Don't list RMS as member of the Steering Committee
gcc.gnu.orgWhen a project becomes focused on throwing people under the bus instead of creating the best tools for people to use, it's time to jump ship. If any GNU developers are unhappy with the way things are, they are more than free to fork and walk away instead of wasting everyone's time.
> When a project becomes focused on throwing people under the bus instead of creating the best tools for people to use,
FSF has always been, and overtly so, about discouraging, preventing, and cancelling-by-social pressure tools with bad politics, not creating the best tools for people to use.
Discouraging people from using tools that restrict a persons freedom is not the same thing as removing an individual because of wrong think or personal grudges. The "canceled" tools are still there and available for anyone to use if they wish. If people don't want to have anything to do with RMS, they are more than free to do so.
I would argue that, for a time, the focus was to create tools that abide by an ideology AND are the best at what they do.
What's the correct response to people that discourage people from using tools that don't restrict a person's freedom?
Free Uncle Bob!
Why was this necessary?
>The GCC Steering Committee is committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disabilities, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, ethnicity, nationality, race, age, religion, or similar personal characteristics.
They say it because they don't do it. What happens instead is that a board of people tends to associate with others who look like them, and either drive away or ignore anybody who doesn't. Then they seem surprised that the most talented person for the job always seems to be somebody else who looks like them.
Saying it isn't as good as doing it, but they certainly won't get to doing it without first saying it. Then they have to have somebody to remind them at each decision they make to check that it's actually consonant with their stated goals. It turns out to be surprisingly pervasive, in decisions that you don't even realize will impact that unless you go looking for it.
(Such as, to pick a random example, partnering with an organization with somebody who makes indiscriminate passes at women -- something every woman there knows, but that men either don't know about or don't understand the significance of.)
So, they start by making a statement about their goals. It's not good enough, but it's a necessary first step. It does mean a whole lot more when they take a concrete step, such as hiring somebody with the stated goal of pointing it out.
Let me guess, because these sort of programmers exist and LLVM has been taking them all?