Yes, but somewhat separate from the current news and reactions about RMS's return to the FSF - the mailing list has been around for over a year, according to the archives, and many GNU project maintainers have been unhappy with RMS's leadership for both technical and social reasons for a long while.
Most of the principles stated in the website seem reasonable, (except maybe some vague points in the CoC, but that's a minor issue). It's mostly the same as the GNU project itself but with a vouch for transparent governance. I guess it is meant to attract the majority of GNU developers. Do you know if they will reject as members those GNU developers who are, openly, supporters of RMS?
> 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.
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.
Your link seems to prove otherwise. RMS is seen to leave the development of the projects he started alone, letting the developers decide everything. Sometimes, less than once per year, he chimes in for a totally non-technical part of the project (a stupid joke in the docs). But even then, the lead developers can have their way! It looks that the GNU maintainers have already full control. What else do you need? That RMS cannot even participate in the mailing lists? These are open, you can also write there.
Talk about 'governance' and 'enforcement' is a huge red flag. Free Software is a collaborative process, not a governed one.
This attempt at subversion of the GNU Project is pathetic, and will go nowhere. Most (sensible) developers aren't going to get involved with an 'Assembly' where they can be dragged into a Star Chamber to be tried for supposed thought or speech crimes.
