Hector Martin

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/09/gnu_glic_abort_stallman/ …

What an ass

He is out of touch, has been for years. This latest glibc drama is just another example of how he's holding back the communities he started decades ago (and trying to assert long-expired leadership rights). He's also a huge part of the reason why GCC stagnated and LLVM happened.

Is it though? Reading through the list related to this looks to me like a dig about govt censorship in the manual got censored without seeking consensus as required by https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Consensus … Seems like this is being misrepresented to me.

He used the "I have the ultimate decision power here" card. That's attempting to bypass the consensus approach. Last time glibc had a maintainer using that approach, it didn't end well.

They already bypassed consensus by censoring the manual without discussion though. It looks to me like the patch has been reverted pending the consensus seeking that should have happened first.

The problem isn't the meta-discussion about the process that was followed and whether it followed policy, the problem is Stallman dropping nuggest like this: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00084.html … or this: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00149.html … .

I don't know. How would you feel about these "nuggets" if they were in response to people trying to sneak through a change to the GPL that removed the requirement to provide source?