I don't see a posting by you. Maybe it got stuck in some spam trap? But I am happy to clarify on the list.
Or you simply deleted it, something you have done before on this list. > This is simply untrue, things have happened in this time frame -- for > example the GAC. Yes, there were various experiments with the GNU Assembly and the GAC. In other words, what you wrote was purposefully untrue. That you disagree with the outcome is not the same to imply that "nothing has changed". > Mentoring and apprenticeship > > We started with a description of how various GNU projects handle > mentoring and apprenticeship[5]. Once a GNU maintainer is assigned as > the FSF steward of a project/package there are lots of documents on > coding standards and what it means for a project to be GNU and Free > Software. > > There is no such thing as a FSF steward, GNU maintainers are appointed > by RMS/GAC. The FSF has no say in the topic. You've keept > misrepresenting this over and over again. This is just a legal technicallity. The FSF has oversight responsibility over the GNU project. That means that the FSF needs to determine that GNU maintainers operate in a manner consistent with FSF's exempt purposes, have the needed expertise and that their activities can be monitored by the FSF board. So GNU Maintainers and Steering committees are technically appointed by the FSF (previously RMS when he was FSF president and board member) as stewards of GNU packages. Basically GNU maintainers serve at the pleasure of the FSF. It is RMS who has the oversight and responsibility of the GNU project, and it is RMS/GAC who appoints people to various functions, not the FSF. There is more disucssion for various roles, like the SC -- but at the end it is RMS who has the final word, not the FSF. This continued mischaracterization of the relationship between the FSF and the GNU project is just beyond me, and now you insult GNU maintainers by saying that they serve at the pleasure of someone? > But there is no core guideline and a GNU maintainer has > almost complete freedom interpreting whether any guidelines are or > arenât applicable to their project. This results in GNU maintainers > reinventing a lot of project maintenance, governance and delegation > of tasks. It would be good to document[6] the various (consensus > based) development models that are the result. > > This is intentional, as has been explained numerous times over and > over again. The GNU project nor its individual projects are consensus > based. And that is what we are trying to change. And it has been made quite clear that will not happen. So you might as well stop pushing for it.
