On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 5:20 AM Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:
> Mark Galassi <mark@galassi.org> writes:
>
> > Does anyone have any opinions on whether we should proceed even
> > without feeling a deep inner drive for governance?  Or should we
> > wait
> > for further elements to fall in place?
>
> As I see it, we have at least three open issues here:
>
>   - who can vote?
>   - how do we decide?
>   - will we ever decide to let other packages join GNU?
>
> (The last one is particularly inflammatory, because it is a
> head-on disagreement with GNU leadership of the past decades, so I
> wouldn’t mind delaying this until the first two issues are
> solved.)
>
> With this third item in mind, who should be able to vote on issues
> affecting GNU?  Should we attempt to avoid giving the cultures of
> large projects more weight due to their larger number of
> contributors?

Who can vote?
- If you endorse the social contract.
- If you abide by the code of conduct.
- If you have commit rights to a project included in the GNU Assembly.
- Then you get a vote.

How do we decide?
- Proposal for vote. Seconded. Waiting period. Vote (pick a scheme).

Will we ever decide to let other packages join GNU?
- Maybe some day. I don't think we should do that for now.
- We should decide to add packages to the GNU Assembly and pick a
process for that.
- I think the set of packages in the GNU Assembly are derived from
members joining.

Thoughts?