On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 07:36 Giacomo Tesio <giac...@tesio.it> wrote: > Hi NightStrike, > > On June 7, 2021 5:18:13 PM UTC, NightStrike wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 06:12 Giacomo Tesio wrote: > > > > > The Steering Committee can avoid all of this, now. > > > I cannot really understand why they shouldn't. > > > > > > > Likely because the primary contributor to c++ has said he will stop > > contributing unless the change is made. > > Even so I guess he would have no issues to delay the policy change after > the next major release. > > Nor to stick with the previous policy for fixes backported to the other > versions. > > I mean, I do not know what's his goal, but I guess he doesn't intend to > blackmail > the Steering Committee and the whole GCC users community to achieve it. > > > Note that I have no idea about who we are talking about, but lilely about > a reasonable professionist. > > Or maybe we are talking about the dictact of a corporation? > In such case the issue would become way more risky. >
It certainly LOOKS like something coming with the corporate backing of IBM/Redhat. This is the problem with how this change came to be. The optics are poor. They indicate that a few people (or companies) that are upset with some current politics are forcing the institution of significant change as of late (the recent push to deviate from FSF website standards is yet another subtle political maneuver with no technical merit other than "I don't like the FSF"). I'm sure that the people involved will say that it's perfectly on the level, and it well could be, but it doesn't APPEAR to be. The Steering Committee should take these issues seriously, be more transparent, and have a wider, more inclusive discussion of project policy and direction. >
