"Vladimir N. Makarov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > >I've been lobbying for some time, on IRC, for more people to be able > >to fill in the holes in the maintainership patterns. Most of the > >existing global maintainers are inactive. There are areas of the code > >which are not covered by the other maintainership groupings. Thus > >there are areas where patches go unreviewed. I believe, though I have > >not been told, that non-algorithmic global maintainer is intended to > >address this gap. Making me one of the people with that role is most > >likely following the principle that the person who complains gets the > >job. > > > > > Ian, may be I am wrong but I see a problem that some important for all > GCC community things are discussed only on IRC. Not all people are on > IRC. Moreover some people avoiding the IRC for some reasons.
There will always be private conversations about GCC. You can't prevent that. IRC is less private than other places. When I said lobbying, I meant only that I complained about it. I could have complained about it in e-mail the same way. There were no important conversations about it on IRC. If the SC members use IRC at all, they don't use #gcc. I'm having a hard time interpreting your comments because I don't understand what you want to be done differently. Speaking only for myself, I think it would be silly to stop using IRC. I don't think it would work for the SC to conduct their deliberations in public. I do think that the SC membership should change from time to time, but I have no concrete proposal for how to make that happen. I do think that there should be more active global maintainers, but the SC appears to disagree. I do think that the gcc is extremely successful as free software projects go, which is not to say that it can not be improved. Ian
