Zach

Make no mistake: the @fsf was _purpose built_ to enable Stallman - both in his activism, and in his harassment.

Without drastic structural change, it is inevitable that the same story will play out again. Activism and harassment need not be so conjoined. A new board, along with internal restructuring, could separate them. Just getting a new president, though, will not be enough.

Right now the @fsf looks like they’re trying to pretend this didn’t happen. Even if that’s not true, it represents a profound misreading of what the situation calls for.

I call on the @fsf board to resign. If they truly care about the cause of free software, more than they care about their personal empire-building, they’ll do it.

However, if they fail to make structural change in the organization, they’ll continue their descent into obscure irrelevance. As an industry, we no longer have time or patience for shitty institutions. Our standards have gone up. And right now, @fsf is well below the bar.

All of the (many!) interesting discussions happening in the industry right now about software and freedom are happening without participation (or, seemingly, the notice) of the FSF.

We can decide for ourselves - and we are! - what kind of “freedom” we want in our software. It’s early, yet, but it’s safe to say that even in broad outlines, the type of freedom we need now looks *very* different from the version that the FSF currently champions.

The FSF could lend their support & experience to this process of finding the right modern conception of “software freedom.” I’d love if they did. But we can do it regardless. And we will.