> > maybe my wording caused misunderstandings, but I did not mean the Social
> > Contract to be a comprehensive document that codifies our inner
> > working;
> If not approved by RMS, you are speaking in vain. How about you make
> your own free software project, and do it there?

As much as I admire your passion for the discussion, suggesting that the
worst possible outcome for the project is desirable (Existing GNU 
maintainers leaving the project) will likely prove detrimental to
the discussion.

Irrespective of how one might feel about disrespecting rms, respecting
him as a person is not a requirement. In fact, one of the points of those
who are critical of the social contract document could, I think, be
loosely summarised as not having any such extra requirements.

As I see it, the GNU project is in no real danger of being "taken over". It 
could, however, be in danger of disenfranchised maintainers taking their leave
for a variety of reasons.

Every maintainer that takes their leave is a loss and should be considered 
extremely regrettable, even if one personally disagrees with them, but their
departure is not something the discussion should actively steer towards

Maybe some causes for dissattisfaction can be addressed to everyone's
satisfaction in the course of GNU project's governance discussion, and if,
in the end, even a single maintainer who would have otherwise resigned decides 
to stay because their objections have been addressed, the elaborate and 
sometimes difficult discussion will have been worth it.

Sorry I replied to one of your posts specifically to reply to address this
matter. It's nothing personal, but I've seen the sentiment expressed a few
times by various participants on the list and with increasing frequency, and 
I believe any maintainers needleswsly leaving the GNU project can never be 
considered a  constructive outcome to the whole situation, no matter how 
much one might disagree with them.

        Andreas R.

Reply via email to