GNU C Library Steering Committee - Aligning glibc terminology with gcc

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 6/16/25 8:19 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2025, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I stand corrected, sorry for the mixup and noise, thank you and jsm for
> pointing it out.  It was the GCC SC term that had been agreed upon by
> all parties involved.  (That seems to bring me one more reason to prefer
> staying away from that term, to avoid further confusion about the
> different situations of the packages)
> 
>> I'm OK just dropping the term steward if that works for you?
> 
> It does.  I'm fine with GNU maintainers.

I'm glad we could reach a solution for the project.

>>>> - Using the name steering committee aligns with gcc.
>>> That's of no relevance for GNU libc IMHO.
> 
>> Why is it of no relevance?
> 
> Because it's different packages, with different histories and agreements
> leading to the names, so mixing them up will confuse rather than
> elucidate.  The ones that led to GCC's aren't very positive, inspiring
> or desirable to GNU and to me, so they're not something to be wished for
> IMHO.

Yes they are different packages.

The history is shared though, they are both GNU packages with developers
routinely working on all of the GNU Toolchain packages.

While you write "mixing them up" the proposal would be for having the
same terms in both projects, and maybe the whole GNU Toolchain.

However, your final sentence is what I'm after, you see a group need in
the GNU Project for a harmonized set of terms and you'd rather use that.

I'll leave it at that then.

> I wouldn't mind if GCC took a step closer to GNU libc and other GNU
> packages, for GNUniformity ;-) but I don't see that in my radar.

The future might surprise you.
  
> What you propose feels like going the wrong way to me, making it harder
> for both to go back later.
> 
>> Hence I suggest we just drop "steward."
> 
> That works for me.  Thanks,
> 
>>> The timing of your proposal makes it seem like you're attempting to
>>> preempt that coming change.
> 
>>> That by itself is reason for concern for me.
> 
>> What are you concerned about? Please be specific.
> 
> Because there's some history in this project of challenges to the GNU
> structure and threats to distance from it, and it resembled yet another
> such move.  I'm glad this was not the case, and it was just my traumatic
> memories misleading me.

Thank you for spelling out your non-specific concern.

Just for clarity I challenge the GNU Project leadership, and what I see
as failings in that leadership and execution on the mission to extend
free software as far as possible.

 From my perspective it is both acceptable and necessary to challenge
leadership to be better and achieve more. I challenge everyone on CC to
do the same for me and glibc.

Lastly, I'm perfectly fine with structure and I think structure is
required to run a project.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.