I wouldn't call it drama. There's often important practical reasons to try to minimize closed parts of the firmware. See also the high-security / high-trustworthiness work of Purism.
There's definitely drama around it. There's drama around whether devices seeking RYF certification can use newer (blob-allowing) versions of Libreboot, even if the devices has a board for which Libreboot doesn't use blobs. There's drama around whether FSDG-following GNU/Linux distros can still ship the Libreboot tools.
The page https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html does a better job of showing how the Libreboot's policy is at odds with the FSF's RYF and FSDG policies. And that disagreement between Libreboot and the FSF definitely causes drama in the community.
Heck, a few Libreboot contributors split off and created a fork (also claiming the Libreboot name): https://libreboot.at/
I hadn't seen this new Libreboot policy. This is fantastic!
The FSF's criteria have become quite calcified and unprincipled at this point. Specifically I'm talking about how blobs loaded from flash are given a pass, while blobs on isolated coprocessors are verboten.
Principle requires that binary blobs in flash (or even ROM) are put in the same class as every other binary blob. And pragmatism for the modern world requires that we incorporate security relationships into our analysis of user freedom.
I wouldn't say that the FSF's criteria are unprincipled. At his pre-Libreplanet talk on 2023-03-17, RMS gave a principled and pragmatic explanation of the criteria. I don't agree with him on his application of some of the principles or on where the appropriate places to make compromises between principles and pragmatism are; but that doesn't mean his conclusions are unprincipled.
I'm watching the video (I haven't had my dose of RMS in a while), but I haven't heard anything new so far.
The bit I'd call unprincipled is giving a pass to software that is baked into hardware, and hardware modification in general. This is pure pragmatism from the world of the 90's, regardless of the stated justification.
This crutch allows RMS to avoid having to work out an approach to analyzing systems which are combinations of libre, non-libre, and someone else's domains. And due to the rise of everpresent network connectivity, analyzing these combined systems to figure out how libre software can be used to create the most user freedom is more important than ever.
In RMS's terms, such systems just seem to be considered "unethical; avoid" and his thinking stops. This isn't particularly productive when overwhelming commercial interests herd users into those types of systems, network effects keep them there, and many are part of real businesses that can't just be forked.
I'm curious why you call it drama and not debate. Every open source project is constantly debating new ideas. Calling something drama has a connotation of another layer of ego.
But I would say that there is an answer here. Given the mutually-agreed on objective of protecting/creating-a-distribution-that-respects the users' rights to the 4 freedoms as defined by the FSF, there is an answer as to which policy best serves that goal.
Libreboot has said "given that goal, we believe that the FSF's RYF and FSDG policies are problematic and partially undermine the goal", and the FSF has said "no, we believe that our RYF and FSDG policies are the best policies at this point in time, and Libreboot's non-compliance with those policies partially undermines the goal". But both sides agree on the goal.
I wouldn't call it drama. There's often important practical reasons to try to minimize closed parts of the firmware. See also the high-security / high-trustworthiness work of Purism.