5 ms·

Another reminder that no-one is irreplaceable. I'm sure GCC will continue without him, one way or another.

by s_Hogg 6y ago

Guest42 6y ago
Technically yes, but in his case there is a level of genius and dedication that is beyond expert level. There is also a good chance that potential replacements aren’t available to take on the responsibilities.
- bigbillheck 6y ago
  Per https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235091.html https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235091.html , Stallman's last code contribution to GCC was in 2003, and before that 1997.
  - Guest42 6y ago
    I viewed it more as a managerial committee akin to a board of directors.
    - bigbillheck 6y ago
      What are his managerial contributions? The ones that come to mind are AST export, accepting LLVM, and the lead-up to the EGCS split, none of which were positive.
    - lamp987 6y ago
      it was just a symbolic honorary position. nothing changes.
mumblemumble 6y ago
Frankly, if it couldn't, that would be a serious problem. Speaking for myself, I've got a lot of opinions, many - admittedly not all - of which overlap with the ones outlined in the GNU manifesto. One that may differ is that I'm simply unable to trust a cult of personality. GNU is already dangerously close to that, and I've sometimes wondered if there's cause for splintering off a group that is more firmly centered on Free Software instead of on Richard Stallman.
theknocker 6y ago
Wow thanks for pointing out that no one is irreplaceable. That’s so deep.
roenxi 6y ago
There is no question that if Stallman had been hit by a bus then the project would be fine. He isn't a technical figure at this point. But it is a bit worrying if the GCC team feels that a man who has dedicated his life to software freedom is at odds with their objectives to the point where he doesn't even deserve a thankyou as they boot him off their webpage. Mailing lists are famous for their drama, but Stallman is one of the most reliable public figures there is on the subject of software freedom. It is worrying if the people who control these projects think they have priorities above freedom, because it'll probably turn out those priorities are corporate interests. Not such a problem in GCC, but if this is a trend it is of concern. The GPL is not a license written to be friendly and agreeable, disagreeable but competent people should be responsible for maintaining it.
- tptacek 6y ago
  There is a lengthy discussion among top contributors and steering committee members on the GCC mailing list and none of it favored retaining Stallman. Not one GCC participant on the "remove Stallman" thread spoke of him as an asset, and many described him as the opposite. From my reading, every single proponent of Stallman on that list was an outsider.
  - foobar33333 6y ago
    If one did, they would most likely keep it quiet as to not be the next target or seen as a stallman supporter. Anyone that speaks up for RMS under their real name will be blasted all over twitter.
    - meowface 6y ago
      Yeah, this is a worthy consideration. Anyone on the steering committee expressing support for him would probably be next to be voted out (or, more likely, privately encouraged to step down or harassed until they decide to themselves). It'd be interesting to see the results of a totally anonymous vote among them. The majority would probably still vote him out, but not sure how close it'd be.
tptacek 6y ago
A member of the steering committee described their job with respect to Stallman as "saying no to Stallman", so I imagine they'll continue better without him.
- d_tr 6y ago
  When was this? Twenty years ago? And they will "continue better without him" now?
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Days ago.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Another reminder that no-one is irreplaceable. The announcement reads as if his identification as a Steering Committee member was never anything other than symbolic (emphasis, added): ---quote--- In 2012 RMS was added to the GCC Steering Committee web page based on his role in the GNU Project, though his role as a member of the Steering Committee has been ambiguous and he was not a member of the Steering Committee when EGCS became GCC. We no longer feel that this listing serves the best interests of the GCC developer and user community. Therefore, we are removing him from the page. ---end quote---

Another reminder that no-one is irreplaceable. I'm sure GCC will continue without him, one way or another.

by s_Hogg 6y ago

Another reminder that no-one is irreplaceable. I'm sure GCC will continue without him, one way or another.

Technically yes, but in his case there is a level of genius and dedication that is beyond expert level. There is also a good chance that potential replacements aren’t available to take on the responsibilities.

bigbillheck 6y ago
Per https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235091.html https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235091.html , Stallman's last code contribution to GCC was in 2003, and before that 1997.
- Guest42 6y ago
  I viewed it more as a managerial committee akin to a board of directors.
  - bigbillheck 6y ago
    What are his managerial contributions? The ones that come to mind are AST export, accepting LLVM, and the lead-up to the EGCS split, none of which were positive.
  - lamp987 6y ago
    it was just a symbolic honorary position. nothing changes.

mumblemumble 6y ago

Frankly, if it couldn't, that would be a serious problem. Speaking for myself, I've got a lot of opinions, many - admittedly not all - of which overlap with the ones outlined in the GNU manifesto. One that may differ is that I'm simply unable to trust a cult of personality. GNU is already dangerously close to that, and I've sometimes wondered if there's cause for splintering off a group that is more firmly centered on Free Software instead of on Richard Stallman.

theknocker 6y ago

Wow thanks for pointing out that no one is irreplaceable. That’s so deep.

roenxi 6y ago

There is no question that if Stallman had been hit by a bus then the project would be fine. He isn't a technical figure at this point. But it is a bit worrying if the GCC team feels that a man who has dedicated his life to software freedom is at odds with their objectives to the point where he doesn't even deserve a thankyou as they boot him off their webpage. Mailing lists are famous for their drama, but Stallman is one of the most reliable public figures there is on the subject of software freedom. It is worrying if the people who control these projects think they have priorities above freedom, because it'll probably turn out those priorities are corporate interests. Not such a problem in GCC, but if this is a trend it is of concern. The GPL is not a license written to be friendly and agreeable, disagreeable but competent people should be responsible for maintaining it.

tptacek 6y ago
There is a lengthy discussion among top contributors and steering committee members on the GCC mailing list and none of it favored retaining Stallman. Not one GCC participant on the "remove Stallman" thread spoke of him as an asset, and many described him as the opposite. From my reading, every single proponent of Stallman on that list was an outsider.
- foobar33333 6y ago
  If one did, they would most likely keep it quiet as to not be the next target or seen as a stallman supporter. Anyone that speaks up for RMS under their real name will be blasted all over twitter.
  - meowface 6y ago
    Yeah, this is a worthy consideration. Anyone on the steering committee expressing support for him would probably be next to be voted out (or, more likely, privately encouraged to step down or harassed until they decide to themselves). It'd be interesting to see the results of a totally anonymous vote among them. The majority would probably still vote him out, but not sure how close it'd be.

tptacek 6y ago

A member of the steering committee described their job with respect to Stallman as "saying no to Stallman", so I imagine they'll continue better without him.

d_tr 6y ago
When was this? Twenty years ago? And they will "continue better without him" now?
- tptacek 6y ago
  Days ago.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Another reminder that no-one is irreplaceable. The announcement reads as if his identification as a Steering Committee member was never anything other than symbolic (emphasis, added): ---quote--- In 2012 RMS was added to the GCC Steering Committee web page based on his role in the GNU Project, though his role as a member of the Steering Committee has been ambiguous and he was not a member of the Steering Committee when EGCS became GCC. We no longer feel that this listing serves the best interests of the GCC developer and user community. Therefore, we are removing him from the page. ---end quote---