GNU C Library Steering Committee - Aligning glibc terminology with gcc

[DJ Delorie]

"Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> writes:
> Regardless of what we call these people, I am incredibly thankful

+1

> Recently the EU CRA legislation has given specific meaning to the
> term "open-source steward" and so in order to avoid any confusion

Is there a deadline for this taking effect?  I ask to gauge how
time-critical this change is.

> and align our terminology with the rest of the GNU Toolchain

+1

> I'm suggestion we reinstate the term "steering committee."
>
> (1) Use the term "steering committee" to refer to the collection
>      of all of the GNU Project Maintainers for glibc

I'll note that GNU leadership is currently discussing the use of
"maintainer" in GNU projects, and how to differentiate GNU-assigned
project maintainers from I'm-responsible-for-this-module maintainers.
If we have time, waiting for this to settle (if it hasn't already) might
reduce overall text churn.

> (3) No other change in the way the project operates today.
>
>      - The intent is to make a "name only" change.

Re the EU CRA, are there people in our project who *should* be called
"stewards" according to their definition?

  (14) ‘open-source software steward’ means a legal person, other than a
       manufacturer, that has the purpose or objective of systematically
       providing support on a sustained basis for the development of
       specific products with digital elements, qualifying as free and
       open-source software and intended for commercial activities, and
       that ensures the viability of those products;

I think some of us might meet this definition, aside perhaps from
philosophical arguments about "legal person", and perhaps we should
recognize this?  Instead of just avoiding use of the term (or any of the
other 50 terms they define) to legally "stick our heads in the sand" wrt
the CRA?

Or are we IANAL advised to avoid this term to avoid legal entanglements?