GNU C Library Steering Committee - Aligning glibc terminology with gcc

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Carlos,

On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 08:46:41AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> 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?

I simply think that your proposal to replace a "bad name" with another
name is not an improvement. If we agree it is a "bad name" then simply
dropping it seems to lead to the least controversy.

> >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.

OK. I think the "risk" here is zero. And it isn't really a bad thing
to act as if you are an "open-source software steward" under the EU
CRA, there are some benefits to it, see
https://sourceware.org/cyber-security-faq.html

But I don't object to removing it, if you feel differently. And even
if you agreed with me, I do think it should be a deliberate choice to
adopt the term. So please do get rid of it.

> >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.

But those are two different "needs". We seem to have consensus on the
first. But I think the second is a much broader discussion. There is
value in using similar terms between projects. But not if the terms
are effectively used/interpreted differently between the projects.

> >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.

OK. That is fine. Lets just agree that we prefer the consensus model
and leave it at that.

Cheers,

Mark