I worked for a company which licensed its product as GPLv2

The funniest part is that this Devault's argument is the exact opposite of "inclusion and representation". Make arguments for RMS's removal based on his actions, but wanting him gone because of his gender, skin colour and/or age is just as exclusionary as Ku Klux Klan is. It's just wrong.

Anyone promoting diversity as an end goal in and of itself, especially as a solution to a political organization focused on politics other than race, gender identity, etc. is simply promoting distracting the organization from its real goals. Just like how the schedules for all conferences about various technical subjects become 50%+ "Navel gazing about being X in tech" instead of about, y'know, the tech. The FSF's limited political capital will be more and more wasted on various diversity initiatives instead of their primary goals of promoting software freedom. And unfortunately I think the FSF has already fallen victim to this trend to various extents, but following the author's advice will merely accelerate it.

Could not agree with you more, it's one thing to say a person is a product of their time and we need leadership to take the same approach however with new modern social viewpoints and diplomatic approaches. RMS is not a proper businessman, and not a social butterfly either, he has many haters whether you agree with what he says or not. However, it is a complete other thing to say 'we'll fix this with more inclusion, yep, that'll fix it', this is the pinnacle is doing the least amount of effort, just like a convincing leader that use anecdotes to sell their vision..its cheap.

If there was a replacement RMS, they too would have to say no on points of principle to things, make enemies of people who want them to say yes, be whispered against, be unpopular. That's what the role is, say what nobody else will say, make people uncomfortable when apathy is comfortable, and when nobody else will act, take action and rally others against things that are bad. It's not a role that will inspire universal love whomever takes it. If instead FSF stops with that and tries not to upset anyone it will be dead, not just in decline.

I worked for a company which licensed its product as GPLv2. One of our clients (who we trained on the product) saw this and then began competing with us by selling their own version of our product. The company released a newer version of the code and made it proprietary. The FSF answer to this is that this is exactly how the GPL is intended to work Updating GPL code and making the resulting product proprietary is one of the main things the GPL is supposed to prevent.

Yes, you don't want inclusion to be your only bar, but if you don't state it as a goal from the beginning then it won't even be considered. It is becoming a bigger and bigger red flag for an organization to not have some diversity of gender or race, pointing it out is not inappropriate.