Make GfRC retargetable

[Bodigrim]

CC @hasufell @simonpj @mpilgrem

There are continuous attempts to apply GfRC not only to HF itself, but also to other bodies. Currently most of them are void and null at best, because GfRC as written is not "retargetable". There are a few items which need to be fixed.

• As witnessed recently on more than one occasion, GfRC is not set in stone. An organisation subscribing to GfRC should be able to specify a version (say, v2025.05.09) instead of hotlinking an evolving text.
• Organisations should be able to copy a particular edition of GfRC to their own repository for future reference. This is currently illegal, because GfRC does not grant any license to subscribers. Should be one of Creative Commons licenses, I suppose.
• GfRC should say something like "the participating body" and "the leadership of the participating body" instead of "members of the Haskell Foundation" and "the chair of the Foundation, or the vice-chair or co-chair". I'm not sure what's the standard English legal wording for this, maybe "a group refering to these Guidelines" and "leadership of the group refering to these Guidelines" are most suitable.
• It should be made clear that only the section under "Guidelines For Respectful Communication" is normative and the rest ("Preamble", "Motivation", "Acknowledgements") are not. E. g., an organisation may seek to impose GfRC on its employees, a discussion forum may impose GfRC on all participants, but both cases would contradict Preamble. Similarly, motivations may vary, including "...because my employer told me so" or "...because it's a precondition for affilication with HF" and such.

[hasufell]

@mpilgrem my impression was that you're already onto this in some google doc?

[mpilgrem]

@hasufell, that is correct. You are recalling:

• Adjust guidelines for respectful communication #480 (comment); and
• https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Y3ZDl28o8AMu4CdQ4FZk2Wwfm73b5cnTp5q4dgzDHM/edit?usp=sharing.

[Bodigrim]

Another nitpick: since 8b29547 GfRC references "members of Haskell Foundation", which is, strictly speaking, undefined. It presumably was meant to say "members of the board of HF", although in such case it is weird to exclude the ED. We need to come up with a more precise term.

[mpilgrem]

@Bodigrim, I agree that "members of the Haskell Foundation" is not correct. I suggest "As representatives of the Haskell Foundation, ...". That is, the policy applies to anyone holding themselves out as representing the Foundation (at least, when acting in that capacity).

[mpilgrem]

I have raised a pull request which I consider addresses this issue. It makes no substantive changes to existing content, but re-presents existing content to isolate what is not Foundation-specific from its Foundation context. EDIT1: Seems I was editing the wrong branch! I'll fix that ... EDIT2: Now fixed.