GNU C Library Steering Committee - Aligning glibc terminology with gcc

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 6/16/25 6:24 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2025, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> I am not suggesting we change the name GNU Maintainer, or any other
>> term assigned by the GNU Project, so that is no change.
> 
> "Stewards" was IIRC the term GNU used in the appointment of our
> collective.  What I'm saying is that we don't have authority to change
> that.  Only GNU management does.

Stewards was a term we invented in 2013 to avoid continually using a longer
word when something shorter would do.

There was no specific negotiation with the GNU Project, and I added it to
the wiki in October 2013.

We are able to change this without any specific discussion, other than to
inform and consult with the developers who might wonder why we are making
a change to our shorthand terms.

The announcement email by Roland is here:
https://sourceware.org/legacy-ml/libc-alpha/2012-03/msg01038.html

"the direct responsibilities of GNU Project maintainership for the C Library
will be taken on by a smaller team"

Does that clarify my position?

>>> So my vote is for us to wait for GNU to make the official move.
> 
>> I take that as not objecting to removing the name steward and aligning
>> with gcc.
> 
> That's a misunderstanding.

I wrote the above to make sure we're on the same page and to give you
an opportunity to comment.
  
> I object to the churn (we know change is coming from upper mgmt), and I
> object to spurious alignment to a package that took a step away from GNU
> through this very structure.

I don't consider it spurious to align packages that work together to form
the implementation of the GNU Toolchain.

I agree with you that it might be characterized as churn if the GNU Project
has wording in mind that they will publish.

Please keep in mind that at this point we are waiting on two slightly
opposing group needs:

  (1) The desire to move away from language like "steward" that might be
      confused with EU CRA language.

  (2) The desire to move to something that is standardized by the project.

Would it be OK to simply drop the term steward from the docs?

That would meet my requirements.

>>> If anyone feels it is called for, I wouldn't mind the addition of a
>>> disclaimer of any "open-source steward"ship under the EU CRA that might
>>> be incorrectly presumed from our maintainership roles.
> 
>> That's a disclaimer that I expect the GNU Project should make in the
>> "Words to Avoid" page:
>> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html
> 
> I trust it will be there eventually, when GNU is ready to make that
> move.  I expect at the same time our collective will get a suitable
> name.  I don't mind if we send a recommendation or a reminder in case it
> doesn't come timely.

I'm OK just dropping the term steward if that works for you?

>> This has been discussed upstream in GNU Project discussions, but not yet
>> updated by the project (see the gnu-prod-discuss thread).
> 
> It has, and I don't think a decision has been made about it.  That's
> exaclty one of the reasons why I find this proposal misplaced in its
> timeliness: it will make for churn and/or noise when the decision comes.
> 
>> - Using the name steering committee aligns with gcc.
> 
> That's of no relevance for GNU libc IMHO.

Why is it of no relevance?

We have developers going between both projects and gcc, binutils and
glibc form the implementation of a C runtime for the GNU System.

Generally speaking we implement ISO C in both gcc and glibc, so having
shared terms for new developers helps.
  
>> - Using the name steering committee avoids a word with EU CRA meaning.
> 
> Any other name that avoids the EU CRA meaning solves that issue equally,
> but it's not for us to change it unilaterally.

I agree that any other term would do.
  
>> - The GNU Project is working to make the word "steward" a word to avoid.
> 
> So we can presume that it will change the name of our collective body as
> well.  We can offer our recommendation, but we can't decide to change it
> on our own, and I don't want the churn or the noise of changing it
> multiple times.

Again, this is balancing risk of (1) and (2).

I hear your comment about churn.

Hence I suggest we just drop "steward."
  
> The timing of your proposal makes it seem like you're attempting to
> preempt that coming change.

Why is the GNU Project discussing it? The EU CRA.

The timing of my proposal is driven by the same reason the GNU Project
is looking to move to make "steward" a word to avoid... the EU CRA.

I would like to avoid being in a scenario where the project is using
a word that might mean something else and cause confusion as the
EU CRA's reporting obligations start ramping up.

> That by itself is reason for concern for me.

What are you concerned about? Please be specific.

I'm concerned that we delay (1).

Hence my suggestion to just drop the word steward from the wiki.

> Now, if you're just trying to help solve a real problem, my
> recommendation is to go through the proper channels with a
> recommendation, instead of pushing for a decision that exceeds the
> authority delegated to this group.

I am trying to solve a real problem.

Can we reach a solution that meets the project needs?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.