You yet again refrained from answering specific questions, and instead when off on a tangent. I think this now shows clearly what your intention are, they aren't about having a discussion, it isn't about trying to understand how this project works first before suggesting a change, or trying to discuss topics with those who run the project on level terms. So either, nothing is new; then why this resistance to having people commit to it? Or it is new, then why the resistance to writing it?
The difference is you are trying to make maintainers, who have never agreed to anything specific other than technical aspects, to agree to something else -- something that they have explicitly not been required to agree with! You've not even disucssed this with the people running the project, who actually understand the nuances of their own decisions. The resistance here is not because of disagreement with what your document says (which could serve as a short summary -- but you are asking for far more), but how you are going about trying to force it through, with a total disregard for everyone else involved. >>From what I understand, you are opposed to a self-organised GNU Project and 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 a possible position, but which is indeed contrary to the purpose of the social contract. So instead of claiming not to understand the goal of the social contract, it would be intellectually more honest to state that you are against the goal. After which, there is indeed little point in continuing the discussion. This shows a clear misunderstanding, and I think at this point, intentional, on how the GNU project is governed, RMS doesn't take "all decisions at his own discretion" -- he doesn't work in a vacuum. Each GNU project is infact, and has always been, self governing in its own realm of responsibilities -- namley technical. Volunteers do technical work at their own accord, and at their own whim. Since I think we agree that there is little point in disucssing this further, this document becomes automatically on the chopping block and is I think entierly unsuitable since it totally misrepresents the GNU project and its goals with its intent and but maybe not so much with its wording.