Over half an hour before you posted, a project maintainer directly contradicted your post under this thread. The technical decision-making are made by the maintainers, not by the GNU project.
This is not news to me, but its the maintainer of a project that decide over their project. Its like how the CEO of Microsoft do not control what Apple do, nor vice verse. Two projects with different people in charge, makes different decision, and has different priorities.
The good thing about reading other posts is that you might realize that not every project is run the same way. If you have an axe to grind with GCC over their priorities, maybe you should try convince them that your priorities are more important than theirs, rather than complain in a HN thread that has nothing to do with having proprietary compiler modifications to GCC.
https://libreboot.org/gnu-insult/ (GNU maintainers telling a GNU maintainer they cannot take their project out of GNU, and it "is for the Saint IGNUcious to decide")
Stallman is the CEO, and maintainers are, at best, VPs. I have no axe to grind with the GCC maintainers over their priorities - I just wish they had the ability to follow their own priorities.
> RMS telling the GnuTLS maintainer they can't move their project out of GNU (and still call themselves GnuTLS.
Trademark is not technical decision-making. Hurd can not call themselves the linux kernel, blaming Linus for "restricting their technical decision-making options" when he would object. That a project do not want to rename themselves is understandable, but such is how trademark work.
> GCC maintainers want certain priorities, RMS (as member of the GCC steering committee) overrules
GCC does not have a GCC maintainer that decide over the project. It has a steering committee, similar to Debian technical committee, which designed role is to overrule maintainers. Stallman is also part of that committee, while other people of FSF is not. There is no requirement of GNU projects to have a steering committee, and no rules that dictate that Stallman must be part of the committee if one exist.
> Emacs maintainer threatening to fork Emacs (over the GCC decision)
Which they are allowed to do. Emacs was founded by Stallman and what is called "GNU Emacs", as a trademark issue, will likely continue rest with him. There is no "technical decision-making options" involved there, and the dispute is not about any code involving Emacs. If the fork ended up successful it would likely replace the code of GNU Emacs as has happened in the past.
> GNU Libreboot changes name to Libreboot
Again, trademark and no technical decision-making options. Libreboot is now one project, and GNU libreboot might be one. People can fight about who is the fork and who is the original, but it has no technical-decision aspects to it. Both projects can write code and add any feature they wish.
The only thing that Stallman and FSF decide is about the GNU project and the GNU trademark. Technical aspects in each project is the maintainers or what ever community structure that they have chosen. Some are committee based, other a BDFL or project maintainer, and some are just flat structure of several maintainer each holding only one vote in the decision process. Simple projects generally has a single maintainer and can make all the technical-decisions themselves.
The GCC issue itself is not the point. It serves as a direct counterexample to the claims you and he are making about how GNU projects are run.
Maintainers of low-impact projects have more leeway. If your project matters to GNU/FSF leadership, you will have less freedom to make your own decisions.
It's as simple as that.
I don't really need this part about "complain in an HN thread that has nothing to do." I'm totally uninterested in being demeaned for trying to explain a point you don't like. Please try to avoid personal attacks and understand that the GCC maintainers already expressed this desire and did work toward it and were denied this choice for political reasons. This situation is directly and unequivocally related to the discussion at hand.
You don't need to use personal attacks just because I'm trying to explain a point you don't like. I am only trying to help you understand.
GCC is run by a committee which stated role is to overrule maintainers (https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html). It has nothing to do with Ring, nor does Ring have a steering committee. If ring had a steering committee, and if stallman was part of that committee, then he would be part of the technical-decision making process. But he is not, nor is FSF, and there is no such committee for Ring.
Sorry, 'stonogo was not making a personal attack. The personal attack was this sentence: "If you have an axe to grind with GCC over their priorities, maybe you should try convince them that your priorities are more important than theirs, rather than complain in a HN thread that has nothing to do with having proprietary compiler modifications to GCC." Calling something an "axe to grind" is an argument over the making of the argument, not a response to the argument itself. (As is calling something "a point you don't like", as opposed to a matter of disagreement.) See also http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html .
'stonogo and I believe that the points you are making are incorrect. That is not a personal attack, an assuming that you must be correct and need to help us understand is a great way to pull the argument back down into personal attacks.
So, why does GCC have a steering committee and Ring not? Is it possible that Ring could have a steering committee in the future? Can that happen without the enthusiastic consent of the maintainers?
"being demeaned for trying to explain a point you don't like" was a personal attack, since there was no intention of demeaning. The statement in your quote text was that this is not the place for criticizing GCC over what their steering group has decide, as neither Ring or the GNU project was involved in that internal decision between GCC steering committee and GCC maintainers (a steering committee which is made from current and historical GCC maintainers).
> Is it possible that Ring could have a steering committee in the future? Can that happen without the enthusiastic consent of the maintainers?
A steering group, or for that matter any form of leadership structure can only pop into existence if the project itself decide to create one. If we look at the announcement of the GCC steering group:
"From its initial conception, the egcs project [now GCC] has strived to organize itself
in a manner which prevents any particular individual or company from having control
over the project.
To that end, when the project was formed several individuals were contacted to
make decisions for the GCC project. These individuals come from a variety of
backgrounds and represent various groups with an interest in the long term health of GCC.
We feel it is in the best interest of the GCC project at this time to turn this
informal group into an official steering committee, and to make public its membership.
> Utter nonsense. Being part of GNU doesn't imply agreeing with every word Stallman utters on any topic.
Of course it doesn't. But associating yourself with GNU is, very straightforwardly, associating yourself with Stallman. What is the advantage of doing so?
If there is such an advantage, then yeah, I think it's totally fair to dissociate yourself from his political views. But it seems to me like joining GNU is solely a political statement and a sign of agreement with Stallman's views on morality (since he frames free software / computing freedom as a moral issue). I don't know why anyone would want to make that statement unless they actually want to be associated with his political and moral views. That's all I'm asking. Is there another reason to associate yourself with GNU?
> But it seems to me like joining GNU is solely a political statement and a sign of agreement with Stallman's views on morality (since he frames free software / computing freedom as a moral issue).
GNU's views on software. Stallman's just the figurehead for these. I don't care what his opinions are outside of this, nevermind agree or disagree.
> Is there another reason to associate yourself with GNU?
As I said, I can't think of any in the first place. But I'm still glad GNU and FSF do exist, and that their views are so extreme.
If they weren't, then a much softer position would be called extreme instead. The world would be worse for it.
I can't think of anything.
> and in particular Richard Stallman's political opinions (e.g., eugenics)
Utter nonsense. Being part of GNU doesn't imply agreeing with every word Stallman utters on any topic.
> restricts your technical decision-making options
Very real (see gcc and frontend/backend separation) and a very good reason to stay away.
reply