Dora Scilipoti <[email protected]> writes: > Oh! I thought the conversations here were started to talk about a new > governance model specifically for GNU.
Well... it's all related, but each sub-project in GNU itself needs a local governance model, and even if it's different than the top-level GNU model, they interact, so there's room for discussion there too. In the glibc case, the topic started when the maintainers couldn't reach consensus on a change, and we didn't have a way to move forward. Remember, the glibc case, we have nine stewards (official maintainers), 70 listed maintainers (developers), and 490 copyright assignments. Running glibc is more complicated than running a small one-developer project, even if (or especially when) RMS gets involved. Also remember that glibc is on its third major governance model (I think) - dictator, committee, and consensus.
