My understanding of :guix: and :nixos: are that they explicitly pin the versions of absolutely everything & their transitive dependency graphs, all the way down to the compiler versions used to build a specific software commit. But how do they handle bootstrapping compilers?
@civodul@ahelwer@kirschwipfel did this alternative governance structure ever go anywhere? Did you consider spinning projects out of GNU? For instance, I bet Guix would do just fine independently of GNU.
@civodul@ahelwer@kirschwipfel And personally I don't think I can really acknowledge GNU Assembly as effective when the gnu-structure document clearly describes a top-down model where RMS is dictator for life and software maintainers not having independence.
@drewdevault This governance structure didn’t go anywhere, primarily because there’s a lack of cohesion and lack of incentives.
In practice, whether or not Guix or GCC are “within GNU” makes little difference. Guix has its own governance, its code of conduct, its contribution guidelines, etc. It’s de facto independent.
GNU has never been really structured/organized in fact.
@civodul@drewdevault@kirschwipfel@ahelwer As a Guile user and potential Guix user, the fact that rms could potentially exercise his tendency to stick his nose into decision-making at any time (and has stuck his nose into Guile decision-making in the past) is something I’m wary of. (Admittedly, I also use GNU Emacs, where he’s far more involved. But I use it *despite* the governance.)
@civodul@dpk@ahelwer@kirschwipfel also re: gnu.org changes; gnu.org is still closely tied with and strongly endorses the FSF, including calls to donate to it and become a member
@drewdevault There’s no mention of the FSF on guix.gnu.org (administered by the Guix team) or even on gnu.org/s/guile, say, but I get what you’re saying. I’m uncomfortable with this perceived connection.
Re reclaiming the label, that the FSF is in control of large parts of gnu.org, in particular the landing page, is indeed a problem (one we tried to address through diplomacy ca. 2020, in vain.)
@civodul@dpk@ahelwer@kirschwipfel I don't think you will successfully reclaim the label so long as RMS is the head of GNU and gnu.org has failed to make a statement condemning his actions.
If you can't achieve that outcome, you should probably drop the label.
@dpk@ahelwer@kirschwipfel@drewdevault Note that GNU is not a formal org, let alone a fiscal sponsor. SFC could be a fiscal sponsor, but that’s a different issue.
The question about GNU is more that of a label and its effect on projects that display it.
Another question for me and others is whether to regain control over that label and make it a badge for user autonomy rather than a “stain”, as you call it.
@drewdevault To me the value of GNU would be that of being a banner for those “hacking for freedom”, developing software with user autonomy in mind (esp. at the OS level since that’s what GNU is/was focusing on.)
Unfortunately, toxic leadership made GNU a repellent even for many of its free software allies over the years.
I think an umbrella org to push those goals still makes sense though, whether GNU or something else.
This is the kind of initiative I very much support and where I think a common umbrella could be help coordinate actions. We need to once again draw attention to user freedom and autonomy, with a fresh inclusive take far away from some old judgmental campaigns.