From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3972 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2005 06:44:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 3951 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Nov 2005 06:44:28 -0000 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (HELO zproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.162.201) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:44:28 +0000 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x3so176377nzd for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:44:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.15.74 with SMTP id s74mr7294207nzi; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:44:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.2.35 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:44:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8f2776cb0511162244u5274377m70684a364a8a7edd@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:44:00 -0000 From: Jim Blandy To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Fwd: Maintainer policy for GDB In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@mail.gmail.com> 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/msg00341.txt.bz2 [sourceware.org blocked my message because it had too many recipients.] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jim Blandy Date: Nov 16, 2005 10:40 PM Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB To: gdb@sourceware.org, Jim Blandy , Kevin Buettner , Andrew Cagney , "J.T. Conklin" , Fred Fish , Mark Kettenis , Peter Schauer , Stan Shebs , Michael Snyder , Eli Zaretskii , Elena Zannoni 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.