On 4/6/21 12:27 PM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:21 PM Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:08 AM Nathan Sidwell <nat...@acm.org> wrote: >>> >>> Richard Biener pointed out dysfunction in the SC. The case of the >>> missing question I asked in 2019 also points to that. This response >>> gives me no confidence that things will materially change. I call for >>> the dissolution of the SC, replacing it with a more open, functional and >>> inclusive body (which includes, nothing). >> >> I'm fine with that in principle. But it's like everything else with >> GCC, and with free software in general: someone has to do the work. >> We can't literally replace the SC with nothing, at least not unless we >> do a much bigger overhaul of the GCC development process: someone has >> to decide who is going to have maintainership rights and >> responsibilities for different parts of the compiler. > > Seeing the word "dysfunction" I don't remember using I want to clarify > the non-openess which I intended to criticize. The SC is not "open" because: > - it appoints itself (new members, that is) - in fact in theory it > should be appointed > by the FSF because the SC is the GNU maintainer of GCC > - all requests and discussions are _private_ - the SC does not report to the > GCC project (it might report to the FSF which it is formally a delegate of) > - you can reach the SC only indirectly (unless you know the secret mailing > list > it operates on) - CC an SC member and hope a request is forwarded > > now I understand the SC sees itself as buffer between GCC and the FSF (RMS > in particular) and it thinks we need to be protected from direct engagement. > I > think this is wrong. I can very well say NO to RMS myself. > > I'm actually curious how many of the 13 SC members actively contribute or > whether the "SC show" is a one or two persons game and the "13" is just > to make the SC appear as a big representative group of people. > > Thus I request an archive of the SC mailing list be made publically available > and the SC discussion from now on take place in an open forum (you can > choose to moderate everybody so the discussion while carried out in open > is still amongst SC members only).
Not sure if a completely open SC list would help, seeing other SC's or tech boards having a private communication channel as well. But +1 on a public point of contact, with a ML archive behind. Issues are involuntarily dropped, or not communicated like last year's gm2 contribution which stayed silent for quiet a while and the SC thought that a resolution had been communicated. Matthias