Re: Some thoughts about steerring commitee work

["Vladimir N. Makarov" <vmakarov at redhat dot com>]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> "Vladimir N. Makarov" <vmakarov@redhat.com> writes:
>
>  
>
> > Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > I've been lobbying for some time, on IRC, for more people to be able
> > > to fill in the holes in the maintainership patterns.  Most of the
> > > existing global maintainers are inactive.  There are areas of the code
> > > which are not covered by the other maintainership groupings.  Thus
> > > there are areas where patches go unreviewed.  I believe, though I have
> > > not been told, that non-algorithmic global maintainer is intended to
> > > address this gap.  Making me one of the people with that role is most
> > > likely following the principle that the person who complains gets the
> > > job.
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > Ian, may be I am wrong but I see a problem that some important for all
> > GCC community things are discussed only on IRC.  Not all people are on
> > IRC.  Moreover some people avoiding the IRC for some reasons.
> >    
>
> There will always be private conversations about GCC.  You can't
> prevent that.  IRC is less private than other places.
>
> When I said lobbying, I meant only that I complained about it.  I
> could have complained about it in e-mail the same way.  There were no
> important conversations about it on IRC.  If the SC members use IRC at
> all, they don't use #gcc.
>  
>
> I'm having a hard time interpreting your comments because I don't
> understand what you want to be done differently.
>
>  
I am not against IRC.  We have free speech right (which means some 
responsibility too).  We could (and we do) discuss whatever we want 
wherever we want with whom we want.  I just wish that some discussion 
important for all community were discussed not only IRC because they 
involve not only people who are on IRC.

> Speaking only for myself, I think it would be silly to stop using IRC.
> I don't think it would work for the SC to conduct their deliberations
> in public.
I don't like to see the deliberation in public too (it would be a 
nightmare for developers ego).  But I'd like to see a bit more 
motivation and explanation in the SC decisions.  Then you would not have 
to write the first your message in this thread.

>  I do think that the SC membership should change from time
> to time, but I have no concrete proposal for how to make that happen.
> I do think that there should be more active global maintainers, but
> the SC appears to disagree.  I do think that the gcc is extremely
> successful as free software projects go, which is not to say that it
> can not be improved.
>  
I am agree that GCC is successful especially as a community project.  
But with my point of view, we could do better to serve our users (and 
customers)

Please, just look at those charts

https://vmakarov.108.redhat.com/nonav/spec/comparison.html

The compilation speed decrease without a performance improving (at least 
for the default case) is really scary.  I'd like to see sticking to the 
decision that every next release should be better.  Although I don't 
have ideas for now how to achieve this.

And of course, I just speak for myself too.