Thank you for your quick response. To me this sounds quite like an "disorganized mess, where bullies, abusers and even IT-fascists can thrive".
It is clear to me that some gcc project maintainers, the steering committee and bountysource are crossing ethical (if not legal) boundaries. The Issue: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729 The Bounty (a bit higher than $7K) https://www.bountysource.com/issues/84630749-avr-convert-the-backend-to-mode_cc-so-it-can-be-kept-in-future-releases The Complaint re Voting Process: https://github.com/bountysource/core/issues/1532 Bountysource may write whatever they want in their terms-of-service - the relevant law is still above. And of course OSS-ethics, which are more that a basic code-monkey-mentality of the kind "only code is work, only patch authors are workers". * there is a bounty * I start work (working around a major gcc project deficit, which is a missing CI, testing testing testing, concluding, "reviving" and existent patch) * I claim 50% * a dispute starts, which is then aborted non-transparently by some anonymous coward, without waiting for the major backers votes, and all gcc participants simply keep silence. I am aware that the effort to fight for 50% of a $7K bounty is not worth it - even the distraction for opening a discussion here is essentially not worth the effort. I cared more or less only on what Microchip ($5K contibution to the bounty) had to say, and the other two top backers. And I'm still curious about this. If they too say "research, analysis and integration work is no work" and "effort to validate abandoned patches and reuse of them is no work" - well, then I guess I'll rest my case. But at least it gets "on file", so other people which struggle with gcc (especially in combination with bountysource) have a point-of-reference. Very disappointing all this. I mean really? An OSS project which brute-force aborts a voting-procedure (=IT-fascism)? Just to award a monetary value to an gcc-project insider? And everyone keeps silence? Shame on you people. P.S.: We all know that reproducing such things in order to have an informed opinion/vote costs terribly high amounts of time. The simplified method would be: * enter the issues here: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c9 * then, just try to validate the until then available patch * => you'll fail, as no stable environment is available (major failure of the steering comitee, which should insist "all targets need to have an functioning CI" * => here you start integrating a dev/ci environment, try to find reference points/versions etc., etc. @ Steering Committee A functioning CI across targets is a non-disputable must requirement in todays IT landscape: * https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98574 Or at least reference-repos, like e.g. this one: * https://github.com/abebeos/avr-gnu We would not have this topic here, if the gcc-project had a decent CI, or a build-setup used by all developers. On Sun, 9 May 2021 at 05:06, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 8:49 AM abebeos via Gcc-patches > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > Is there any private email where one can file complaints re > > project-maintainers (or "those who are supervising the maintainers") ? > > > > Is there any information about the process for such complaints? > > > > Related Issue: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100480 > > > > (please note that this complaint will most possibly escalate up to the > > person(s) who are responsible for policies/rules) > > The GCC project does not have a code of conduct, and it does not have > a managing hierarchy. Nobody supervises the maintainers. GCC has a > minimum of non-technical policies/rules, and it has no enforcement > mechanism. There really isn't any place to file a complaint. You can > complain to the GCC steering committee if you like > (https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html; I am a member), but there are a > very limited number of actions that the steering committee could take, > and it is very unlikely that the committee would actually do anything. > > Basically, GCC is a cooperative project. It's not a company. People > don't work for GCC. > > I'm sorry you are having trouble, but I don't think there is much that > the GCC project can do to help. > > Ian >
