Any writeup of this that concentrates on external responses and ignores the strong response from many within the communities that RMS led is failing to tell the complete story. There's no shortage of people extremely familiar with his work and behaviour who felt his continued involvement was inappropriate, but instead we're exposed to story after story about how a group of people pushing a one sided narrative unjustly silenced RMS. Which is ironic, given that they're only presenting one side of the events in question.
I wonder what you are talking about? He got a ton of bad press that no one wanted to be associated with, but when it came down to the communities he leads, they were largely supportive of him. GNU is a collection of programs that publicly ascribe to ethical principles he advocates for and helps define, but when it comes to the actual work of development, they are lead by their individual maintainers, not RMS. A small minority wanted him to step down, largely because they wanted someone who would lead GNU on issues like technical direction and marketing, and they were told new leadership is welcome, there's no need to remove RMS for that, and wanting a leader doesn't make one magically appear and so it didn't go anywhere. He is a maintainer of Emacs, no one there wanted him gone, and he is a leader of a couple people who are called the GNU webmasters, and none who were active wanted him gone.
Nadine doesn't know all that, but the opinion of an outsider who doesn't have personal involvement skewing their views is extremely worthwhile.
This may well be true, but it wasn't the centerpiece of his cancellation. And if it is true, it hasn't been publicly articulated in any coherent way, as far as I can tell. I'm not saying that it isn't the case, it's well known that RMS can be abrasive. But if he was actually forced out for that reason, it seems like someone familiar with it should have written that up in some way.
I've seen a few off-hand accusations that he made women uncomfortable in non-specific ways. I can certainly believe that might be true, and may indicate some greater transgression lurking behind the scenes. But to my knowledge nobody has actually said what that is.
In 2019 I read a statement that within the MIT media labs every women actively avoided him. That is maybe not enough to "cancel" him but speaks a clear message also.
I think RMS' documented behaviour within communities over the years absolutely justified consequences of some sort.
I also think the blatant lying about him by people outside of those communities should have attracted consequences as well, and the fact that it largely didn't makes it annoyingly easier for people to make those stories look plausible.
