On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Daniel Berlin <dber...@dberlin.org> wrote: > >> Okay then, as the leadership body of the GCC community, part of your > >> responsibility is keeping your constituents (the rest of us!) informed > >> of the status of things troubling them. > >> I don't believe saying "we have given the FSF a deadline to meet in > >> the near future" would at all endanger any diplomacy, and i'd love to > >> see a counter argument that says otherwise.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:09 PM, David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am sorry that you did not receive the memo. On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:45:40AM -0700, Daniel Berlin wrote: > This is a fairly rude response for something that has been a > consistent problem for GCC developers (lack of status updates from the > SC on issues important to GCC developers). I agree that David's response comes off sounding rude. We're all frustrated, but still ... > I've said my piece. It's fairly obvious the SC has no plans to change > (they have no incentive to). Actually, I'd like to change it; many members of the SC (Toon in particular, I think) are quite frustrated. And David is speaking here for himself only, not the SC. The problem in this instance is that the SC has little power; it's the FSF that's holding things up and I don't know more than you do.
