We need more of Richard Stallman's ideas, not less
My problem with RMS is that "FSF" now stands for "Fierce Stallman Fanbase" rather than "Free Software Foundation". In the recent (may be still ongoing) process of recruiting new members for the FSF board, while this process has been presented as an opportunity for the FSF to broaden its view and recruit more diverse people, candidates who did not want to give a complete allegiance to RMS were discarded in the first steps of the process. The FSF even demanded that people working with other free software defense groups around the world that at some point said anything not entirely positive about RMS to resign and distance themselves from those other groups to continue the process.
I was extremely disappointed by this attitude.<p>Anyway, I still think that the FSF is doing an important job and that it is necessary to have such groups. But I just don't think we need more RMS, really not, given what it appears to entail. Groups such as the FSF should really not be so tied to a single individual, whoever that is. And especially not with someone who's behavior has repeatedly been problematic while we need to tackle inclusivity issues in our communities.<p>Even with the disclaimer at the beginning of the article, this title doesn't work for me. That said, I agree with most of the content of the article. The same article could have been titled "We need more copyleft", and it would be for the best.<p>EDIT: to answer some comments: nobody's talking about diversity for diversity's sake here, nor specifically about diversity hiring. Inclusivity is also something to enjoy in public events for example, and we need public symbols to emphasizes that, which RMS (who, whether he wants it or not, is de facto a public symbol and a thought leader) is clearly incapable of.