|
|
|
|
|
by geofft
3517 days ago
|
|
Sorry, 'stonogo was not making a personal attack. The personal attack was this sentence: "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." Calling something an "axe to grind" is an argument over the making of the argument, not a response to the argument itself. (As is calling something "a point you don't like", as opposed to a matter of disagreement.) See also http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html . 'stonogo and I believe that the points you are making are incorrect. That is not a personal attack, an assuming that you must be correct and need to help us understand is a great way to pull the argument back down into personal attacks. So, why does GCC have a steering committee and Ring not? Is it possible that Ring could have a steering committee in the future? Can that happen without the enthusiastic consent of the maintainers? |
|
> Is it possible that Ring could have a steering committee in the future? Can that happen without the enthusiastic consent of the maintainers?
A steering group, or for that matter any form of leadership structure can only pop into existence if the project itself decide to create one. If we look at the announcement of the GCC steering group: