In that sense I thank RMS for defining #SoftwareFreedom. It is now up to all of us to continue to fight for Software Freedom.
@jwildeboer I agree, but I also think that there's a value in people that have a strong and incorruptible opinion. Especially when you have big technology companies around that try to exploit the FOSS movement and direct it towards their own goals.
Otherwise Microsoft and Google will turn themselves into leaders. And sadly, I believe they already are.
@t0k But heroes fail and risk the movement to fail with them. The whole RMS discussion perfectly proves that right now. Infighting that hurts the movement.
@jwildeboer Yes indeed, personality cult is not what we need.
I know the FSF and RMS for their ideals. For example I knew about Copyleft for a while without knowing about RMS.
You're right, we need more resilience. What can we do that a defamation attack on a single person does not subvert the movement?
I don't think that 'leaderless' is a stable strategy. There will always be somebody trying to become a leader. And out from total chaos this is easy.
@t0k One reasonable approach is to make sure that official leaders have to be elected in transparent ways and can not stay on forever. But more important IMHO is to focus on decentralised education about the goals of Software Freedom.
@lxo the alternative however IMHO cannot be self-appointed leadership positions for life, without any say by the wider community.
@lxo there’s also nothing wrong with a social movement deciding that their self-appointed leader is not the right representative anymore, IMHO.
@jwildeboer Probably we don't have the same definition of the term leader or leadership. To me, everybody which has a clear opinion and / or a way how to accomplish things that many people agree with is leading.
I agree that we don't need one or only a few leaders. But the free and open software world is IMHO in need for lots of leaders.
Mastodon instance for people with Wildeboer as their last name