From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23053 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2003 01:27:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23046 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2003 01:27:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2003 01:27:34 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F632ED1; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:32:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E543022.4010003@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 01:27:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elena Zannoni Cc: Jim Blandy , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process References: <20030217180709.GA19866@nevyn.them.org> <3E53B2E0.2070801@redhat.com> <15956.6651.618272.345014@localhost.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00391.txt.bz2 > How is the 6 months inactivity period going to help? None of the > current gdb maintainers perticipating in this discussion has ever > disappeared for that long, really. If some person has disappeared > from radar, like relocated, changed e-mail, etc, the person has been > removed from the list. I can think of one such case. There was one such case. There have also been two dummy spits; and, after lobying, a number of people `stepping down'. One thing I've noticed is that people struggle to appreciate the difference between `no maintainer' and `inactive maintainer'. There is a definite resistance to `letting go'. Andrew