Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

[Daniel Pocock]

On 14/01/2020 22:31, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:39 AM Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> wrote:
>> FSF will not change unless somebody gives them a strong reason to change.
>>
>> For example, if GNU developers write the following email to FSF, that
>> will bring change.
>>
>> Each developer needs to make their own decision if they will send the
>> email.  RMS has previously suggested he would not like people to
>> completely abandon the agreements.  The email template below is only for
>> a conditional suspension of the agreement.  Nobody can tell you to
>> continue assigning[1] your rights to FSF if you want to wait for more
>> clarity about FSF's future.
>>
>> You can still keep coding during the suspension: if a significant
>> quantity of code is published and virtually embargoed like this, it
>> creates an incentive for FSF to satisfy those people and gain rights
>> over that code.
> 
> I can empathize with your frustration over the current state of
> affairs and the lack of transparency (including timely updates to
> members of the FSF).
> 
> However, what you propose is seems like a measure of last resort.
> 

That is a matter of perspective

In France, la grève is the go-to solution


> May I encourage you to help the current GNU Project volunteers working
> to define a governance model that is organized from the bottom-up? A
> governance model that rallies around the community to engage them in
> the goals of the GNU Project, not just the outcomes.

My proposal is not intended to distract from that. Rather, it is
intended to help focus people's minds.

> We absolutely need people like you to promote the goals of the GNU Project.
> 

Thanks, I really appreciate your positive attitude.