GNU C Library Steering Committee - Aligning glibc terminology with gcc

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 6/16/25 6:09 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> I object to calling the GNU package stewards/maintainers a "steering
> committee".

Is your objection based on a group need?

As you move to block consensus on such a change, is it because you
think the project *needs* something else?

Note that blocking consensus due to personal preference is not generally
an acceptable reason for blocking consensus.
  
> I think the chances of "Project stewards" being interpreted as
> "open-source software steward", which is a very specific defined term
> in the context of the EU CRA, is very low to non-existant.

I disagree.

I seek risk to the project as a whole in this area, the group need
for me is to reduce project risk.

The GNU Project, AFAICT, is currently working to add this word to
the "Terms to Avoid" page for the GNU Project.

> But if you want to avoid using the term steward then I think the
> simplest change you can make is to just change the MAINTAINERS page
> where it now says "Project stewards (GNU package maintainers)" to just
> "GNU package maintainers".

That's not a bad idea, it is the minimal change that would meet what
I see as a group need, but I also think a group need is to align with
the rest of the related projects e.g. GNU Toolchain. There is value in
using similar terms to help facilitate developers moving from one
project to another.

The GNU Project may eventually have other suggestions.
  
> 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.

As Florian noted I'd also like to avoid this being a discussion about
project governance.

To be clear though, the GNU Maintainers do have the ability to make
project decisions for glibc.

All decisions are not made by community consensus.

As a GNU Maintainer who wrote the original consensus page here:
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Consensus

The consensus model is for technical development of the project code,
and aimed at accelerating the development of the project.

My preference is to use a consensus model because it yields higher
quality outcomes, but not always.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.