Few of us are so synomymous with the organisation we work for that any controversial remarks we make in public are likely to do lasting damage to the reputation of said organisation - especially if we were to subsequently resign and remain silent afterwards. That is not the case with RMS with regards to the FSF. He will forever be associated with the free software movement and, by implication, the FSF.

On that basis engineering his resignation on the strength of his comments on social and political issues did nothing to protect the reputation of the free software movement. All it achieved was to salve the consciences of the other FSF board members. How damaged was the free software movement anyway?

Most people outside the FLOSS world have never heard of RMS so his sometimes distasteful, but sometimes thought-provoking views would have no bearing on their decisions to adopt open source software.

People in the FLOSS world know RMS for his eccentricities, along with his visionary genius. I suspect that while many publicly feign shock at his outbursts, for most it is just "RMS being RMS" followed by an attempt to get any images conjured up by some of his ideas out of their heads.

If the FSF fundamentally stands for anything it is freedom, so to sideline somebody for exercising their right to personal opinions and free speech seems a bit incongruous. Given that getting rid of RMS was never going to distance the FSF from him, they would have been better to have taken the view - even in the form of public statements if necessary - that other FSF board members abhor some of his views on non-technical matters but totally support his right to hold and express those views. In these days of "cancel culture" when people are dismissed from jobs or prevented from speaking in public for fear of what they might say it would have been a refreshing change to see an organisation defending the right to free speech instead of just taking the path of least resistance.