On Apr 11, 2021, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > It's pretty confusing to outsiders.
It is indeed. Up to 2004 or so, I'm told, the FSF didn't even have its own separate web site. Before 2019, it never seemed terribly important to clear that up, but the confusion of concerns has always bugged me. > The governance structure of the FSF is pretty opaque to me The bylaws have always been public. > Who are the "voting members" of the FSF? Why are the couple of former directors who retained voting rights so relevant now? If you actually look at the governance structure in the bylaws, you'll see that it's Directors and the Executive Director who really run the show, and they can take pretty much any action that voting members can. > There is a perception that GCC's link to both GNU and the FSF is harmful to > GCC's reputation. But nothing changed in GNU recently, right? FSF is one of the organizations that supports GNU, and the subject is about separating from the FSF alone. That makes zero sense to me, unless I factor in the common confusion between FSF and GNU. To me, GCC (GNU Toolchain) separating from the FSF would imply terminating the fiscal sponsorship agreement that's in place as part of the "Working Together for Free Software" program, that encompasses the GNU Toolchain fund. I could imagine that some convoluted reasoning might connect RMS's reappointment to the FSF board to a wish to terminate that relationship, that's the only one that exists between the FSF and (some representatives of) the GNU Toolchain. But I don't think that's what you're getting at; I don't even know whether you knew about this relationship. As for GNU, the most relevant relationship for GCC, the recent FSF board membership change doesn't change GNU at all, so any attempt to connect this relationship with the FSF board appointment is confused at best. As for public perception, we've seen how most people have seen through the lies in the hate letter, so that motivation has become pretty weak, and promoting those lies doesn't seem to be doing the movement or the people propagating them any good. I can get that some people, yourself included, may have legitimate issues with RMS's leadership of the movement and of the project, that are separate from the lies that some have come to believe, and are mistaking as reasons for a split, and that are even more unrelated with his reappointment to the FSF board. Of course, nobody's trying to force you to keep on contributing to a project you don't wish to contribute to any more. Now, if your intentions are honest, it would be kind of you to spell out your own personal reasons to wish to fork GCC away from all things RMS, even while you don't mind if GCC were to keep on merging your contributions to the fork. I don't expect to be able to overcome your, erhm, reverse veneration, so to speak, but I trust you wish to do what you believe to be best for the Free Software movement. Alas, the timing and the motivations of other participants in this conversation suggest your reasons have something to do with the false accusations that coincided with these separation movements, and those false accusations aren't doing good, not for the movement, not for those pushing them; seeming to endorse them would color you intolerant for some, and vindictive for others. Now, IIRC you and others have already disclaimed those reasons. What I don't recall seeing is the actual issue. Pardon me if I missed it; I gather I didn't, because you wrote something to the effect that I've sidestepped it, which tells me I don't really know what it is. If you could point to it in the archives, or restate it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
