Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee

[Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org>]

On 3/31/21 2:27 PM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> [I previously sent this from another email account, but it seems to be
> lost.  I am sending this on behalf of the GCC Steering Committee.]
> 
> In 2012 RMS was added to the GCC Steering Committee web page
> based on his role in the GNU Project, though his role as a member
> of the Steering Committee has been ambiguous and he was not a member
> of the Steering Committee when EGCS became GCC[1].  We no longer feel
> that this listing serves the best interests of the GCC developer and
> user community.  Therefore, we are removing him from the page.
> 
> GCC supports the principles of Free Software and has remained aligned
> with the GNU Project since EGCS became GCC, but effectively has continued
> to operate as an autonomous project.
> 
> The GCC Steering Committee is committed to providing a friendly, safe
> and welcoming environment for all, regardless of gender identity and
> expression, sexual orientation, disabilities, neurodiversity, physical
> appearance, body size, ethnicity, nationality, race, age, religion, or
> similar personal characteristics.
> 
> - The GCC Steering Committee
> 
> [1] https://static.lwn.net/1999/0429/a/gcc.html
> 

You, the SC, have chosen to fix this as a clerical error.  The most 
do-nothing response, other than actually doing nothing.

I am profoundly disappointed that you have not even acknowledged the 
harm RMS has caused.  Using passive voiced 'RMS was added' phrasing. 
You're not explicitly saying that was incorrect, and neither are you 
saying it was correct.   Your language attempts to distance you from 
your choices.

'we no longer feel the listing serves the best interest'.  'Therefore, 
we are removing him from the page FULLSTOP'. Well, at least that's not 
passive voice, but it is a milque-toast response.   You're not removing 
him from the SC, merely removing mention of him from the listing. 
You're not adding words to the website mentioning this historical 
ambiguity/error/misjudgement (you'd say if you were, right?).  You're 
not adding words acknowledging that RMS's involvement has been 
detrimental and repelled contributors.  Nor are you apologizing.  You're 
not owning your mistake.  You just hope the problem will silently go 
away.  The problem will not go away.

/You/ involved RMS in SC discussions.  /You/ treated him as a member 
thereof.  /You/ gave him controlling rights.

You have misled the majority of GCC developers, and the wider community 
by doing so.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like 
a duck, it's a duck.  (As compiler developers for duck-typed languages, 
you should understand that.)

You involved RMS prior to 2012, and continued to do so after.  Including 
after 2019 when he was no longer at the FSF.  Two instances I personally 
know of:

1) Sometime around 2005? maybe later, I lobbied to change gcc's 
implementation language to C++.  I failed because I'm lazy and learned I 
was arguing against an RMS effective veto.  (I learned this because Mark 
Mitchell informed me that some SC members were also pushing back against 
RMS's opposition to C++.  I was not privy to the actual SC discussion.) 
  If he was not an SC member, why was he even in that private 
conversation?  The public ML would have been more appropriate place for 
non-SC opinions to be voiced.  Just think, we could have transitioned to 
C++ earlier than we did, if it were not for the SC's inclusio of RMS.

2) Last year, I asked for libcody to be added as a subcomponent, with 
its Apachev2 license intact.  AFAICT RMS was involved in that licensing 
discussion, /for which I never received a response/.  He was not at the 
FSF then, so he could not render any FSF licensing opinion.  Why was he 
involved?  If he was not involved, how did he learn of it in order to 
ask me questions about C++ modules?  I only emailed the SC and the 
timing is too coincidental to draw a different conclusion.

Interactions I've had with the SC, beyond maintainer appointment, seem 
to run into RMS.  (In the original email I mentioned a third interaction 
about RMS's position on the SC, which didn't do so, but also was 
decidedly one way.)

You, the SC, do not state that you will not continue to involve RMS in 
discussions, just as you have done for the past 20 years.  You merely 
feel the listing is unfortunate.

Your final paragraph is the corporate BS of hollow men.  Nice words, no 
specific actions.

Richard Biener pointed out dysfunction in the SC.  The case of the 
missing question I asked in 2019 also points to that.  This response 
gives me no confidence that things will materially change.  I call for 
the dissolution of the SC, replacing it with a more open, functional and 
inclusive body (which includes, nothing).

nathan

FWIW, I am surprised that you, the SC, chose to respond only to the 
mailing list, and not CC me, the original complainant, of your decision. 
  Perhaps that seems petty, but it is personally insulting.
-- 
Nathan Sidwell