[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNU Kind Communication Guidelines versus social contract or Codes of

From: Andreas
Subject: Re: GNU Kind Communication Guidelines versus social contract or Codes of Conduct
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 13:04:33 +0100

On Sun, 2019-11-10 at 18:52 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

> The dynamics I’ve observed over the last decade is that people who’d
> like GNU to be more welcoming, more transparent, and/or community-
> run,
> would eventually give up and silently leave.  I’ve seen brilliant
> people
> leave, and for me

That's supposition, likely coloured by personal bias.

> enough is enough.

That's a slogan without added substance. Enough of *what* is enough of
*what* here? 

Please use words that would help clarify the situation and create
understanding. Slogans are not helpful here.

> We are legitimate members of the project, and we have legitimate
> demands. 

So formulate those demands in a point by point fashion so they can be
discussed and debated. The current approach of slowly presenting them
in a developing document is creating confusion and misunderstandings,
and hardening opinions in the process. It hasn't failed at this point,
but it's not proven very convincing or making much progress.

>  Let’s work together on shaping this new GNU!

Let's start then with the natural and non-contentious assumption that
the current chief GNUisance at some point will no longer be able to
perform his duty[1].

What should happen next?

Should the role of GNUisance be made obsolete? If not, who will be
their successor?

If so, who will supervise the implementation of software freedom? Will
there be voting?

How will voting work? Who will be allowed to vote? 

How does the FSF fit in all this? What is the current relation with the
FSF, and will it be maintained in the same capacity?

et cetera, et cetera.

As things are there seems to be a loose request for stricter oversight
and more governance, but with no clear goal defined or procedures given
to reach that goal other than: "We'll start drafting this unspecified
document and everything will explain itself over time."

It appears to be a messy approach for something as important as
overhauling the governance of the project, so getting people to agree
might be a very hard sell, even if they are not opposed to your


[1] Maybe because of age, maybe because GNU maintainers threaten to
step back with a vote of no confidence with such a majority the project
would no longer have any substance. Either way, it would be a neutral
framework that would be needed regardless.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]