Re: cygwin-xfree

[Jim Kingdon <kingdon@redhat.com>]

> I sort of thought that, in the current Silver Age, there was a
> triumverate of terror who ruled over all things sourceware.

Yup, that's the way I see it.  C'mon, Tom, you can't inspire Terror
(that's with a capital "T") by saying "I only work here".  If you are
in doubt, just keep them guessing about what the decision was and who
made it.  That's always a good way to be an Evil Overlord.

More seriously, usually Jeff, Tom and I are able to agree on stuff
with some discussion.  For the most part things end of reducing to
"who will do the work" rather than "who decides stuff like technical
direction" since the latter is more the project leaders anyway.

As for cygwin-xfree, I'm still looking for objections to suggesting
they go to sourceforge.  One of the requirements for being on
kingdon-rules.redhat.com, er, sourceware.cygnus.com, is a sponsor
within Red Hat and in the XFree case we only seem to have one partial
reluctant one (Chris).  It's different than Cygwin itself as nearly as
I can tell.

As for angering XFree.  I could write essays on the subject (short
summary: don't let such concerns gridlock development) but the point
is, that's something that a project leader would need to be willing to
deal with.  I don't see it as a matter for the Sourceware Central.  At
least, not primarily.

> I know that Jason claimed to have left office voluntarily but I've
> always had my suspicions...

And suspicions they will remain.  We can't very well maintain our aura
of palace intrigue if we tell you what *really* happened, can we?