On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 08:30:25AM -0500, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 3:05 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
> Exactly, you're just confirming what I wrote above.
>
> A "vote being rigged" means that either the people who should be allowed
to vote
> couldn't, or that people who are not allowed to vote did, or that voters were
> tricked or forced to vote differently, or that votes were miscounted.
What's being alleged is that many members were tricked into changing
their vote by using the false narrative about _FORTIFY_SOURCE proposal
getting an unfair pass despite performance concerns (which *I*
hypothesized months ago and I later dispelled, in the end even quoting
benchmark results for it) and creating the impression that the
toolchain team is being duplicitous about the performance question.
Further trickery involved rushing the vote, claiming that it had to be
done soon to meet the mass rebuild deadline; too bad if those who had
strong objections earlier weren't around to put their comments on
record.
That description assumes that FESCo members are preschoolers who are
easy to trick and also need to be reminded who said what every day.
That's certainly not the case. The objections against the proposal
were made very clearly and they certainly weren't forgotten over a few
days. Those objections also didn't *change* over those few days, so
repeating them wouldn't actually change anything.
Speaking for myself, I heard the objections from various sides, and I
think I understand them. In particular I think that the objections from
the compiler team are based on correct evaluation of the effect of the
change. But that evaluation is hyperfocused on benchmark performance and
doesn't look at the needs of the whole ecosystem. I think that the
advantages of the proposal and the gains I hope will be realized outweigh
the drawbacks.
I can't speak for other people, but I assume that they made a similar
evaluation. FWIW, I voted the same both times, but I didn't make up my
mind to vote +1 until relatively late before the vote after I had time
to read up on the topic and go through various options that we have.
Zbyszek