From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17769 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2003 20:20:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17762 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2003 20:20:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Mar 2003 20:20:14 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2LKK7R06411; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:20:07 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Stepping down from several maintainership roles References: <3E75E30D.90803@redhat.com> From: David Carlton Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 20:20:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00456.txt.bz2 On 18 Mar 2003 14:16:52 -0500, fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) said: > fnasser wrote: >> My new responsibilities in my job and the project I am working on >> are not allowing me to be responsive to the list requests. This >> will remain like that until the end of the Summer. [...] So I am >> stepping down from several maintainership roles. [...] > This is too bad. It appears that in order to solve the problem of > insufficient time availability of maintainers, several of them have > been nagged in order to get them to resign. These people having > history and experience have been pressured into severing ties > outright, making it likely that they spend even less time on gdb. > How is this supposed to be progress? That was my reaction, too. On the other hand, on a purely pragrmatic level, going from having 1 maintainer in an area to having 0 maintainers in that area can be progress because it means that, all of a sudden, any global maintainer can approve a patch in that area. And removing maintainers from areas that, in practice, they'll never approve patches for, doesn't hurt anything, though I don't see why it helps anything either unless those maintainers no longer consider themselves competent to approve patches in those areas. Still, as I've said before, I would far prefer a solution that increases the number of local maintainers: I do not believe that all people competent to be local maintainers in various areas are, in fact, currently local maintainers, and I do believe that the current standard for becoming a local maintainer is too high. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu