GNU C Library Steering Committee - Aligning glibc terminology with gcc

[Florian Weimer]

* Mark Wielaard:

> That makes it more clear what this group actually does. I object to
> calling that a "steering committee" since that sound like they have
> any extra ability to make project decisions. And the reason to drop
> that term was precisely to make clear that all major project decisions
> are made by community consensus.

But our bylaws (to the extent we have them) pretty clearly say that this
is exactly what this group is for.  The MAINTAINERS wiki page references
the GNU maintainer manual, which among other things says this:

| As a consequence, you cannot expect all contributors to support the
| GNU Project, or to have a concern for its policies and standards. So
| part of your job as maintainer is to exercise your authority on these
| points when they arise. No matter how much of the work other people
| do, you are in charge of what goes in the release. When a crucial
| point arises, you should calmly state your decision and stick to it.

<https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Recruiting-Developers>

This is not consensus-based development!

Our current practices are mostly different, but not always: see the
disagreements about the recently introduced IBM long double test
failures.

I don't mind how this group of people calls themselves, as long as it's
not “contributors”, “developers”, or a similar term.  But I'd rather
like to avoid any discussions about project governance at this time.

Thanks,
Florian