Re: The General Public Licence (GPL) as the basic governance tool

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org>
> Cc: "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org>, gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org,
>  christophe@poncy.fr
> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:02:34 +0100
> 
> > I don't see the opposing viewpoints reflected in your documentation
> > anywhere. You have formed a subgroup, discussed your views in private,
> > and are now soliciting positive feedback within the project, while
> > largely ignoring negative one.
> 
> This is wrong.  See the timeline at:
> 
>   https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:gsc-feedback

If, as that page says, the proposed "contract" is entirely voluntary,
then what is its significance?  IOW, what would those who endorse it
have or be entitled to that the others won't?  And why are you going
to such lengths trying to advance and promote a document which is not
mandatory for endorsement by GNU developers and maintainers?  Those
promotion efforts imply that the document is somehow very central to
your ideas of governance and the call for changes in the GNU
leadership, whereas dismissing its importance by saying the
endorsement is entirely optional seems to fly in the face of those
efforts.  This apparent contradiction needs to be clarified, IMO,
because its existence makes your intention unclear and even somewhat
mysterious.

More generally, I don't think that page answers Dmitry's concerns.
The disputes we witness here and elsewhere about your initiative
involve much more than just that single short declarative document,
they are about several more specific ideas of yours, such as that GNU
maintainers and developers should have more say in the GNU political
decision-making, and that RMS should be removed from his current role
because you think he is unfit for leading GNU and even causes harm to
GNU.  There's nothing in your Wiki about dissent over these and other
related ideas, AFICT.