> From what I understand, you are opposed to [..]

> instead prefer an organisation where Richard Stallman takes all
decisions at
> his own discretion, without being accountable to anybody,
> contributors to the
> project and users alike. 

This is why I suggested figuring out a charter of the current model of
governance first and why drawing up a social contract or any other form
of binding document might be  premature at this point in time.

A reasonable assumption from a historical perspective would be that the
chief GNUisance is the maintainer of the GNU project as a whole and a
representative of the FSF with the goal to ensure the GNU system is
Free Software as per the FSF's definition.

If so, the Chief GNUisance can be held accountable, especially now that
the head of the FSF and the chief GNUisance are no longer the same

Without a proper model of the current form of governance in place, even
if one draws up the most satisfying social contract, there will be no
way to ratify it, other than to declare yourself the new government of
GNU and the new document the law.

I hope it's obvious that is not a very desirable situation.

People opposing new policy being drawn up without solid explanations or
even an generally accepted way to acquire a mandate for it, might not
necessarily disagree with the new policy, but only the ad-hoc way it's
being implemented.

-Andreas R.

Reply via email to