Re: governance should probably come first - past models and next steps

"Carlos O'Donell" <carlos(a)systemhalted.org&gt; writes: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 5:20 AM Ricardo Wurmus <rekado(a)elephly.net&gt; > wrote: > > > > > > Mark Galassi <mark(a)galassi.org&gt; 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. This sounds reasonable at first, but on second thought I feel I should note that for some projects proliferation of commit access is undesirable and contribution is almost exclusively done by sending patches, review, and have one of few committers apply them. This means that several high profile contributors may not have commit access. I still think this is a good rule to get started, though.

> Will we ever decide to let other packages join GNU? > - Maybe some day. I don't think we should do that for now. thumbs up emoji -- Ricardo