This probably explains a lot of the problem then. IME those who are good at writing code are pretty bad at the social parts of running an organization.

This isn't a dig, I've known and admired quite a few people who were absolute geniuses at hardware and/OR software, real engineers but they couldn't even manage a group lunch. It's just an entirely different skillset.

Like OpenBSD Theo de Raadt who was know to be quite toxic. But in the end its project is still going and highly praised after 30 years.

Let me frame it another way:

Software is like soccer, big tech is the FIFA, free software is you amateur football team.

- The FIFA will always tell you they love amateur soccer.

- The FIFA can be run by MBA, manager but your local group of friend/team cannot.

- Someone (probably the FIFA) is telling you your local team need the manager types for you to play soccer with others.

- If an overweight man who never played soccer come to invite you to play soccer in the weekend for free you might not go. If Pele come you will go.

- If an overweight man who never played soccer offer you a job at FIFA you will probably accept because you love soccer and for the money.

- The FIFA is more interested in people watching TV and ads on Sunday than people playing soccer outside. Ultimately they want you to love soccer but it need to be their way. And their way is watching TV and buying their jersey.

This is probably why Theo de Raadt might be a big A-Hole and said no to the FIFA but he is a good player and still have a fit team having fun outside every Sunday.

I wouldn't have bet on this outcome 20 years ago.

All those open source now corrupted foundations with the beautiful websites and the big titles and leadership pages pretend to be something they are not.

Spoken like someone who has zero experience developing open source software.

I work for a company that makes a very popular open source product. The users lead our development, not the coders. Hell, I don't even code, and I get to tell the engineers what to fix based on what our users complain about.

I suppose if you think of free software as a bunch of solo-coded GitHub projects, it can feel like the coders are king, but you absolutely don't maintain a project like Linux, or any of the major distros thereof, by giving coders supreme authority over decision-making...

The context in this discussion is FSF initiated projects.

Those who are in the wider use have been started and kept people like RMS. There are hundreds of them in dustbin or with minimal use.

Stuff like this makes me embarassed to say I write free software, which is already a niche position that will have you pigeonholed as it is.

The whole purpose of the Free Software movement, expressed in the GPL, is to protect the rights of end users above all others - even above the rights of the people creating the software in the first place and contributing to it.

A great deal of free software is developed by employees. Except in the most reductive sense (the employees could all quit) the decisions are made by the employers.

In this instance John Gilmore is funding the work. He's not doing it himself.

Telling anyone with opinions on your code to bug off as you disregard any outside input is a fine way to make sure no one uses it.