

And if we map this stuff onto well known politics, political organizing activities, what we've got here is a fight on our hands.

There's an awful lot of money very interested in letting some of these ideas prevail and the really important ones fall by the wayside or be co-opted.

Looking around at our side, the software freedom side, it looks kind of grim. We've got work to do.

And frankly, if enough of us don't prioritize this, do not value it highly, that work won't get done, these ideas die.

All of that is why I could give two shits who is likable or not. What I want to know is who's behind the ideas, who believes in them, who's willing to do work, and what that means, and how I can help.

And on that note, speaking of leadership, those are the things that need solid answers. Or, again, these ideas die.

So, let us frame it all up another way:

Forget RMS. Does the FSF matter to you personally?

Why or why not?

If it does matter, I submit the best course of action is to help others better understand.

If it does not matter?

...

The FSF did matter. I was a member, I signed copyright papers and submitted a decent amount of patches to GCC, I went to see Stallman talk.

It became clear to me that while I agreed with many of Stallman's aims, I disagreed with how he treated people, particularly women. Also, he actively made decisions that, in my opinion, seriously hurt GCC. So I left.

Again, are we talking about the ideas or Stallman?

None of that even moves the needle on how high value the ideas are for me.

What we are basically talking about here is solidarity on software freedom.

Acting in solidarity means priorities. This is why I am focused on ideas. Liking people is not as high of a priority as the software freedom is.

To put it bluntly: even my enemies, "those other people" benefit from greater software freedoms.

Having a strong anchor matters. Stallman is not going to dilute things down or be co-opted. Great.

Given the last decade, I definitely value those things highly.

You appear to have other priorities. That is fine, but it is also not about software freedom anymore too.

I'll be honest, I'm a bit annoyed you think I care less about software freedom, because I don't like Stallman.

I'd like to separate two things out. I believe it severely hurts the cause of software freedom to have Stallman at the helm. I think software freedom is bigger than any one person, and Stallman has been, for many years, damaging to the cause.

Do you think "the ideas or Stallman" are more important?

It was not my intent to annoy you.

It is my intent to understand.

Edit: and let us be clear we are just two good people having a tough discussion. I just want to understand you and your position better.

I agree software freedom is more than a given person.

So far, I have not really seen the ideas put into question here, right?

One of the originators of those ideas is in question.

And that person has done things others don't like, right? (I think so)

From what I can tell, those things are not about the ideas.

In my original comment, I had expressed my sincere desire for there to be focus among the people involved to keep it all about the ideas.

Not doing that does hurt the cause, because people may find themselves unwilling or unable to be a part of things.

You are expressing that, yes?

Either that focus happens, or it does not, and we shall see.

Re: gcc

Stallman would say, fork it and do one better.

He is not wrong about that, FWIW.

That's the freedom part in play. Does not mean we get what we want. It does mean we can do what we want.

You can wish for people to remain focused on the ideas, but it is my strong belief that will not happen. People, in general, do not associate with people they dislike (for person or moral reasons).

Even if I was willing to work with Stallman, I believe many, many people will not.

If Stallman wished for this to be "just about the ideas", he could have never told jokes about "deflowering female virgins" because they have not used Emacs. I assume he told these kinds of jokes because he hoped it would make him, or the FSF, more popular. He was (in my opinion) wrong.

Then the ideas will die, and we will relearn these lessons again in the future, hopefully.

And they will die because it's just not a priority otherwise. Our opponents know that and absolutely will exploit it.

Solidarity on things is hard. It does require dealing with people we do not like, and it often also requires we accept our enemies, and "those other people" benefit same as we do.

I entertained this chat to see whether similar dynamics are in play on this matter, and they are. I have experience in this from labor politics.

Know when they win? They win with high degrees of solidarity rooted in mutual benefit. They always lose when personal judgement is a higher priority than the mutual benefit is.

Put simply, even the assholes need to pay rent, feed the kids, spend time with family, see the doctor, etc.

If it is more about who is the bigger asshole than it is the ideas, we will be left with a solid understanding of who the bigger asshole is, not a more robust, solid state of software freedom.

Now, that said, don't go blaming Stallman for your own choices. I won't blame him for mine.

He said very undesirable things. Lots of people do that, and it would be better if they didn't.

As painful as all that is, the hard truth of it has nothing to do with software freedom.

I think he can be a ripe ass, frankly. Maybe better choices are in his future. I hope so.

Thanks, by the way. You are a pretty great discussion partner. Frank open and honest. I appreciate that.