On 4/6/21 3:57 PM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
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.
FWIW, the glibc FSF stewards are analogous to the SC and pretty much all
of those points apply to them. My impression is that it's a symptom of
governance style of GNU projects (or maybe GNU *toolchain* projects due
to shared history) and not specifically anything to do with the steering
committee or the glibc FSF stewards. Perhaps (and I guess it's more
hope than knowledge) dissociation from GNU/FSF will make it easier to
change the nature of the SC/steward governance.
Siddhesh
