> Sorry, my first reaction to latest SC announcements was to write > immediately. But I took time to think more about the situation (now > seing a discussion about "Non-Autopoiesis Maintainers" I am more > convinced in my decision). Here is my thoughts. I apologize in advance > if somebody feel offended by what I wrote. I really have no such > intentions. > > 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. I see that some people already associate SC only > with David or see him as a single conductor to/from SC (David, nothing > personal. You are very active and that is good). But where are the > other members. By the way this expression is contradict with the > original SC goal creation.
Let me set the record straight about "Non-Autopoiesis Maintainers". The steering committee made Paolo Bonzini, Seongbae Park and myself maintainers of the rtl level dataflow analysis. That was their decision. Among the three of us, we decided for our own reasons, that it was appropriate that we follow the same rule as the Fortran people: not approving in our own patches. Since this is just a subset of the actual privileges that we have been granted, I so no reason to ask for approval of the steering committee. Paolo raised the point that we should somehow make this apparent in MAINTAINERS. After doing some web searching I found the term Autopoiesis and it seemed appropriate and since David Edelsohn did not object, I edited the file. (Since that time Willy has pointed out that the term "Allopoietic Maintainers" would be more correct and so it probably should be changed. I took Latin in high school, not Greek.) I think that it may be true that some larger group of people may wish to comment on the name of this category of maintainer, especially if someone really does have a good name. However, putting a name in the file is just not that big a deal. It is easily changed. Kenny
