On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:56:16AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 04:24:44AM -0500, Dora Scilipoti wrote: 
> > > Since Brandon was delegated by the FSF president to
> > > appoint new (co-)maintainers [...]
> > 
> > Correction: Brandon Invergo was delegated by Richard Stallman wearing
> > his Chief GNUisance hat, not as president of the FSF.
> We cannot really know because he used to wear both hats and depending
> on who you ask they'll tell you he made decissions as either Chief
> GNUisance or as FSF President. If you say it was as Chief GNUisance
> then it is a good question where that authority came from. 

As Chief GNUisance this should be quite obvious: because he started the project.

The unclear option would have been if his authority had been derived from being
the president of the FSF, which is where the situation has changed.

> And whether
> we still need a position like Chief GNUisance going forward. 

That doesn't logically follow and is basically a version of Cato's famous 
I consider that X must be destroyed" [1] aimed at GNUisance's position.

> Authority
> in a volunteer organisation is always tricky. Which makes these
> governance discussions so difficult.

But is it really a governance discussion? Every line of inquiry into changing
governance always seems to aim at an imminent removal of the chief GNUisance 
and questions
and objections against this seem to be mostly ignored.

If if recall correctly, even some signees of the GUIX Joint Statement have
stated that their support wasn't about ousting rms, but simply expressing 
for an honest discussion of a potential post-rms era.

Maybe it's time for those who desire change to post a clear set of goals and
a roadmap on how to establish those goals so this governance discussion can
continue in good faith.

        Andreas R.


Reply via email to