| > He doesn't and hasn't for a while. By design. GNU maintainers already have full control over their projects. The only thing left to delegate to maintainers is the definition and application of the four software freedoms. > The GNU Assembly is about treating the "GNU project" like an actual project. With input from people who don't agree or would like clarifications? Because that didn't happen during the last time you tried this[1]. It was just the proposers talking in circles and ignoring input and questions, asserting that things would be for the better but unwilling to engage what "better" would entail. > The GNU Assembly is not GNU. And you were asked repeatedly to change the name to avoid confusion the last time you tried this with "gnu.tools", but it was ignored, just like all the input and questions that didn't straight up fit your world view. > It is about collaborative governance and better communication That's what got people to listen to you on the gnu-misc mailing list, but it turned out it was about ousting rms (without any solid plan other than "trust us") and shutting down dissenting opinions. There's a reason you failed the first time, and it doesn't look like the gnu-tools initiative has managed to improve their governance or communication in the meantime. [1]https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-11/... |
This is untrue: https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/
"As the head of the GNU Project, I am in charge of what we publish in GNU manuals. I decide the criteria to decide by, too."