5:10 p.m.
[...] the mention of gnu-prog-discuss be taken into account.
Aha! Now I see what y'all meant. I have received gnu-prog-discuss since 1997
(headlines from that time are hilarious, including dicussions of GNU Oleo, and subject
lines like "GPL SUCKS" and "Listen, loser" ..., and moderation
proposals) so I always assumed it's public, but I guess it isn't. (The list feels
like Trantor in the 2nd Foundation book, but maybe it's always been like that.)
Here are two FAQ suggestions:
Q: dudes, I'm confused: what terminology can I use to distinguish the legacy
non-governed GNU from GNU with upcoming governance developed by the GNU Assembly?
A: we do not yet have a consensus, but we are starting to throw around terms like LGNU for
non-governancy GNU structure, and GNUNG for maximally symmetric acronyming that could be
GNU "Next Generation" or GNU "Now Governed". Or GNUWG for GNU With
Governance.
Q: Dudes, y'all started discussing GNU governance in gnu-prog-discuss, which is not a
public mailing list. How can you claim to be transparent? One might think you came from
the shadows.
A: You are right that early discussions happened in that list which LGNU kept secret for
GNU deliberations, but we did not discuss any details. On that list we just urged
individual developers to declare their intention to adopt a code of conduct and the GNU
social contract. We then immediately moved to the archived and publicly visible
assembly(a)lists.gnu.tools mailing list, and all discussions of substance and detailed have
happened in the open.