6:56 p.m.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 2:31 PM Frank Ch. Eigler <fche(a)redhat.com> wrote:
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.
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?
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?
Cheers,
Carlos.