Re: Maintainer policy for GDB

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

> That's the same thing: if someone can have authority without
> responsibility, then the one who gets responsibility doesn't get any
> unique authority to go with that.

What I don't understand is why this is necessary.

> It's not only about time.  It's about being responsible: that's a
> burden that should not go unnoticed.  The usual way to appreciate that
> burden is to grant some exclusive rights.  This is how any effective
> organization works; if we want our small collective to be an effective
> organization, we shouldn't deprive people who are willing to donate
> more of some small incentive to do so.

I disagree. There can be many reasons why you accept a burden.

> > Take the release management role: It doesn't give me any authority
> > nor power.
> 
> Sure, it does: no one can release GDB except you.  The fact that we
> didn't have a release manager is the sole most important reason why
> there was no GDB release for quite some time.

But I'm just the scribe. I translate the intent of the GDB developers
into a release when deemed appropriate by the group, not when I decide.
The scribe doesn't decide what gets written.

> > If tomorrow the maintainers send a message and say: let's create a
> > new release, I'll just do it.
> 
> I doubt that very much.  I'm sure you will see if there are any
> outstanding issues, and you will ask others what they think, then make
> your judgement.

This discussion is sliding a bit outside of scope towards the role of
RM. But I consider the decision of making a release a group decision.
If the group decides to make a release regardless of my objections,
I will create that release.

-- 
Joel