One of the issues we have to face is that Richard sometimes acts in an authoritative kind of way over issues he doesn't have, or the community doesn't give him, authority of.
He does have that authority, it has been explained over and over and over again. And that is a problem for everybody. It is a problem only for those who do not understand that the GNU project is not, and has never been, a democratic project. But it is also unfair to say he always does that. As you describe so nicely in your message below there are lots of groups in GNU that work almost completely autonomous. It is far more unfair to paint that he uses his authority in such a unfair manner when that is not at all the case. It is very seldom that RMS will take a strong stance on issues, indeed had he done this more _often_ then we wouldn't be having this misunderstanding and mischaracterisation of how the GNU project is governed. Yes! Thank you. I think it is crucial to be more public and vocal about this. We are all in this together and most of us don't just hack on some code and don't care about anything else. All these GNU volunteers are stakeholders in any governance discussion with their own responsibilities and authority to make certain decisions. Those decisions are for technical matters, not political ones.
