> 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 person. 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.