undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgeofft9y ago0 comments

> its the maintainer of a project that decide over their project

Except that's not true once you've made your project a GNU project, which is exactly my point.

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnutls-devel/2012-12/msg0... (RMS telling the GnuTLS maintainer they can't move their project out of GNU)

https://lwn.net/Articles/629259/ (GCC maintainers want certain priorities, RMS overrules)

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-01/msg00... (Emacs maintainer threatening to fork Emacs if he cannot make the technical decisions he wants to make)

https://libreboot.org/gnu-insult/ (GNU maintainers telling a GNU maintainer they cannot take their project out of GNU, and it "is for the Saint IGNUcious to decide")

Stallman is the CEO, and maintainers are, at best, VPs. I have no axe to grind with the GCC maintainers over their priorities - I just wish they had the ability to follow their own priorities.

0 comments

belorn9y ago

> RMS telling the GnuTLS maintainer they can't move their project out of GNU (and still call themselves GnuTLS.

Trademark is not technical decision-making. Hurd can not call themselves the linux kernel, blaming Linus for "restricting their technical decision-making options" when he would object. That a project do not want to rename themselves is understandable, but such is how trademark work.

> GCC maintainers want certain priorities, RMS (as member of the GCC steering committee) overrules

GCC does not have a GCC maintainer that decide over the project. It has a steering committee, similar to Debian technical committee, which designed role is to overrule maintainers. Stallman is also part of that committee, while other people of FSF is not. There is no requirement of GNU projects to have a steering committee, and no rules that dictate that Stallman must be part of the committee if one exist.

> Emacs maintainer threatening to fork Emacs (over the GCC decision)

Which they are allowed to do. Emacs was founded by Stallman and what is called "GNU Emacs", as a trademark issue, will likely continue rest with him. There is no "technical decision-making options" involved there, and the dispute is not about any code involving Emacs. If the fork ended up successful it would likely replace the code of GNU Emacs as has happened in the past.

> GNU Libreboot changes name to Libreboot

Again, trademark and no technical decision-making options. Libreboot is now one project, and GNU libreboot might be one. People can fight about who is the fork and who is the original, but it has no technical-decision aspects to it. Both projects can write code and add any feature they wish.

The only thing that Stallman and FSF decide is about the GNU project and the GNU trademark. Technical aspects in each project is the maintainers or what ever community structure that they have chosen. Some are committee based, other a BDFL or project maintainer, and some are just flat structure of several maintainer each holding only one vote in the decision process. Simple projects generally has a single maintainer and can make all the technical-decisions themselves.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse