Add draft FAQ.

Details are still under discussion:
https://lists.gnu.tools/hyperkitty/list/assembly@lists.gnu.tools/thread/O64CDB5ACX2FVFHUTEKODOLVACAIAKPW/#YNF3XNQUBUFH6CAL32NXGNYWEQYPQAAZ

* drafts/faq.md: New file.

1 files changed, 106 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/drafts/faq.md b/drafts/faq.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7a15c24
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drafts/faq.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+title: DRAFT Answering frequently asked questions
+author: The GNU Assembly
+date: 2021-04-20 16:00:00
+---
+
+**DRAFT**
+
+Following the [Assembly
+kick-off](https://web.gnu.tools/en/blog/2021/04/kicking-off-the-gnu-assembly/),
+we received lots of questions and read comments that deserved answers.
+This post attempts to answer the most common questions.
+
+# Meta-question: why so much confusion around GNU/FSF?
+
+Good question!  A common belief is that GNU and the Free Software
+Foundation (FSF) are the same thing.  This is untrue: GNU is not a
+registered non-profit, it’s an informal association among contributors,
+separate from the FSF.  The FSF is oblivious to technical matters in
+GNU.
+
+The FSF supports GNU development primarily in three ways: by taking care
+of copyright assignments (for the few GNU packages that require it), as
+a [fiscal sponsor](https://www.fsf.org/working-together/fund) for a few
+projects, and by providing infrastructure like
+[Savannah](https://savannah.gnu.org).  For the most part, the FSF
+“supports GNU development” in the same way that Microsoft “supports” the
+development of projects hosted on GitHub.
+
+# Is this a fork of GNU?
+
+No.  The [software in question](/en/software) is not being forked and
+the people who write that software remain the same.
+
+What changes is how these people organize themselves beyond their
+individual projects—from a
+[BDFL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life)
+top-down model to a [community-oriented, consensus-based
+model](https://gnu.tools/en/documents/governance/).
+
+# Is this backed by FSF/OSI/SFC/XYZ?
+
+No, it’s not!  The Assembly was founded by GNU maintainers and
+contributors and receive no support, financial or otherwise, from any
+three-letter-acronym organization.  Evil Corp™ isn’t helping either.
+
+# Is this _against_ FSF/OSI/SFC/XYZ?
+
+Nope!  The Assembly is not a _reaction_ to the three-letter acronym of
+your choice—it’s first and foremost a _constructive_ project.
+
+Is it at odds with the three-letter acronym you have in mind?  Maybe!
+But we’re interested in _building_ something more than in arguing about
+what others are doing.
+
+# You’re just a minority anyway
+
+That’s not a question, but you’re right: about [30 people](/en/people),
+mostly appointed GNU maintainers, endorsed the [Social
+Contract](/en/documents/social-contract) so far and may participate in
+the Assembly.  The number keeps increasing but is still a fraction of
+the number of contributors to GNU packages: there are 300+ GNU
+maintainers “on file”, though not everyone and [not each project is
+active](https://wingolog.org/archives/2020/02/09/state-of-the-gnunion-2020),
+[some](https://github.com/gnuradio/gr-governance/blob/main/aoa.md)
+[even](https://www.r-project.org/foundation/)
+[left](https://lwn.net/Articles/529522/)
+[years](https://wingolog.org/archives/2009/12/13/gnu-gnome-and-the-fsf)
+[ago](https://discourse.gnome.org/t/relation-between-gimp-and-gnome/2376/8)
+for all practical purposes despite being [still
+listed](https://www.gnu.org/software)—these projects have their own
+governance model and rules, independent of “the rest of GNU”.  To put it
+differently, significant parts of GNU territory is no longer controlled
+by the central government, if we dare such an analogy.
+
+Anyways, is being a minority a problem?  We don’t think so: we hope this
+platform appeals to many GNU contributors and contributors-to-be, but we
+can do great things even without on-boarding everyone!
+
+# Why now?  Is this really about <current event>?
+
+While current events certainly motivated the decision to make our 
+efforts more visible, the desire for stronger collaboration 
+between GNU packages and for communal decision-making as it 
+pertains to a shared vision has been the subject of many 
+discussions among GNU maintainers and contributors over the past 
+decade or so.
+
+# Why didn’t you try to effect change from the inside?
+
+We did!  It goes back to [at least ten
+years](/en/blog/2021/04/kicking-off-the-gnu-assembly/).  The project was
+met with enthusiasm from some and hostility from others.  That’s fine,
+we don’t have to agree!
+
+Unfortunately, GNU would host project-wide discussions on private
+mailing lists, so these discussions and soul searching were only known
+to “insiders”.  The Assembly is determined to have transparent
+processes; everything we did, starting with the drafting process of the
+Social Contract in 2019–2020, was done publicly.
+
+# Do you support PDP-11 assembly?
+
+Some us write assembly code (not sure about
+[PDP-11](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDP-11) though), but all this is
+about [a different kind of
+“assembly”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_assembly).