On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:09 PM, David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Daniel Berlin <dber...@dberlin.org> wrote: > >> 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 you did not receive the memo. > This is a fairly rude response for something that has been a consistent problem for GCC developers (lack of status updates from the SC on issues important to GCC developers). I've said my piece. It's fairly obvious the SC has no plans to change (they have no incentive to).
>> Yet most of the others watching take their queues from the feelings of >> GCC insiders. >> I have yet to see them act particularly independently, anyway, so it >> seems silly to assume they will until something makes us think >> otherwise. > > Mark Mitchell and I receive different feedback. This just makes it appear to the rest of the world that you are greatly concerned with the appearance of GCC to other unnamed outsiders without even anonymously relaying their thoughts and beliefs that make you think this. I guess we get to trust that it is currently more important to listen to the thoughts and beliefs of outsiders (who are apparently themselves not in contact with the rest of the community) than it is to listen to the people actually doing the work on GCC. This seems a bit strange.
