> > 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 regardless. 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. regards, Andreas R.