@wzqtparor While Richard Stallman certainly catalysed our action, it is not really about him. Independently of his bad leadership qualities, I think that the concept of a bdfl is not ethical and not suited for running a group of volunteers. If he wished to join the consensus based decision making process, why not? But you probably agree that this is a rather hypothetical question.
To be honest I really have no issue with a group of people that feel the need to fork a project over political concerns.
Really: so much that since years I add a POLITICS.txt to my #FreeSoftware projects to make my political goals clear and explicit an I welcome forks over that if people don't share them.
The BDFL is a perfectly ethical approach to lead volunteers as long as all of these volunteers can fork the project.
In fact the attitude torwads forks is a key discriminator between Free Software and #OpenSource projects, as the formers welcome and celebrate them, the latters fear and blame them because they erode their #market share and challenge the governance.
Now if you want to fork #GNU over governance for whatever reason (challenging #RMS' leadership, included) you ARE welcome!
Really!
LibreOffice did so and it's totally fine.
But doing so this way, fooling users of the forked project or confusing them, is unfair #marketing proper of Open Source tactics.
Please rename your fork with something different.
@wzqtparor@mstdn.io
