2:11 p.m.
Mark Galassi <mark(a)galassi.org> writes:
> A common question might be “is this a fork of GNU”?
Hahahahaha. Some time let's have ourselves a videocon with
jitsi or big blue button and gab a bit about things. I'll tell
you the inside story of the EGCS for of gcc.
But I would suggest that the answer to this one be diplomatic
and honest at the same time, something like:
The term "fork" does not really apply. The GNU principles and
standards and projects are all the same. This is simply a place
where governance on future decisions can be made in a
transparent manner. Also note that the scope of "future
decisions" is not huge.
I also think that the concept of a fork does not apply here.
(It’s the go-to association of many software people, and it’s hard
to bypass that branching error.)
We *are* a part of GNU. It’s not like we leave to start our own
thing — we *stay* and start our own thing. As a group we declare
our freedom from unilateral decision-making and representation.
Do we intend to harm the GNU project by “splintering off”? On the
contrary! Had we listened to those who over the years told us
that we should just go and do our own thing if we disagreed with
how GNU is run and how it presents itself, then GNU would be much
poorer off. We give a name to the group of GNU maintainers and
contributors who share the GNU vision but also are disappointed
with what we see as a lack of healthy governance.
This is not a fork of GNU. To use another phrase that software
folks like to use: we eat our own dog food. We become the change
we want to see in cooperative GNU governance.
As we readily show on the list of endorsements, it certainly isn’t
something *every* GNU maintainer and contributor is on board with.
This is fine. It will be difficult to find anything in the past
decades that had full support of *all* GNU maintainers and
contributors. By articulating our vision for GNU and working
alongside each other guided by consensus we merely name the spirit
and make it real by willing it to be.
--
Ricardo