From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15280 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2005 14:04:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 15206 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Nov 2005 14:03:56 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:03:56 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EckMk-00030D-Tt for gdb@sourceware.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:03:54 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:04:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Maintainer policy for GDB Message-ID: <20051117140353.GA11432@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@mail.gmail.com> <8f2776cb0511162244u5274377m70684a364a8a7edd@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0511162244u5274377m70684a364a8a7edd@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00344.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:44:26PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote: > [sourceware.org blocked my message because it had too many recipients.] Weird, worked for me... > I like it overall. > > I'm a bit concerned that one global maintainer can, by reverting a > patch, demand to be persuaded, or have the issue kicked to the > steering committee. If at least (say) four global maintainers comment > on the patch and (say) 75% or more of those who comment feel the patch > should go in, shouldn't that be enough to get it in? > > I'm sympathetic to complaints that voting systems clutter an otherwise > simple proposal. And I'd hate to disrupt a general consensus on the > rest of the document just because folks disagreed on how voting should > work. But it'd be nice to keep things out of the steering committee > as much as possible, and in the hands of the people doing the > day-to-day development. I'm not concerned by this. It would be a pretty rude thing to do. If it happens once, we can handle that going up to the SC; if it happens repeatedly, we can either clarify the reversion policy or censure the maintainers involved, depending on the situation. I absolutely don't want a voting system involved in this process. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC