> Do you know if they will reject as members those GNU developers who are, openly, supporters of RMS?
I can't speak for others but here's my take: I think it's not useful to have only two bins: "pro RMS" and "anti RMS". We are capable of more nuance and I'd like to see that reflected in our communication.
I for one am convinced that RMS has a voice that is worth hearing in the wider free software community. I also think that part of his behavior has been pretty constantly alienating to many people (and the lack of willingness to address those issues is part of that force of alienation). I don't want my work as a GNU maintainer and contributor to be tarnished by the negative fallout of RMS comments and behaviors.
The lack of nuance in peoples reverence of RMS is one of the seeds of conflict, in my opinion. If GNU (and the FSF) was seen less as the RMS club and instead was more closely associated with the GNU manifesto and the vision it outlines, and if there was actual project governance (instead of RMS butting in to demand context-free changes, expecting people who do the work to "respect his authoritah!") --- then probably we wouldn't even be at this point.
I "support" RMS in that I don't think it's wise to shut him up. But I also don't support his claim to "lead" the GNU project. He doesn't and hasn't for a while. I also don't support his claim to represent the work of those who contribute to GNU. He does that a lot, speaking in the royal "we" when really he is just stating his own opinion.
So to me this is a false dichotomy and thus not a criterion to reject members to the GNU assembly. All we ask is that members affirm the Social Contract (a pretty low bar that nevertheless seems necessary if we want to cooperate and work towards a shared vision) and to communicate in acknowledgement of the code of conduct --- which lays out what kind of communication style we like to see, and what to expect when people (you or others) risk ruining it for all others.
The GNU Assembly is about treating the "GNU project" like an actual project. It is about collaborative governance and better communication. Any individual's personal nuanced opinion on rms is really not related, though I personally find rms to be an example of how not to run a project.
For once the GNU Assembly is not about rms. That any discussion of GNU keeps circling back to rms is an indictment of the state of GNU. I hope that together we can manage to escape this vortex.
I can't speak for others but here's my take: I think it's not useful to have only two bins: "pro RMS" and "anti RMS". We are capable of more nuance and I'd like to see that reflected in our communication.
I for one am convinced that RMS has a voice that is worth hearing in the wider free software community. I also think that part of his behavior has been pretty constantly alienating to many people (and the lack of willingness to address those issues is part of that force of alienation). I don't want my work as a GNU maintainer and contributor to be tarnished by the negative fallout of RMS comments and behaviors.
The lack of nuance in peoples reverence of RMS is one of the seeds of conflict, in my opinion. If GNU (and the FSF) was seen less as the RMS club and instead was more closely associated with the GNU manifesto and the vision it outlines, and if there was actual project governance (instead of RMS butting in to demand context-free changes, expecting people who do the work to "respect his authoritah!") --- then probably we wouldn't even be at this point.
I "support" RMS in that I don't think it's wise to shut him up. But I also don't support his claim to "lead" the GNU project. He doesn't and hasn't for a while. I also don't support his claim to represent the work of those who contribute to GNU. He does that a lot, speaking in the royal "we" when really he is just stating his own opinion.
So to me this is a false dichotomy and thus not a criterion to reject members to the GNU assembly. All we ask is that members affirm the Social Contract (a pretty low bar that nevertheless seems necessary if we want to cooperate and work towards a shared vision) and to communicate in acknowledgement of the code of conduct --- which lays out what kind of communication style we like to see, and what to expect when people (you or others) risk ruining it for all others.
The GNU Assembly is about treating the "GNU project" like an actual project. It is about collaborative governance and better communication. Any individual's personal nuanced opinion on rms is really not related, though I personally find rms to be an example of how not to run a project.
For once the GNU Assembly is not about rms. That any discussion of GNU keeps circling back to rms is an indictment of the state of GNU. I hope that together we can manage to escape this vortex.