> organizations need not and should not elevate spokespeople and leaders who speak regularly on unrelated issues that organizations find do not advance their mission, and/or that alienate important constituents. I, like many other software freedom leaders, curtail my public comments on issues not related to FOSS. (Indeed, I would not even be commenting on this issue if it had not become a central issue of concern to the software freedom community.)
I really respect this. Kuhn is articulating a principle here and then gives an example of how he himself makes a sacrifice to adhere to this principle. This makes him much more credible to me than if he was using the principle solely as an instrument against others.
"organizations need not and should not elevate spokespeople and leaders"
Musing out loud here, the question is if an organization elevates its founder. It almost seems like it's the other way around - the founder elevates the organization. If we prevent people from founding organizations at all, will the organizations be founded by people with more acceptable views? Or not founded at all?
It’s not about doing more than one thing at once, it’s about picking your battles. Leaders have a limited amount of what I call “credibility capital” (see https://jasonlefkowitz.net/2003/03/where_leaders_f_1/) they can use to get things done. The more of it you spend on issues unrelated to your core strategic concerns, the less you have available to spend on those.
Some leaders have tons of credibility capital banked away, so they can afford to freelance on the side. But freelancing is a luxury. Spend too much on that and you’ll fail at your main job.
It's not really about leaders at all but about the public and press who will listen to and amplify anything leaders say even if it's off-topic bullshit.
Please explain how I did and I won't. Mentioning Trump does not equate to "ideological flamewar". I know you cant explain what you said because you are HN's biggest troll.
>You should be able to do more than one thing at once.
Depends on the things.
Remain President and play golf? Sure.
Remain a spokesman for free software and repeatedly and publicly expound on your belief that pedophilia isn't harmful, and that children are capable of sexual consent? Yes, apparently.
That, and then toss a match on the PR tinderbox that is MIT's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein with a tediously legalistic argument over the definition of sexual assault which appears to the rest of the world to be an attempt to defend Marvin Minsky's alleged involvement in child sex trafficking? No. Turns out that's the straw that breaks the camel's back.
I really respect this. Kuhn is articulating a principle here and then gives an example of how he himself makes a sacrifice to adhere to this principle. This makes him much more credible to me than if he was using the principle solely as an instrument against others.