|| ||Daniel Berlin <dberlin-AT-dberlin.org> |
|| ||Mark Mitchell <mark-AT-codesourcery.com> |
|| ||Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13) |
|| ||Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:37:10 -0400|
|| ||David Edelsohn <dje.gcc-AT-gmail.com>, Richard Kenner <kenner-AT-vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>, bonzini-AT-gnu.org, Joe.Buck-AT-synopsys.com, dave.korn.cygwin-AT-googlemail.com, gcc-AT-gcc.gnu.org, law-AT-redhat.com, rguenther-AT-suse.de, stevenb.gcc-AT-gmail.com|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Mark Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> David Edelsohn wrote:
>> I do not believe that Mark is asserting that he and the other release
>> managers have to follow the requests of the FSF. The question is not
>> what the GCC community or the release managers *can* do, the question
>> is what we *should* do. Ignoring a direct, polite request from the
>> FSF has implications -- ramifications; it is a form of communication.
> Correct. It's as if I were a member of the President's cabinet and
> disagreed with the administration's policy. I'd try to persuade the
> President s/he was wrong, and if I felt strongly enough I'd resign, but
> I'd not act in defiance of that policy while remaining in the cabinet.
Except we aren't supposed to have a president with you as the cabinet,
you are supposed to be preventing any individual group or organization
form getting control over the project.
Otherwise, can you please change the first sentence on
"The steering committee was founded in 1998 with the intent of
preventing any particular individual, group or organization from
getting control over the project. Its primary purpose is to make major
decisions in the best interests of the GCC project and to ensure that
the project adheres to its fundamental principles found in the
project's mission statement. [see the original announcement below]."
1. The FSF, as an organization, clearly now has control over the project.
You even liken them to the administration of which you are just a subordinate.
You also believe you must act in accordance with their policy or
resign from the group supposed to be making the major decisions in the
best interests of the GCC project.
If this is not giving defacto control to an organization over the GCC
project, i don't know what is.
2. Everyone who has spoken up so far does not believe these decisions
are in the best interest of the GCC project.
(FWIW, I'm not suggesting you all resign, I am suggesting maybe
letting the FSF has as much control over GCC as it has and continues
to is not the path GCC should take, as it has done *nothing* but cause
us misery for years now)
to post comments)