I thought I had answered this question in the other thread on
   Enlightenment, but you disagree, so I will give a few more
   explanations on my point of view here. For me, the GNU Social
   Contract is a first step towards defining a governance model for
   the GNU Project.

That governance model is already defined, in the form of RMS.  Have
you discussed how RMS wants to govern?

   It summarises the main purpose of the project, and as such, as you
   rightfully noticed, its content should not come as a surprise. I
   think it should be a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for
   stakeholders in the GNU project to take part in its governance.

You still do not answer how exactly it is different from the documents
that we already have.  You have still not annswered why you have come
up with your own paragraph for "The GNU Project welcomes contributions
from all and everyone" instead of what is already part of the
guidelines that the GNU project already has.

   The term "social contract" seems to lead to confusion. So let me
   repeat that it is not meant as a contract in the sense of civil
   law, signed by two parties; but as a moral engagement of people
   invested in GNU (maintainers, web masters and so on) in their
   relationship to each other,

As has been explained numerous times before, and is getting tiresome
by now -- maintainers and web masters only agree to a technical
position, they do not have to have a moral engagement in any shape or

   but also to the outer world (for instance, users of the GNU system
   must be sure that they are getting only free software from the

How is this not already explained by the various web pages,
guidelines, philosophical texts, etc, etc, etc, that we have? What
part of them makes it unclear what the goals of this project are?  Be
it to people participating in the GNU project, or people looking from
the outside?  How is this different from the dub email that you get
when you become a maintainer?

Your summary doesn't really add anything in this regard, and the
current documents that exist explain it in better detail.
   When you mention the GNU manifesto, it is a much longer text,
   rather of historical interest, and also a personal account. It is
   not something you can give to people and tell them "look, this is
   our project, and these are the points you are expected to heed when
   you join us".

That is what we did when the the project was started, that is what we
did for many many many years after.  That is infact how I learnt what
GNU was, does, how to get involved, and more importantly _why_
(something your summary completely lacks).  How has that changed so
fundamentally that the founding document of this project is now
something you cannot give people to read?

That it is a personal account, is because it was a personal call, and
important to mention -- since that is the basis of the four freedoms,
they are for the user, that makes it personal.

Yet again you say that GNU contributors must heed to its philosophical
nature, this is not true.

   Of course, it is no coincidence if you have a déjà vu feeling when
   looking at the proposed GNU Social Contract. It is intended as a
   base for going forward with the GNU Project, but of course it takes
   the existing into account.

I do not see how it does anything of the sort, it is a partial summary
of the project.  It doesn't bring anything new to the table, or moves
anything forward, so far it is a TL;DR note...

Reply via email to