On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:17 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Daniel Berlin
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Joe Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:25:34AM -0700, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>> The topmost sentence should be unambiguous. Yes, the SC asked us not
>>>> to branch.
>>> The request came from RMS, the SC just passed it on.
>> There are two things here that bother me.
>> 1. The occasional defending on the length of time it takes the FSF to
>> get back to us. Sorry, but this defense is, honestly, fairly silly.
>> Even the government agencies I work with aren't this slow. By the
>> time we have a response, members of the GCC developer community may
>> well be living on the moon. This doesn't mean they aren't good people
>> trying to do a good job, or seriously overworked. At some point, this
>> ceases to be a sane reason for something taking so long, and clearly,
>> it isn't something we should let affect our development schedule.
>> 2. Where is the pushback by the SC onto the FSF?
>> Why haven't we given them a hard deadline, or even any deadline at all?
>> It's clear when they have no deadlines, they take forever to get
>> anything done. After all, if they are allowed to not prioritize it and
>> have no incentive to get their ass in gear and meet a deadline, what
>> exactly did we expect to happen other than it not getting done in a
>> reasonable amount of time?
> Why do you think that the SC has not pushed back? Not all diplomacy
> is best done in public.
Okay then, as the leadership body of the GCC community, part of your
responsibility is keeping your constituents (the rest of us!) informed
of the status of things troubling them.
I don't believe saying "we have given the FSF a deadline to meet in
the near future" would at all endanger any diplomacy, and i'd love to
see a counter argument that says otherwise.
> I am sorry that none of us on the GCC SC caught the ambiguity in the
> original runtime license. Re-opening a document for revisions is
> fraught with hazards because the GCC community is not the only
> party that wanted changes. That is what we have encountered.
> We need to ensure that we do not fix one problem, but end up
> with a license less acceptable to the community due to other
Nobody really blames anyone for ambiguity in the license. Most people
simply want to get on with developing GCC.
> There apparently is a revised version of the license that addresses
> the concerns raised by the community. We are trying to get FSF to
> approve and release that text so that we may proceed.
> I agree that we cannot wait indefinitely. The FSF is having a meeting
> this weekend and hopefully they can resolve the license issue.
> The GCC Community has operated with a rather low amount of public
> drama relative to many FOSS projects and I think that has served us
I'd say our drama level is actually significantly above other major
projects, actually, but in the end it does not matter.
> The customers and users of GCC are more than those
> intimately involved in FOSS projects and they appreciate a stable,
> professional project, not forks, fragmenting community, and rash
None of which anyone has suggested. I have yet to see a
non-professional suggestion, in fact.
That said, you realize that doing this all behind the curtain and not
keeping the rest of us informed is, in fact, fragmenting the
community, making people consider rash decisions, etc.
Sunlight is, in fact, the best disinfectant.
> We cannot be held hostage, but more people are watching
> than GCC insiders
Yet most of the others watching take their queues from the feelings of
I have yet to see them act particularly independently, anyway, so it
seems silly to assume they will until something makes us think