Depending on the structure that the assembly takes we may need to vote
Does anyone have any opinions on FOSS voting tools?
I recently saw Helios Voting discussed (https://heliosvoting.org/),
but I haven't looked at the license or what is required to run the
Mark Wielaard <mark(a)klomp.org> skribis:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 06:39:18PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the letter also calls to “[r]efuse to contribute to
>> projects related to the FSF and RMS”. As Andy explained³, this is
>> something that’s hard for us to sign, as people who maintain and
>> contribute to “projects related to the FSF”.
> Note that several GNU projects and individual contributors (including
> some assembly members) have already signed that open letter. It also
> says "We urge those in a position to do so..." which implies a
> transitional period for those who cannot yet.
To me (and to Andreas and Andy, AIUI), it can be interpreted as “stop
contributing to GNU”. I don’t see “those in a position to do so” as
having any concrete effect; at best, it can be interpreted as “stop
contributing to GNU eventually”.
> First action item is finishing the rules to allow new GNU Assembly
> members. We have some requests to join this list that I cannot act
> upon because we haven't exactly established what is required to join.
Agreed; we should start a thread on this topic.
> Note that this does mean we will have to find a solution for those GNU
> projects (like the GNU toolchain and GNU Guix) currently using the FSF
> Working together fund to start using a different financial setup. This
> will be somewhat painful. But associating with a different foundation
> (or start our own) can also be seen as a fresh start.
That’s another topic (and a tricky one!) that toolchain and Guix folks
will have to sort out. It requires thought and planning, if/when those
projects decide to look for a different fiscal sponsor.
Dear GNU Assembly,
Like many I’m astonished by the FSF’s decision to reinstate RMS (who
actually still had voting rights, I recently learned). To me, it’s a
betrayal, as if the forced resignation two years ago was a masquerade.
I support the call in the open letter to RMS¹ “for the removal of the
entire Board of the Free Software Foundation.” Until it has cleaned
house, this foundation can no longer pretend to represent the free
I also support the call to remove RMS “from all leadership positions,
including the GNU Project”, though I think we’ve gone past that: we
demanded that two years ago², but by creating this assembly, we affirmed
that GNU Project leadership is in our hands, collectively, as
maintainers and contributors to GNU.
Unfortunately, the letter also calls to “[r]efuse to contribute to
projects related to the FSF and RMS”. As Andy explained³, this is
something that’s hard for us to sign, as people who maintain and
contribute to “projects related to the FSF”.
Perhaps one workaround for this bug, so to speak, would be for us to
publish a statement expressing our support, reaffirming where we stand
wrt. “GNU leadership” and what it is we seek to build (as Mark wrote⁴),
and calling hackers to join us in building a landmark of free software
actively working to create a welcoming space for all.
Yes, it would be yet another statement in an already long list. But
we’re in a sweet spot and I think our voice needs to be heard. It’s an
opportunity to move forward on our agenda, too.
following the statement by KDE e.V. on the recent events at the FSF:
where they point out the transparency of their government structure,
I was curious how the FSF is actually organised.
I thought it was obvious as for non-profits in France ("association loi
1901"), and Germany ("eingetragener Verein") that the board of directors
would be elected by all members of the organisation; in these two countries
this is required by law. Is it related to the fact that the FSF is an
When we created Guix Europe, our aim was to be as open, transparent and
participatory as possible: our financial accounts as well as our decisions
are documented publicly.
For the FSF, I found their bylaws at:
It turns out that the organisation is run by the "voting members", and
this quality is passed on from generation to generation, more like a
family business than a non-profit.
Now my question: Is the list of voting members publicly known? If yes,
I would be grateful for a source.