Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee

[Matthias Klose]

On 4/6/21 12:27 PM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:21 PM Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:08 AM Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Richard Biener pointed out dysfunction in the SC.  The case of the
>>> missing question I asked in 2019 also points to that.  This response
>>> gives me no confidence that things will materially change.  I call for
>>> the dissolution of the SC, replacing it with a more open, functional and
>>> inclusive body (which includes, nothing).
>>
>> I'm fine with that in principle.  But it's like everything else with
>> GCC, and with free software in general: someone has to do the work.
>> We can't literally replace the SC with nothing, at least not unless we
>> do a much bigger overhaul of the GCC development process: someone has
>> to decide who is going to have maintainership rights and
>> responsibilities for different parts of the compiler.
> 
> Seeing the word "dysfunction" I don't remember using I want to clarify
> the non-openess which I intended to criticize.  The SC is not "open" because:
> - it appoints itself (new members, that is) - in fact in theory it
> should be appointed
>   by the FSF because the SC is the GNU maintainer of GCC
> - all requests and discussions are _private_ - the SC does not report to the
>   GCC project (it might report to the FSF which it is formally a delegate of)
> - you can reach the SC only indirectly (unless you know the secret mailing list
>   it operates on) - CC an SC member and hope a request is forwarded
> 
> now I understand the SC sees itself as buffer between GCC and the FSF (RMS
> in particular) and it thinks we need to be protected from direct engagement.  I
> think this is wrong.  I can very well say NO to RMS myself.
> 
> I'm actually curious how many of the 13 SC members actively contribute or
> whether the "SC show" is a one or two persons game and the "13" is just
> to make the SC appear as a big representative group of people.
> 
> Thus I request an archive of the SC mailing list be made publically available
> and the SC discussion from now on take place in an open forum (you can
> choose to moderate everybody so the discussion while carried out in open
> is still amongst SC members only).

Not sure if a completely open SC list would help, seeing other SC's or tech
boards having a private communication channel as well.  But +1 on a public point
of contact, with a ML archive behind.  Issues are involuntarily dropped, or not
communicated like last year's gm2 contribution which stayed silent for quiet a
while and the SC thought that a resolution had been communicated.

Matthias