Re: GCC Mission Statement

[Giacomo Tesio <giacomo@tesio.it>]

Hi Gabriel,

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 11:44:10 +0200 Gabriel Ravier via Gcc wrote:
> Speaking on the "change it recklessly" issue, I would personally say 
> that SC has indeed arguably done this [...]
> some people threatened to pull away from GCC entirely if it remained
> tied to the FSF. I personally happen to agree with the change (which
> seems to have especially avoided what would have been a painful split
> that could have had disastrous consequences for GCC as a whole), but
> find it rather disconcerting that such changes with potentially major
> consequences were done without any direct discussion of them with the
> community whatsoever.

Did you consider that, in fact, the lack of transparency of the
Steering Committee has shown since then (or even just the lack of
professionalism, when it comes to explicit intruduce major changes in
major versions) is a "disastrous consequence for GCC as a whole"?

Unilateral undiscussed changes by the Steering Committe is the new norm.


And such Steering Committee is in no way representing the interests of
the worldwide users of GCC, first because its members do not know them
(the vast majority is from the US, work for US corporations or both)
and second because they do not listen to any objection / request that
does not comes from their own circle / social group.


Are you sure that an explicit fork with two projects with different
names and governance would had been worse than what GCC has become?


Giacomo