Right or wrong, all these are completely irrelevant. FSF is not a government, they don't HAVE to serve the majority of peoples want. FSF is not a corporation that has to remain relevant for the benefit of it's shareholders. FSF stands for whatever FSF stands for and whoever agrees can sign up. If one disagrees they are welcome to move on with their lives (or kinrly argue about what would be better). What we see here is an attempt to hold FSF accountable to some arbitary standards in order to paint them inadequate, allowing us to conclude they are irrelevant. This is a fallacy. However, this attempt goes even further. So what if they are irrelevant? So what if they have stagnated? What if they are out of touch? What's the harm to society? Why does the author need to compile a bunch of false and childish arguments to put them down?
You're right that in the end, the FSF does not have to produce anything of value. However, that is literally the rock bottom of standards to hold an incorporated entity that receives donations.
The problem with the FSF being stagnant and useless is that it still governs a (decreasing) share of software that many people rely on and hamper progress on these projects.
