On 3/28/21 8:20 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Thanks for clarifying your understanding of Nathan's goal.
I may indeed have misread and mistaken Nathan's goal and means.
I thought the goal was to improve the GCC community by addressing the
gender imbalance, and that the means (misguided, IMHO) was to distance
ourselves from RMS.
There's only one point of departure; you chose to interpret RMS' removal
from the steering committee to be the solution while I (and others) have
pointed out that it is a notable step in that direction.
Your assertiveness came across to me as a correction of my mistake, but
I didn't see any reason to prefer your understanding over mine, until
Nathan posted today's followup.
My reading of every gcc contributor that has participated in this
discussion seems to reinforce my understanding over yours. Not one of
them has conveyed IMO that RMS' removal from the board will magically
solve gender or diversity issues with the community.
Now it looks like you were right, but I still find that a little hard to
believe. Are you really sure about your understanding?
Do you know for a fact that Nathan agrees with your understanding?
Do you know with certainty of anyone else who shares that understanding
with you and him?
In my opinion there is nothing to indicate from any of the contributors'
statements that they see RMS' removal from the steering committee as a
final solution to D&I issues in the GNU community. I'm happy to be
corrected by others if they think I've misinterpreted their comments and
if they indeed think that RMS' removal from the steering committee will
solve all diversity issues.
Siddhesh
