On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:39 AM Daniel Pocock <dan...@pocock.pro> wrote: > FSF will not change unless somebody gives them a strong reason to change. > > For example, if GNU developers write the following email to FSF, that > will bring change. > > Each developer needs to make their own decision if they will send the > email. RMS has previously suggested he would not like people to > completely abandon the agreements. The email template below is only for > a conditional suspension of the agreement. Nobody can tell you to > continue assigning[1] your rights to FSF if you want to wait for more > clarity about FSF's future. > > You can still keep coding during the suspension: if a significant > quantity of code is published and virtually embargoed like this, it > creates an incentive for FSF to satisfy those people and gain rights > over that code.
I can empathize with your frustration over the current state of affairs and the lack of transparency (including timely updates to members of the FSF). However, what you propose is seems like a measure of last resort. May I encourage you to help the current GNU Project volunteers working to define a governance model that is organized from the bottom-up? A governance model that rallies around the community to engage them in the goals of the GNU Project, not just the outcomes. We absolutely need people like you to promote the goals of the GNU Project. Cheers, Carlos.
