Re: GCC association with the FSF
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 03:13, Chris Punches via Gcc wrote: > Hello, > > I've been reading quietly on how the GCC SC handles this and generally > only lurk here so that I can stay informed on GCC changes. I am nobody > you would probably care about, but, maybe I will be one day. No one > ever really knows. > > I thought you'd like to know what "nobody" thinks, because, if I am > paying enough attention to know that some here are not, perhaps people > who are not "nobody" will have similar observations. > > It is not appropriate to discuss the removal of someone based on > innuendo, provenly false smearing, and other types of political > maneuvering at the behest of corporations desiring the destruction of > the very projects they are sponsoring. > > It is not appropriate to even suggest to blackmail sponsor or non- > sponsor organizations by cutting ties with them to force someone that a > couple corporates in your group don't like out of their organization. > I call on those of you who argued this to restore credibility and > integrity to this discussion. > > This kind of thinking has defaced this project. What are you thinking? > We don't care about your political views. We don't care about GCC's > participation in activism-- in fact, many would view it as a marker of > instability of the project. We care about the stable maintenance of > GCC into perpetuity. > > No one who cares about these projects wants these kinds of politics > driving such a technical and fundamental project. You have been > infected. Please restore the compasses and carry on. > > I salute you, > +1 I find some of the behaviour and and actions of developers afforded positions of authority in the project highly unprofessional, and irresponsible. I would seriously question their motives, and why they are involved in the project at all. > -C > > On Sun, 2021-04-11 at 21:03 -0400, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 8:40 PM Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc > > wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 4:36 AM Pankaj Jangid < > > > pan...@codeisgreat.org> wrote: > > > > I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the > > > > SC > > > > does. > > > > > > I don't know whether anybody actually tried to answer this. > > > > > > The main job of the GCC steering committee is to confirm GCC > > > maintainers: the people who have the right to approve changes to > > > specific parts of GCC, and the people who have the right to make > > > changes to specific parts of GCC without requiring approval from > > > anybody else. These people are listed in the MAINTAINERS file in > > > the > > > gcc repository (currently > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=MAINTAINERS;h=db25583b37b917102b001c0025d90ee0bc12800f;hb=HEAD > ), > > > from the start of the file down to the list of "Write After > > > Approval" > > > people. > > > > > > A secondary job of the GCC steering committee is to approve new > > > additions to GCC that are not under the GPL for one reason or > > > another. > > > This happens rarely. > > > > > > A tertiary job of the GCC steering committee is to decide disputes > > > between maintainers that the maintainers are unable to resolve. I > > > can't recall this ever happening. > > > > > > The GCC steering committee is in principle a place to make > > > decisions > > > that affect the entire project. There are very few such decisions. > > > One was the decision to change the implementation language of GCC > > > from > > > C to C++, a decision made in 2010. Another was the decision to > > > allow > > > GCC plugins. As a counter-example, moving GCC from Subversion to > > > git > > > was supported by the steering committee members, but there was no > > > formal decision by the steering committee to approve the move. > > > > > > More generally, the GCC steering committee has historically served > > > as > > > a point of contact between the FSF and the GCC developers. In my > > > opinion this has not amounted to much over the years that I've been > > > on > > > the committee (since 2014). > > > > Also, because the FSF considers the GCC SC the "package maintainers" > > of GCC, the Steering Committee also receives and answers questions > > and > > requests from RMS and the FSF. > > > > And, as I mentioned in another thread, I believe that the role of the > > GCC SC is to perform some of the duties of a good technical manager: > > remove real or potential roadblocks so that the developers can focus > > on being productive. > > > > Some of us have initiated other activities and alliances to support > > and promote GCC and the GNU Toolchain, although it is not an official > > responsibility of the GCC SC. > > > > Thanks, David > >
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 05:59, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Ian Lance Taylor : > > Patronizing or infantilizing anybody doesn't come into this at all. > > I am not even *remotely* persuaded of this. This whole attitude that if > a woman is ever exposed to a man with less than perfect American > upper-middle-class manners it's a calamity requiring intervention > and mass shunning, that *reeks* of infantilizing women. > > > We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to > > succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many > > are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have > > to short-stop unwelcome advances, where you are required to deal with > > "men with poor social skills." Or you can choose to spend your time > > on the project where people treat you with respect. Which one do you > > choose? > > The one where your expected satisfaction is higher, with boorishness > from autistic males factored in as one of the overheads. Don't try to > tell me that's a deal-killer, I've known too many women who would > laugh at you for that assumption. > > > Or perhaps you have a job that requires you to work on free software. > > Now, if you work on a project where the people act like RMS, you are > > being forced by your employer to work in a space where you face > > unwelcome advances and men who have "trouble recognizing boundaries." > > That's textbook hostile environment, and a set up for you to sue your > > employer. So your employer will never ask anyone to work on a project > > where people act like that--at least, they won't do it more than once. > > Here's what happens in the real world (and I'm not speculating, I was > a BoD member of a tech startup at one time, stuff like this came up). > You say "X is being a jerk - can I work on something else?" Your > employer, rightly terrified of the next step, is not going to "force" > you to do a damn thing. He's going to bend over backwards to > accommodate you. > > > (Entirely separately, I don't get the slant of your whole e-mail. You > > can put up with RMS despite the boorish behavior you describe. Great. > > You're a saint. Why do you expect everyone else to be a saint? > > I'm no saint, I'm merely an adult who takes responsibility for my own > choices when dealing with people who have minimal-brain-damage > syndromes. OK, I have probably acquired a bit more tolerance for > their quirks than average from long experience, but I don't believe I'm > an extreme outlier that way. > > What I am pushing for is for everyone to recognize that *women are > adults* - they have their own agency and are in general perfectly > capable of treating an RMS-class jerk as at worst a minor annoyance. > > Behaving as though he's some sort of icky monster who should be > shunned by all right-thinking people and taints everything he touches > is ... just unbelievably disconnected from reality. Bizarre > neo-Puritan virtue signaling of no help to anyone. > > If I needed more evidence that many Americans lead pampered, > cossetted, hyper-insulated lives that require them to make up their > own drama, this whole flap would be it. > > Im glad there are people like you on the project Eric, because you express exactly what a lot of people see - even if a minority of people chose to ignore it, To a lot of "non americans", the events on here appear as nothing more than a power grab by a small minority of developers, abusing their position and american corporate ideologies to enact change, ignoring any one who dares question or disagree unless they fit into a clique they have built (and want to maintain by ostracizing people they deem unworthy), brandishing them jerks, trolls, toxic and other childish names. Im glad there are a few devs that can see this, but it feels like they are stepping on egg shells (despite the rhetoric about how well the people in said clique can communicate on technical matters).
Re: On US corporate influence over Free Software and the GCC Steering Committee
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 11:21, David Brown wrote: > On 20/04/2021 08:54, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > > Hi GCC developers, > > > > just to further clarify why I think the current Steering Committee is > highly problematic, > > I'd like you to give a look at this commit > > message over Linux MAINTAINERS > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git/commit/?id=4acd47644ef1e1c8f8f5bc40b7cf1c5b9bcbbc4e > > > > Here the relevant excerpt (but please go chech the quotation): > > > > "As an IBM employee, you are not allowed to use your gmail account to > work in any way > > on VNIC. You are not allowed to use your personal email account as a > "hobby". You > > are an IBM employee 100% of the time. > > Please remove yourself completely from the maintainers file. I grant you > a 1 time > > exception on contributions to VNIC to make this change." > > > > > > This is happened yesterday (literally). > > I know nothing of this case other than the link you sent. But it seems > to me that the complaint from IBM is that the developer used his private > gmail address here rather than his IBM address. > > It is normal practice in most countries that if you are employed full > time to do a certain type of job, then you can't do the same kind of > work outside of the job without prior arrangement with the employer. > That applies whether it is extra paid work, or unpaid (hobby) work. > This is partly because it can quickly become a conflict of interests, > and partly because you are supposed to be refreshed and ready for work > each day and not tired out from an all-night debugging session on a > different project. > > Usually employers are quite flexible about these things unless there is > a clear conflict of interests (like working on DB2 during the day, and > Postgresql in the evening). Some employers prefer to keep things > standardised and rigid. > > A company like IBM that is heavily involved in Linux kernel coding will > want to keep their copyrights and attributions clear. So if they have > an employee that is working on this code - whether it is part of their > day job or not - it makes sense to insist that attributions, maintainer > contact information and copyrights all make it clear that the work is > done by an IBM employee. It is not only IBM's right to insist on this, > it might also be a legal obligation. > > (It is quite possible that this guy's manager could have expressed > things a bit better - we are not privy to the rest of the email or any > other communication involved.) > > > This is precisely why copyright assignment for the FSF can involve > complicated forms and agreements from contributors' employers. > > > > > > And while this is IBM, the other US corporations with affiliations in > > the Steering Committee are no better: > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235777.html > > > > I can't see any relevance in that post other than your "big corporations > are completely evil because there are examples of them being bad" comments. > > > I can understand that some of you consider working for such corporations > "a joy". > > But for the rest of us, and to most people outside the US, their > influence > > over the leadership of GCC is a threat. > > Please stop claiming to speak for anyone but yourself. You certainly do > not speak for /me/. I don't work for "such corporations", I am outside > the US, but I do not see IBM or others having noticeable influence over > gcc and thus there is no threat. > > David > I have raised my concerns directly with the FSF, and GNU, about the behaviours and attitudes on here - I would suggest others do the same.
