Hi Ludo, Uh, I don’t know. I’m feeling a little exhausted when it comes to GNU. When I first discovered gnu.org and browsed the list of abandoned software packages I wondered “huh, whatever happened to this great idea of an operating system that is founded in respect for the user’s freedom?”. It wasn’t until I stumbled upon Guix that I first felt that the spirit is still alive. My contributions to GNU (aside from Guix) were made under the assumption that the original goals were still relevant and ready to be updated for a changed computing culture that has greatly improved defaults (a lot of great software out there is made free by cultural default) on one axis and has seen severe regression in other dimensions. The lack of enthusiasm outside of a tiny subset of GNU was sobering, the lethargy infectious, the continuation of groanworthy puns sticky, the public communication ineffective or straight up harmful. I think that a retrospective of 40 years of GNU can only be successful if we manage to distill that spirit and envision what actions it suggests for the next 5 years or so. Where do we as the active parts of GNU want to see GNU being relevant? How are we going to make that happen? A small first step could be to change the landing page on https://gnu.tools. It currently lists values that might explain to insiders why the schism occurred. I think it would be better to have it state in simple words what the GNU System is, what it is supposed to be, and what it might become. Followed by examples of practical user freedom and empowerment in participating member projects. Perhaps if we can overcome the perception of “GNU is a collection of command line tools that will cease to be relevant once we’ve rewritten them in Rust” we can begin to communicate the GNU idea effectively to today’s developers and users. -- Ricardo PS: When I think of 40 years of GNU I cannot help but see parallels to the story of the Israelites wandering the desert for 40 years.