Subject: Re: the GCC steering committee
From: Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:56:24 -0800 (PST)


   From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
   In what I consider to be a parallel
   universe screwy sort of way, your description was accurate.

Cool.  Yours looks the same from over here but in reverse.

   I do understand the institutional approach to examining problems.
   However, I don't think the GNU world is large enough to merit it.  

That's the nub of the crux.  I can't say you're obviously wrong.

Look, we've got pretty much all the unix companies selling Linux
solutions as at least a small part of their business.  In a few cases,
it's a pretty large part.  I think there's a clear growth trend and a
mostly clear strategy for all the corporations involved.  Importantly,
growth at this point is starting to be customer driven.  So let's
encourage those companies and their customers to catch the wave.

"The GNU world" will, almost certainly, be unambiguously large enough
within the next few years.  Let's sort out the infrastructure now,
while it's still relatively cheap to do so.  This isn't just
preparation, it's also potentiation: dig a deep hole beside the big
rock if you want to move the big rock out of the way.


   I think the GNU world is more easily and more correctly understood
   by focusing on the concerns and idiosyncracies of individual
   people.  

For many years that has certainly been true.  I think the phase shift
is upon us.


   Those concerns and idiosyncracies are of course affected
   by institutional concerns.  But to analyze RMS's actions solely in
   terms of FSF interests or to analyze Mark Mitchell's actions solely
   in terms of Code Sourcery interests is to make serious errors,
   which means that an analysis framed in terms of FSF interests or
   Code Sourcery interests is likely to be misleading and confusing.

It's time to develop a political infrastructure and engineering
process that moves beyond the personalities to the extent possible.

Regards,
-t