From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-31152-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 6969 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2008 23:36:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 6959 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Feb 2008 23:36:22 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.artimi.com (HELO mail.artimi.com) (194.72.81.2)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:35:57 +0000
Received: from mail.artimi.com ([192.168.1.3] RDNS failed) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); 	 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:35:54 +0000
Received: from rainbow ([192.168.8.46] RDNS failed) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); 	 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:35:54 +0000
From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
To: <gdb@sourceware.org>
References: <18363.14758.855327.355215@kahikatea.snap.net.nz>  <E1JRknS-00068O-Ry@fencepost.gnu.org>  <20080220190512.4550A8FC6D@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <u7igzjt4s.fsf@gnu.org>  <18364.37907.135913.269853@kahikatea.snap.net.nz>  <y0mskznqp66.fsf@ton.toronto.redhat.com>  <18366.14530.875406.113087@kahikatea.snap.net.nz>  <47BF0478.1050209@ix.netcom.com> <ur6f4ivvy.fsf@gnu.org>  <20080222220927.GA21434@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20080222222124.GH26716@brasko.net>
Subject: RE: New MI maintainer
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:01:00 -0000
Message-ID: <007a01c875ab$aae85770$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <20080222222124.GH26716@brasko.net>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00198.txt.bz2

On 22 February 2008 22:21, Bob Rossi wrote:

> This rhetoric annoys me. I was bringing up a sincere concern that I
> have. I suggested a more open model because I've been wondering for
> well over 5 years why it (used to?) takes 6 months to get a code review.

  Because there are very few of us here and we all have day jobs.  Not because
everyone's arranged behind the scenes to cut you out.


  For my part, I simply cannot understand where this entire conversation is
coming from.  It seems to be predicated on the assumption that a
maintainership is some kind of position of prestige, status and power - as
opposed to the onerous duty and ongoing burden only willingly accepted out of
a sense of debt and responsibility that it actually represents.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....