2:51 p.m.
Hi Ludo,
thanks for the initiative!
I have nothing constructive to contribute at this point, so what
follows are merely comments.
# Is this a fork of GNU?
No. The notion of “fork” applies to software. The [software in
question](/en/software) is not being forked here, and the people
who
write that software remain the same.
The second sentence seems a bit like nitpicking. It surely would
not be out of place in an rms-email ;) I’d remove it, because the next sentence already
answers the
question without attempting to correct the asker first :)
# You’re just a minority anyway
That’s not a question, but you’re right: about [30
people](/en/people),
mostly maintainers, endorsed the [Social
“maintainers” means something different for GNU insiders than it
does for outsiders. We should make it explicit that these are
“appointed GNU maintainers”, though I guess this wording would
exclude the special case of GCC “maintainer” doesn’t only have the
GNU meaning.
Contract](/en/documents/social-contract) and may participate in
the
Assembly. The number keeps increasing but is still a fraction
of the
number of contributors to GNU packages: there are 300+ GNU
maintainers
These 300+ maintainers are not “contributors” in the GNU sense.
This hierarchical distinction is annoying, but I think we should
not conflate the associated terms for these two different roles,
especially not on a clarifying document like this.
“on file”, though not everyone and [not each project is
active](https://wingolog.org/archives/2020/02/09/state-of-the-gnunion-2020),
[some](https://www.gnuradio.org)
[even](https://www.r-project.org)
[left](https://gnutls.org) [years](https://www.gnome.org)
[ago](https://www.gimp.org) despite being [still
listed](https://www.gnu.org/software).
It would be great to have links to announcements or other evidence
here.
# Why didn’t you try to effect change from the inside?
We did! It goes back to [at least ten years
back](/en/blog/2021/04/kicking-off-the-gnu-assembly/). The
project was
met with enthusiasm from some and hostility from others. That’s
fine,
we don’t have to agree!
Unfortunately, most of these discussions happened behind closed
doors on
private mailing lists. The Assembly is determined to have
transparent
processes—this will not happen here.
Perhaps we should emphasize that these private mailing lists are
not *our* private mailing lists where we schemed and plotted our
sinister coup, but that the use of that private GNU mailing list
is how communication among GNU was facilitated. Reading the above
paragraphs one could think that *we* discussed behind closed doors
and since we promised not to tell anyone we can’t reveal any
further information.
There are other things that probably should go into the FAQ (not
with this exact wording):
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
* Why now? Is this really about <current event>?
While current events certainly motivated the decision to make our
efforts more visible, the desire for stronger collaboration
between GNU packages and for communal decision-making as it
pertains to a shared vision has been the subject of many
discussions among GNU maintainers and contributors over the past
decade or so.
* Why don’t you just leave and start your own organization?
[* Can you drop the Code of Conduct?]
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
I don’t feel very inspired today, sorry.
I especially like the last question and the general style of these
answers.
--
Ricardo