From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16121 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2005 17:18:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 16073 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Nov 2005 17:18:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:18:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8049E48D06B; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:18:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 05975-02-9; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:18:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (s142-179-108-108.bc.hsia.telus.net [142.179.108.108]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 017AC48CDBE; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:18:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id CF40D47E79; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:18:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:36:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: david.carlton@sun.com, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Message-ID: <20051124171814.GI1635@adacore.com> References: <20051118185135.GA13986@nevyn.them.org> <20051123195558.GZ1635@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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/msg00543.txt.bz2 > 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