SC issues

[Joe Buck]

>     The power of those companies doesn't (only) come through the SC.  It's
>     a natural power, the consequence of being major contributors.  
> 
> The latter part is true, but you are arguing against yourself here.  The
> same companies whose employees are the major contributors are not
> necessarily those represented in the SC.  This means that the contributors
> have greater power, in some sense, than the SC, which is the way I think
> things should be.

OK, I'll respond to this one because it is short.

The SC only really has negative power: it can refuse to accept a
contribution, it can hold a release, in can kick someone off the mailing
lists (in the whole history of egcs/GCC that happened only once), it can
decide who gets/doesn't get commit authority (but in practice that one is
delegated to the most senior developers).  But it can't make new
contributions magically appear, only contributors can do that (of course,
many SC members are also contributors).

There is, of course, the positive power of persuasion (attracting and
motivating new developers and new contributions), but the SC can only do
that if it has harmonious relations with the developers and the community.