Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

On 17.02.2020 0:57, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Yes, I see how that formulation is too strong and might be read like
> that. I hadn't realized how it sounded. Thanks for pointing that out. I
> have updated it to say that "The process followed by this initiative is
> not supported by...".

Is there a place where I can look at the new phrasing?

> Which I hope sounds more neutral and better
> describes the core of the disagreement.

It sounds marginally better, but it doesn't address the core of my 
comment. Sounds like you're still saying that it's only Richard who does 
not support it. But all the rest of GNU do. Or are supposed to, for some 
reason.

And the latter implication is one of the reasons you're seeing all these 
negative responses.