Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee

[Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org>]

On 3/27/21 7:08 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> It may be very convenient to paint a boogey-man and expel it because
> that became fashionable.  But sacrificing a goat or a lamb does not
> expiate our own sins, and expelling someone who hasn't even been present
> in the community can't be expected to make any real difference to that
> matter; it would rather make us seem *less* welcoming and more
> intolerant, and suggest other motivations for the move.

Except that it's not a boogeyman.  There is evidence for the documented 
instances of misconduct and have been corroborated by multiple people.

> Let's be real and honest, when was the last time anyone in the GCC
> community was called out for sexist behavior?  When was there even
> conversation about it, and about how sexist behavior is not acceptable
> and not to be accepted among participants in the GCC community?  What
> was our latest collective action to promote e.g. gender equity within
> the community?

The discussion is about RMS' damaging conduct (especially with 
non-privileged groups) over the years and the steering committees stand 
on it, not about steps we take to make the community more welcoming to 
non-privileged groups.  The latter definitely needs a discussion, but as 
far as this thread is concerned, it is a digression.

> If we were to shift our collective blame over this very real and
> undesirable problem to someone who has any direct authority over the
> project, why not suggesting expelling e.g. the entire Steering Committee
> for its evident failure to address the problem?  (I don't think it's a
> good idea, but that would be the first thing to try if we were to blame
> "management"/"leadership" rather than ourselves for it)

Nope, you're the one shifting blame for RMS' conduct on to the steering 
committee and the gcc community.

> What could support any rational belief that having RMS one extra level
> removed from our technical community would bring about anything
> resembling a solution to the very undesirable and unjust gender
> imbalance you've correctly identified?

No but it will make it clear that toxic behaviour has no place in the 
gcc community.  That's step zero.  The FSF still hasn't got its act 
together in that regard unfortunately.

> How about we set out to take individual and collective actions that
> actually address the problem *in* our community?  We don't need anyone's
> approval to call out sexist acts, nor to invite and train people with an
> interest in compiler technology, nor to maintain a welcoming atmosphere.

Sexist acts, discriminatory comments and inappropriate behaviour by RMS 
have been called out.  It is now the steering committee's responsibility 
to share their stand on it.

On 3/27/21 9:15 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
 > It looks like statements of any position whatsoever are invitations
 > for pressure and trouble right now.

On the flip side, not making a statement would be a statement in itself. 
  You know that though, which is why you advocate silence.

Siddhesh