"Accountability" for an awkward statement? You'll have to excuse me if I don't think someone deserves a public flogging for poor phrasing and awful timing.
When you're talking about organizations that are CRITICAL to software freedom, I'd much rather have an incorruptible but thoroughly awkward ideologue in charge than an unknown quantity. Who comes next? Will they compromise on things that shouldn't be compromised? It's another thing to worry about.
> https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/994010501460865025
Someone who make unsourced claims of having refused to contribute to anything with an open license because of RMS poor taste jokes on mailing list. I wonder if this kind of openmindedness is good to prove a point on how RMS is bad, maybe someone who does not want to contribute to software improving the world but unrelated to RMS on the sole basis that the licensing allows other freedom is not a good basis to support RMS having to be removed.
> https://twitter.com/starsandrobots/status/994267277460619265
A reply to the previous tweet from someone who was told an unsourced myth about plants in an office and making up a story about it. She said she's been shown one office with a lot of plants, told that there are many other such offices, that the reason for the plants is to ward off RMS.
This piece of lore has been removed from wikipedia for lack of source[1]
>https://mobile.twitter.com/quince/status/1172290839369773057
also citing the same original medium publication misrepresenting RMS words and calling for his removal on this basis, admitting she actually never met RMS but tells how the same piece of myth was transmitted to her in form of a joke and despite not knowing tries to provide context for trying to ward off RMS: interacting with him is awkward and make them uneasy.
I sincerely doubt that RMS being socially awkward is news or supporting the call for his removal in any way.
I got a reply to my post, now deleted, asking for more named sources. I don't see how you can dismiss the first two tweets as "unsourced" when they are first-hand statements.
@quince's comment is not first-hand about RMS personally but the damage done to the institution that makes excuses for powerful people. This is not about him being just awkward, it's that MIT will never confront him about threatening behavior or stand up for his victims.
Edit: so in other comments you've mentioned that blog post claims "this isn't about Stallman" but you're still defending specific points about Stallman. This isn't about Stallman, this is about MIT. Stallman might be "awkward" but MIT doesn't confront him or even pull him to the side to tell him he's been rude. They don't stand up for the people he's hurt, they don't protect the people he's scared off. They don't ask for independent investigations into more serious allegations. This isn't about Stallman - it's not exactly about Epstein, Minsky, Negroponte, etc either. It's about the institution, the power structure, that protects people in certain positions at the expense of everyone else.
I consider Sarah Mei an untrustworthy source. Last year she said the term Domain Driven Development is exclusionary to women because 'DDD' is a bra size in America and therefore the name must be a pornographic reference[0]. Furthermore, in the linked tweet she doesn't actually say anything concrete about Stallman, it's just her feelings about him. She's just stirring the pot.
> Obsolete, already been updated in other comments
Ah, so three days ago he stated that he's changed his mind and having sex with children is actually wrong. Well, glad we got that cleared up! No need to read anything he wrote about that before, it's obsolete now.
Sometimes yes. Leaders are always accountable, but not always responsible for outcomes, RMS was responsible for his actions, now he must be held accountable.
Why not leave that to the justice system instead of an angry mob? Why should people be held accountable by a mob? That's a horrible state that I had thought civilization had finally climbed out of, but it's back again with internet mobs and people being fired as punishment for failing to correctly adhere to the mob's arbitrary preferences. If you really think he did something wrong, then try to get the law changed so future people won't repeat the same offense.
He didn't break the law, nor did he do something worthy of judicial punishment, but that does not mean that he can not or should not be held to account. RMS lost a leadership position, that's all.
And Let's be clear, that is lawful is not necessarily moral, that which is moral is not necessarily lawful.
