On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 04:02:30PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > [double sigh, attaching a pdf causes it to be blocked, and I guess the > number of URLs is also triggering a spam trap for the follow up. I have > removed many of the URLS from this, you'll have to use your google-fu for > sources. I emailed several members of the SC, and don't want to bomb them > with yet a third copy. ] > > Dear members of the GCC Steering Committee (SC), I ask you to remove > Richard Stallman (RMS) from the SC, or, should you chose not to do so, make > a clear statement as to why he remains.
[...] > I am writing this publicly, as it is important we address the issue. In > 2019, when RMS resigned from the FSF, I asked the SC about his status on the > SC (the web site continued to list his affiliation as FSF). I never saw as > response. I failed to follow up. (FWIW, I never received a response to a > technical licensing issue I asked in 2020. Something seems amiss.) > In the alternative, I want you to make a definitive statement about why you > choose not to make such a change. Do not hide behind silence. Silence is > agreeing with the status quo. Further, if you choose not to make a change, > do not hide behind a technicality. (My understanding is that RMS has veto > power.) The rules of the SC are not immutable laws of the universe, nor does > humanity have immutable laws cast in stone. The EGCS project showed that we > can make changes with GCC’s social organization. If we fail to do so, it > will continue to be harder and harder to attract new talent to GCC > development. I support this and believe we ought to act now. Marek
