Mark Galassi <mark(a)galassi.org> skribis:
We do not yet have to have a detailed governance, but we should have
placeholder that shows that we are serious about doing this well.
That makes sense to me.
My guess is that we are passed the point of no return for the former
GNU project. The document someone pointed to about the "appointment
for life" of the chief gnuisance makes it clear that nothing will
happen there: it that document was created *after* the 2019 events.
The FSF appears to be an echo chamber for its founder rather than what
we wish it were, and that is unlikely to change.
Undoubtedly. I don’t think anyone here thinks the “former” GNU project
can move forward in its current form.
I'd like to point to a couple of resources y'all might want
consider as we prepare our governance structure. One is an interview
to Keith Packard (one of the authors of X and author of countless
other free s/w projects, committed to both software freedom and good
structures) in FLOSS Weekly:
If you know of textual summaries of these issues, that’d be great. :-)
(I’d also like to listen to this episode, but time is scarce.)
Every real-world constitution has two aspects. On the one hand
manual for running a country; on the other it's a treaty among all
interests competing for advantage at the moment the constitution is
created. [...] Some constitutions are more manual; some lean more
Heh, interesting angle.
The next step on the critical path seems to be:
Make sure that we have a convincing placeholder for governance,
something like drafting a list of 4 or 5 people we have asked to draft
the governance structure. That way the web page can convincingly
state that we are working on that. A lot of this will depend on who
wants to volunteer a solid bit of time on GNU assembly leadership :-)
What would you write in that governance page today?
The option that some of us had in mind was a consensus-driven model, as
Andy wrote 10 years ago:
We would also most likely need voting for situations where consensus
cannot be met, for example, which means we need to define who gets to
vote, etc. That consensus-first option also means we probably wouldn’t
give 4–5 people a “privileged” role in drafting the governance
But I guess we should all look at the examples you mentioned to get a
better idea of what we can do.
(Note that if we become a Software Freedom Conservancy project,
Conservancy will require a project leadership committee of some 3
people or more, so getting that in place will be important if we then
submit a full package.)
Other things can probably wait, but we might want to write a
preliminary letter to Conservancy. There is an evaluation committee
meeting tomorrow (then one in a month) and getting a preliminary
letter in would mean that some informal conversation in the evaluation
committee would put us on Conservancy's radar.
That’d be nice.