From the discussion, it seems that there is concern about some of the the technical directions imposed on gcc by the FSF. If we want to resolve the current crisis without causing a fatal split within the gcc community, we need a way at least to address those.
Therefore, a proposal for a procedure for setting guidelines which may also deviate from the ones If such a deviation is deemed necessary by somebody, it is handed to the steering comittee, which puts it to the gcc mailing list as an officlal RFC. Going through the steering committee is a step for weeding out suggestions which are obviously frivolous or trivial. If, after discussion and possible modification, there is unanimous or near-unanimous consent, the RFC is approved or rejected. If there is significant division, it is put to a vote. Everybody who is listed in the MAINTAINERS file gets a vote, and the majority vote is binding if there is a majority of at least n votes (with n to be discussed). The steering committee then documents the new guideline. The whole thing should be restricted to technical matters, and I would envision this only happening rarely, like once or twice a year. Why this rather bureaucratic procedure? Because it gives a clear and documented mandate for a change, if it is supported by the majority of the developers. If anybody (like the FSF) takes exception to the change, it would be something to go up against. Comments?
