Re: New MI maintainer

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:22:41PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:20:56 -0800
>> From: Thomas Dineen <tdineen@ix.netcom.com>
>> CC: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>,  gdb@sourceware.org
>> 
>> Gentle People:
>> 
>>    Yes but with the conditions listed below:
>> 
>>    "robustly constructed and justified"
>> 
>>    any contributor can easily be blown off for
>> any political reason!
>
>While theoretically possible, I'm quite sure such conspiracies can
>never happen in practice in this case, since the people involved come
>from several different continents, cultural backgrounds, and political
>views.  In fact, just reaching an agreement is sometimes a formidable
>job for us.

Yes! What seems to be getting lost is the fact that all of the
development of gdb IS *very* open.  When someone submits a patch,
everyone gets to see it and everyone gets to see any technical
objections.  How long would the project last if there were hidden
agendas behind every communication?

(Well, ok, experience has shown that it could last several years
like that but still, it's not like that *now*)

>>From my observations the attitudes expressed in this thread are NOT
>>positive for the Open Source Movement.  I would suggest that your
>>movement would benefit from more openness and democracy.
>
>Sorry, but that's pure demagoguery.  "Open Source" and "Free Software"
>mean that the sources are available.  They don't mean that every aspect
>of human life is open to the public.  Even the most open democracies
>always have closed deliberations about certain issues.  You cannot lead
>a group in any significant human endeavor without a certain distance
>between the leadership and the rest, and without closed deliberations
>about some sensitive issues.

Amen.

It's interesting how often people try to tack on bigger concerns to the
simple concept of Free Software.  Free Software isn't supposed to be
solving global warming and it isn't supposed to be a demonstration of a
New World Order with feel-good cum ba yah.  It's just a guarantee that
you get the source code for the software that you're using.

Managing any project where people are involved means that sometimes the
people in charge have to have frank, private conversations.  The
alternative, as Stan Shebs, notes is to essentially do performance
reviews in the open.

Some projects *do* work that way but they are hardly bastions of
civilized discourse.

cgf