On 6/9/21 7:09 AM, Valentino Giudice via Gcc wrote:
If the Steering Committee updates the mission statement, it may appear that the mission statement follows the decisions of the steering committee (in place of the contrary). In that case, what would be the purpose of a mission statement?
In essence, a mission statement is just that, a statement of the mission that the SC aims to follow. If the SC wishes to change that mission, it follows that the statement should be adjusted to adapt. The statement serves as any other statement serves: it gives information to others.
Of course, the mission statement is also binding on the SC itself, in a more social way: If it does not wish to lose faith of the GCC community, it should not go against the mission statement nor should it change it recklessly.
Speaking on the "change it recklessly" issue, I would personally say that SC has indeed arguably done this: I believe there should have been discussion of this change in the mailing list before it occurred, as essentially the only discussion on the mailing list that could have implied something like this would happen was the discussion from a while back about RMS and the FSF where some people threatened to pull away from GCC entirely if it remained tied to the FSF. I personally happen to agree with the change (which seems to have especially avoided what would have been a painful split that could have had disastrous consequences for GCC as a whole), but find it rather disconcerting that such changes with potentially major consequences were done without any direct discussion of them with the community whatsoever.
