> The principle by which high level decisions in all GNU projects have > always been made is how it best helps the GNU system as a whole. > Contributors are exactly that. They offer *contributions* - the > very meaning of the word implies there is no expectation of anything > in return. Obviously I hope all contributors *do* get some > satisfaction and maybe even some tangible benefit. But > contributions are not to be seen as a means to gain control of the > project at a high level.
I agree with most of that, but all *actual* changes to a project are done by contributors. If somebody makes a "high level decision" to do a certain thing to GCC, but no contributor steps up to do that thing, it won't get done. Conversely, if some contributor decided to do some thing (e.g., add an optimization) that nobody made a "high level decision" to do, that thing *will* get done, since it's unusual to reject such contributions, assuming they're technically sound. So I think that the bulk of the "power", from a practical standpoint, is in the hands of the contributors, not some high-level group.
