Yes is not the right person to be a spokesperson, mainly also because he does not carry his discussion to ‘non-believers’ where they operate. We know he has no compromise, and he can be (no sorry is) unrelenting in what he believes is right or wrong for open source, but his heart is in the right place regarding OSS. The way he says anything, does not always come across well to everyone, and he has put the backs up of many especially commercial companies who want compromise.
But we can’t condemn him for that type of personality - he will typically argue the semantics of an issue (in his way) and if it is a very sensitive issue involving human beings, he is not going to see why that arguments needs some provisos and ensuring it is coming across correctly.
I still don’t know the full context of what was said and why (others are also asking I see). He probably thinks that trying to explain his angle would do further damage, and with him yes probably so, not because of why he said something, but he gets literally interpreted, and we have to be aware of his own way of thinking. I’m thinking he was putting a Devil’s Advocate point of view from a programmer’s perspective, and that is just not the way to approach such a situation. If your expertise is way more technical, on people matters you should just keep quiet and listen.
For the FSF Board maybe he has an important role to play (not being spokesperson or Chairperson), as long as he had no malicious intent. I get the feeling was really naive, and he should stick to topics that he is the expert in.
Yes is not the right person to be a spokesperson, mainly also because he does not carry his discussion to ‘non-believers’ where they operate. We know he has no compromise, and he can be (no sorry is) unrelenting in what he believes is right or wrong for open source, but his heart is in the right place regarding OSS. The way he says anything, does not always come across well to everyone, and he has put the backs up of many especially commercial companies who want compromise.
But we can’t condemn him for that type of personality - he will typically argue the semantics of an issue (in his way) and if it is a very sensitive issue involving human beings, he is not going to see why that arguments needs some provisos and ensuring it is coming across correctly.
I still don’t know the full context of what was said and why (others are also asking I see). He probably thinks that trying to explain his angle would do further damage, and with him yes probably so, not because of why he said something, but he gets literally interpreted, and we have to be aware of his own way of thinking. I’m thinking he was putting a Devil’s Advocate point of view from a programmer’s perspective, and that is just not the way to approach such a situation. If your expertise is way more technical, on people matters you should just keep quiet and listen.
For the FSF Board maybe he has an important role to play (not being spokesperson or Chairperson), as long as he had no malicious intent. I get the feeling was really naive, and he should stick to topics that he is the expert in.