You are wrong. No, it is you Mark who is in the wrong here. You are clearly uninterested in having a discussion, and this contiued spreading of FUD and lies is out of control on your side.
The FSF holds the resources for the GNU project and has oversight responsibility over how those resources are used, which should be in accordance with the FSF mission as a charitable organization. There are plenty of GNU resources that are not managed by the FSF, the FSF does not dictate how GNU project resources are used. So this is patently false. A Social Contract or Mission Statement for GNU is necessary as a first step for new governance for GNU. It has obviously been discussed with Richard, who has said it might be a good idea. But he has also been told that discussions about GNU governance should be done openly and publicly. His input is certainly welcome. But in the end it is the GNU maintainers who ratify it by adopting it for their packages. His input is the only input that matters in the end, since he is the head of the GNU project. That you dismiss this is beyond any reasonable discussion. But in the end it is the GNU maintainers who ratify it by adopting it for their packages. Patently false, it is RMS who ratifies changes that are applicable to the GNU project and nobody else. Please stop spreading these made up notions of how the GNU project is governed.