From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from 6.mo1.mail-out.ovh.net (6.mo1.mail-out.ovh.net [46.105.43.205]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 861133857033 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 10:11:36 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 861133857033 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tesio.it Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tesio.it Received: from player794.ha.ovh.net (unknown [10.109.138.203]) by mo1.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1601920466E for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:11:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from tesio.it (93-41-149-224.ip82.fastwebnet.it [93.41.149.224]) (Authenticated sender: giacomo@tesio.it) by player794.ha.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0EF1B1BD0091A; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 10:11:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: garm.ovh; auth=pass (GARM-104R005e5f148e7-ae25-4805-922f-bae2c26a681c, 6CE41D23C9698AD425AA4AF6A3DE613FE0CD067A) smtp.auth=giacomo@tesio.it X-OVh-ClientIp: 93.41.149.224 Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:11:28 +0200 From: Giacomo Tesio To: Gabriel Ravier via Gcc Cc: Gabriel Ravier , Valentino Giudice , Siddhesh Poyarekar Subject: Re: GCC Mission Statement Message-ID: <20210609121128.0000240f@tesio.it> In-Reply-To: <736215d3-72b8-b2e2-f406-80d3d38688e0@gmail.com> References: <5ed046a2-a2f1-f5e3-7399-dbf31808b8ef@gotplt.org> <736215d3-72b8-b2e2-f406-80d3d38688e0@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 10652701971715190344 X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfeduuddgvdeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuqfggjfdpvefjgfevmfevgfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecuhedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfgjfhggtgfgsehtjeertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefiihgrtghomhhoucfvvghsihhouceoghhirggtohhmohesthgvshhiohdrihhtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefgieekgeelkeevhedtieevueevvedvkeevkeegvddvvdeghfetudejtdetgeeigeenucfkpheptddrtddrtddrtddpleefrdeguddrudegledrvddvgeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdqohhuthdphhgvlhhopehplhgrhigvrhejleegrdhhrgdrohhvhhdrnhgvthdpihhnvghtpedtrddtrddtrddtpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhirggtohhmohesthgvshhiohdrihhtpdhrtghpthhtohepghgttgesghgttgdrghhnuhdrohhrgh X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 10:11:38 -0000 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