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

On 21.02.2020 12:09, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]>
>> Cc: "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[email protected]>, [email protected],
>>   [email protected]
>> 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.

I would also agree and rephrase this by saying that the item (g) (at 
least) on the feedback page is unsatisfactory.

Though both the suggestion (adding "this is entirely voluntary" to the 
description) and the response ("omitted for brevity") look rather stupid 
(apologies to whoever this might offend), because it's not how these 
documents should be introduced.

If it's an optional, voluntary initiative inside GNU, say so! Proudly, 
at the beginning of the document. This would both make a lot of 
"old-timers" happier and make the document more fresh and relevant. And 
not to mention, honest.

Whereas the word "simply" here in "simply defines the core values of the 
GNU Project" is, like in software development: a curse word.

> 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.

I didn't want to touch on these details in this particular branch of the 
discussion, but yes, overall I feel a lack of clarity and, dare to say, 
openness from this new movement. Which isn't great to see from people 
who aim to lead GNU.