Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

[Jean Louis]

* Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> [2019-10-21 20:27]:
> I would like to see GNU organized in such a way that GNU volunteers,
> who devote so much time and energy to GNU, will be able to grow and
> become the next generation of GNU leaders through some kind of
> apprenticeship. People should always be on the outlook of who could
> replace them by mentoring and promoting others who show they contribute
> positively the GNU way.

GNU Project as operating system is on the foundation of the free
software philosophy.

Here is how I would rephrase your statement above:

> I would like to see GNU organized in such a way that GNU volunteers,
> who devote so much time and energy to promote and apply free
> software philosophy, will be able to grow and become the next
> generation of GNU leaders through some kind of
> apprenticeship. People should always be on the outlook of who could
> replace them by mentoring and promoting others who show they
> contribute positively to promotion and application of free software
> philosophy.

I do not say that it is wrong to "promote" people in the hierarchy of
any organization.

I just say it will look less serious I feel it can become very easily
corrupt if people are allowed to lead the GNU project who have not
ever promoted free software philosophy in their speeches, websites,
articles, and so on.

Promoting technical sides of free software is far and distant from
promoting the free software philosophy.

If a person for hypothetical example departs from free software
philosophy, for example:

- by introducing other political opinions into the official GNU
  project but free software politics, that is deviation that would not
  be welcome,

- by introducing term like "open source" into the official GNU
  project, that would not be welcome,

- by promoting Facebook links on the GNU project or other links where
  people are driven to non-free software, even if there is "warning"
  about it, that would not be welcome

- if person have ever defamed Dr. Richard Stallman, I do not see how
  such person could have position in GNU leadership. Sorry, I cannot
  see that.

Continue the list items here.

Then you listed policies and said:

> Which is good, because the amount of information is really a lot. And
> it gives GNU maintainers a lot of freedom to implement the suggested
> policies and decide what does or doesn't apply in the specific
> (technical) context of a package. But it takes a lot of time to
> describe the responsibilities, delegation and decision frameworks for a
> package to bring in more people who can share the maintainer load. It
> would be good to try to distill a small core of musts, a summary of
> sorts, that can be more easily communicated as a kind of social
> contract for GNU.

Social contract is bad for GNU.

Social contract is contract that has not been signed by
anybody. Please ask Eben Moglen about this, and if he says that Social
Contract is good, I will look into arguments.

First one must consider that GNU as it is now, have already achieved
tremendous success in the world, and for the history there was no
social contract that I know.

When GNU project is growing without social contract, there is
absolutely no problem to remain so.

One does not touch what is successful.

One improves conditions when they are not successful.

Being kind is a good policy, not a must in GNU, and when somebody is
rude, would be anyway expelled or moderated or somehow else limited in
spreading damages.

GNU project is about building free software. Accepting everybody is
good, as this way the operating system built on free software is
growing and spreading in the world.

If there is social contract, that is contract that is not signed by
everyone.

One group of people who made the "social contract" is then to impose
THEIR standards onto other people who are joining. I do not find that
good. They have not consentent. It is not a "contract". It can lead to
plethora of problems.

Fictional contract is not a contract. Do not call it so. It really
does not matter that some other groups are calling it so.

Please review the definition of a "contract".

1. (19) contract -- (a binding agreement between two or more persons
that is enforceable by law)

"Social Contract" is if you ask me "social abuse". Small group of
people are making up fictional contract that represents coerced
consent of others.

Sorry, it does not impress me.

> e.g. the free-sw definition as defined by the FSF might be seen as our
> core. But some of the things in words-to-avoid are just nice to haves,
> of sometimes playful ways of speech.

So who decides what is nice to have? The reader? That is so in any
kind of art, including books, articles we read, we are deciding what
we are to think about that.

But if we are to discuss how to lead GNU project, then such discussion
shall be based on exact same free software activity just as
Dr. Richard Stallman, and this no tolerance to proprietary software.

Stallman is kind person. He said in "Words to Avoid" to avoid
them. But he does not use them. He knows that changes in language and
behavior need some time, and is not coercing people into that.

If you ask me, leadership of GNU project shall never use those words
and shall swear or promise to keep and apply the free software
philosophy as written by Dr. Richard Stallman.

It is very simple.

Thanks,
Jean Louis