> Someone or some group/process has to be in charge, be the final decision-maker for a group.
That is certainly true. And if this were a situation where, say, some subtle techno-political decision about the codebase or the license threatened to split the community, you'd expect a leader from high-- like Stallman-- to come in and lay down a prudent decision.
But in this case, the leader from high has come in and created a problem that would require a higher leader to come in and resolve. AFAICT that higher leader doesn't exist.
That's a weird situation to get into. I can't fathom why Stallman would force the issue when the stakes are so low.
Then again, perhaps it's serendipity that this puts a spotlight on governance on an issue nearly nobody cares about. There's much less possibility of splitting the devs than there would be if there were a big technical feature at stake.
That is certainly true. And if this were a situation where, say, some subtle techno-political decision about the codebase or the license threatened to split the community, you'd expect a leader from high-- like Stallman-- to come in and lay down a prudent decision.
But in this case, the leader from high has come in and created a problem that would require a higher leader to come in and resolve. AFAICT that higher leader doesn't exist.
That's a weird situation to get into. I can't fathom why Stallman would force the issue when the stakes are so low.
Then again, perhaps it's serendipity that this puts a spotlight on governance on an issue nearly nobody cares about. There's much less possibility of splitting the devs than there would be if there were a big technical feature at stake.