Did you just miss davexunit post?
What good is reading his post when you can see how core GNU projects are actually run?
This is not news to me, but its the maintainer of a project that decide over their project. Its like how the CEO of Microsoft do not control what Apple do, nor vice verse. Two projects with different people in charge, makes different decision, and has different priorities.
The good thing about reading other posts is that you might realize that not every project is run the same way. If you have an axe to grind with GCC over their priorities, maybe you should try convince them that your priorities are more important than theirs, rather than complain in a HN thread that has nothing to do with having proprietary compiler modifications to GCC.
Except that's not true once you've made your project a GNU project, which is exactly my point.
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnutls-devel/2012-12/msg0... (RMS telling the GnuTLS maintainer they can't move their project out of GNU)
https://lwn.net/Articles/629259/ (GCC maintainers want certain priorities, RMS overrules)
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-01/msg00... (Emacs maintainer threatening to fork Emacs if he cannot make the technical decisions he wants to make)
https://libreboot.org/gnu-insult/ (GNU maintainers telling a GNU maintainer they cannot take their project out of GNU, and it "is for the Saint IGNUcious to decide")
Stallman is the CEO, and maintainers are, at best, VPs. I have no axe to grind with the GCC maintainers over their priorities - I just wish they had the ability to follow their own priorities.
Maintainers of low-impact projects have more leeway. If your project matters to GNU/FSF leadership, you will have less freedom to make your own decisions.
It's as simple as that.
I don't really need this part about "complain in an HN thread that has nothing to do." I'm totally uninterested in being demeaned for trying to explain a point you don't like. Please try to avoid personal attacks and understand that the GCC maintainers already expressed this desire and did work toward it and were denied this choice for political reasons. This situation is directly and unequivocally related to the discussion at hand.
