6:14 p.m.
Maybe the distance between the FSF/GNU decision "boards"
and the people
who actually contribute to the software grew so much because of the
very existence of such "boards".
There is no real FSF/GNU governance. I think it is pretty clear that the FSF and any
decision making in old-time GNU was just an echo chamber for the founder. Our point here
is to move away from that and pick up the opportunities that were lost.
I don't feel at ease with the current GNU Assembly because I do
not
know the people in https://gnu.tools/en/documents/roles/ and their
political ideas or vision.
That is the whole point of this thread that I started: we need to reach governance soon so
that people can propose candidacy and describe themselves. Then you will know. I think
this might take care of your concern. If you look at how Gnome did it back in 2000-07 you
will see how well that worked.
I like how Rust does it with cycling leadership position often with
contributors themselves. The "Working Group" idea also, I like it.
Actually Rust has evolved and grown and has now created a Foundation with a board of
directors. Someone here might want to analyze it and write a report on how they got
there, similar to my report on how Gnome did it.
You can read how they have introduced themselves and much more at:
https://foundation.rust-lang.org/