Richard Kenner wrote: > The matters to which we defer to the FSF are any matters that they *ask* > us to! They own the code. If RMS, for some reason, decides that he doesn't > like the phrasing of a comment somewhere, we have to either convince RMS > he's wrong or change the comment.
Indeed. I do not understand RMS' resistance to creating the branch. I have explained that branching and releasing are different things, that at this time we've made no changes to the age-old exceptions, and so forth. I have asked RMS to allow us to go forward. He hasn't directly responded, but he has indicated that there is an FSF meeting this weekend in which this will be discussed and seems to be suggesting that something will happen soon after that. As developers, our leverage is the ability to go play in a different sandbox if we do like the rules the FSF imposes. As an SC member, I can (and do) lobby the FSF, but when given an explicit directive my choices are to go along with FSF policy, or resign. I don't think it's appropriate to disobey the FSF's directives in the FSF's official repository. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
