I do have a problem with the current closed constitution of the FSFE.
This is not a democratic system, but a system set up by a few self-nominated individuals. As such it has no political validity.
Although I grant, that the current members of the FSFE are well-meaning and are greatly contributing to the Free Software movement, they cannot represent the Free Software Movement at large, since at least technically they only represent themselves: there exists no political mandate.
I fear that many others, who would be supportive of the Free Software movement, hold back, because they do not really feel represented.
I hear again and again the argument of hostile takeovers, and that may be a valid one. Why is it then however, that anyone can become a member of the FSF (in the USA)? Does RMS not worry about hostile takeovers?
I believe there must be other measures than such a closed society to prevent hostile takeovers. For example, you may exclude anyone from membership, who works for a company that produces proprietary software products, since there would obviously be a conflict of interest.
Although a benevolent oligarchy may actually be more efficient than a democracy, how are you going to be respected by the democratically elected members of the governments you are talking to?
- Josef