Richard Kenner wrote:
Looking at the last SC announcement, it is probably easy to get the
impression that SC is shrunk to David Edelsohn, may be Mark Mitchell
and Gerald Pfeifer.
Those three people are indeed the ones that usually *speak for* the SC,
but you have absolutely no way of knowing how many of the members of the
SC are actually involved in a discussion of any topic.
Richard, thanks for the answers. That is already an explanation. Even
saying this is to be open.
That is very good to know especially from you who was a GCC project
manager sometime ago.
I think only SC members know their situation well. But I wrote about my
impression which I got on IRC and latest SC announcements. I think I am
not alone. E.g. look at the last paragraph.
Ken Zadeck wrote:
Spelling errors, changelog fixes and MAINTAINERS. Nothing of real
interest except that there is now a new category of maintainer: the
"Non-Autopoiesis Maintainers".
I realize that this will send everyone to the dictionary/wikipedia so
here is the entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis
Note that this was approved by Edelsohn, but I assume that he might be
open to a different name even though non-autopoiesis is technically
correct. These are maintainers who cannot review their own patches.
Could you please give us more explanation about your decisions. Could
you please be more open in your work. It is natural.
No, it isn't. Decisions over maintainership isn't technical, but are
instead discussions about *people*. When you say "I'm going to let this
person do XYZ", you're often implicitly saying that you're not going to
let some other person do it. These kinds of decisions are often very tricky
and don't, to me, seem like the sorts of things you want discussed in
public forums.
I am agree with you. But more information would be helpful. Like these
people are actively working on this part of project (and going to
actively working on this part of project) and therefore they are
promoted to ...
Even if it is not good with your point of view. It would be nice to
write somewhere about the SC policy. That is what I call to be more open.
Without this it looks like a political decision.
Maintainership decisions are, almost by definition, "political", because
they relate to policies and project structure.
I meant a bad politics (like company power balance or personal favors).
I hope not all my thoughts are wrong. And the discussion will be helpful.
