From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ej1-x62a.google.com (mail-ej1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62a]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BFBC3858012 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:21:14 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 4BFBC3858012 Received: by mail-ej1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id u5so30047598ejn.8 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 06:21:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CB7iOrlVvlsOPNxibmH9hTuRiEgW+oELwfPwY5k5x0Y=; b=O9NDiRlJqR0YhSQL8DYExUELmdu5JJ+WVnwS8ACHXxBad9G47p//fJznDGlZ6YqpCi NddPG4WUFyl1AHVLMNRj6WS9rrC4IdGXMmBWCqbFmtNiWjd5jNsSUs2VQuJmULevNw74 B5DjRp/qRPSP1z0aWEcCvoan00wHmxAgoPEcp10B6O1nsccZuKPQTY4KkazYmtSvb2DU teuELdp7KG/vmSEnP3fHrvNH3cDTgsF6s5VPznYijzUakkkBQdvhnDXUVNhG3awd81cM AeQi6csY2viW+P1fcGPsCvlqoAAaThTbNAx8y0T37hV6+AJHF/q1BlhW6uI63jKiPDKk FQjg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Pczd+rlaV5NoPjiPHoZLlfqxBwkRVCAIPiMuRim6GMsDmhUdQ H3vcoZil6dGKCeupJOqVRT+O4N4l5vS9DQRJAVU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxFMZc7wN3GrJqLXzjItkXpxVopn1xEPHG8UFxlJ9ZA0CSDS5zdQO5i8PXI3NHrHENrD9lJ2ZtO71sI2DHTWfA= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:8a65:: with SMTP id hy5mr3587202ejc.250.1617196872776; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 06:21:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210330151656.00007e20@tesio.it> <20210330232849.00001697@tesio.it> <20210331113417.GU2685@wildebeest.org> In-Reply-To: From: Richard Biener Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:21:01 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee To: David Edelsohn Cc: Mark Wielaard , GCC Development , Nathan Sidwell Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 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, 31 Mar 2021 13:21:16 -0000 On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 2:59 PM David Edelsohn wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 8:28 AM Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 1:36 PM Mark Wielaard wrote: > > > > > > You are referencing the recent open letter which isn't really what > > > people are discussing here. Although many probably sympathize with > > > calling for the removal of the entire Board of the Free Software > > > Foundation and calling for Richard M. Stallman to be removed from all > > > leadership positions, including the GNU Project > > > > > > You can disagree with the specific way that was worded and still come > > > to the same conclusion. See for example https://www.arp242.net/rms.html > > > > Ah, this one is _very_ well written and captures my thoughts when > > writing my response to Nathan (but not willing to spend so much time > > on this to coherently formulate what I was thinking). > > > > And just to repeat - all the GCC governance structure (the "SC") represents > > all of the same non-openess as the FSF governance structure (because > > the "SC" is in fact appointed by the Chief GNUisance "or his delegates"). > > Richard historically has approved nominees to the GCC SC because the > GNU Project considers the SC the official "maintainers" of GCC, but he > has not nominated or suggested any of the members. I don't remember > him rejecting a proposed nominee. And many major contributors to GCC > have not wished to be members of the GCC SC whose major purpose is to > be a buffer between the GCC Community and the Free Software > Foundation. > > Has the GCC SC micro-managed you or prevented you from doing anything > as Global Reviewer and Release Manager? Not that I'm aware of. > > Has the GCC SC blocked any new port or major feature? Not that I'm aware of. > > Has the GCC SC blocked any qualified maintainer nominations? Not that > I'm aware of. > > Has the GCC SC instructed GCC developers on which features to work? No. > > Has the GCC SC inserted itself or voted on any disagreements? No. That's all true. It's still true that since GCC is a GNU project, formally its maintainers are appointed by RMS (I've just read the official governance structure document!). It's also true that the SC is only indirectly reachable, that we didn't vote on our representatives, or that there's no traces of its work (assuming it does any). Just to point to the pieces that make it "not open". > The reality is that the governance of GCC is extremely open because > it's performed by the developers in the community, not the GCC SC. > And GCC is much less bureaucratic than other, large Open Source > projects. It doesn't have multiple committees and SIGs. Everything > is worked out among the developers. Projects are started by > developers who take the initiative to start a project. > > Be careful what you wish for because it may be much worse than the > freedom that you currently enjoy. I'm actually enjoying not needing to interact with RMS or the FSF and indeed the SC appears to handle things well. But since people are throwing in ideas to disassociate GCC from GNU I wanted to point out that GCC needs to think of its own governance structure. Richard. > > Thanks, David