7:33 p.m.
Hi -
> I am getting the sense that some members of this group are
> contemplating actions much more specific than that, proposing or
> organizing FSF-disconnected governance structures, possibly forking
> GNU projects.
Please feel free to just ask what people are thinking.
What are people thinking?
> To a fence-sitter or outsider, that doesn't make sense,
becuase the
> web site's social contract / conduct terminology say nothing about
> that. Heck, it seems to me that RMS himself or his fans could all
> come here, and with full honesty "acknowledge and agree" to the
> general contract/conduct. It is all about aspirational present/future
> behaviour, not the past, after all. What then?
Could you please expand on what doesn't make sense?
It does not make sense to conflate nominal support for the
social-contract with support for the other things.
> Is this group pre-committed to forming new project bodies,
setting
> rules, taking other actions that change existing maintenance /
> affiliation relationships, or excluding people who might not have
> lived up to your understanding of the social-contract in the past? If
> so, IMHO the web site should just come out and say that. Clarity is
> good!
Could you please clarify your question a bit more?
Let me try to rephrase and tell me if I have it right:
* Would the GNU Assembly accept someone who previously did not live
up
to the Social Contract but committed to it going forward?
* Would the GNU Assembly accept RMS if he agreed to abide by the
Social Contract and the CoC?
* What would the GNU Assembly do if someone violates the Social Contract?
* What would the GNU Assembly do if someone violates the CoC?
Those are good questions.
Plus "What development community organizational characteristics or
changes are logically Required in order to act in harmony with the
social contract?".
They would help answer the key one: "What is the gnu assembly, really?"
- FChE