Some thoughts about steerring commitee work

[Ian Lance Taylor]

"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.

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 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.

Ian