From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-23288-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 4041 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2005 20:38:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 3985 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Nov 2005 20:38:22 -0000
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (HELO zproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.162.206)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:38:22 +0000
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x3so18127nzd
        for <gdb@sourceware.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:38:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.12.63 with SMTP id p63mr7942071nzi;
        Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:38:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.2.35 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:38:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <8f2776cb0511171238i45ec717es9fa935bab94828f9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:38:00 -0000
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
To: gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Maintainer policy for GDB
In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0511170907m18fb4db5uae97fd3c2b210b9f@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>
	 <8f2776cb0511162244u5274377m70684a364a8a7edd@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20051117140353.GA11432@nevyn.them.org>
	 <8f2776cb0511170907m18fb4db5uae97fd3c2b210b9f@mail.gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00358.txt.bz2

On 11/17/05, Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com> wrote:
> On 11/17/05, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> > I'm not concerned by this.  It would be a pretty rude thing to do.  If
> > it happens once, we can handle that going up to the SC; if it happens
> > repeatedly, we can either clarify the reversion policy or censure the
> > maintainers involved, depending on the situation.
> >
> > I absolutely don't want a voting system involved in this process.
>
> There's no harm in giving it a try.

This was ambiguous.  I don't see any harm in trying things out as you
suggest.  If the SC ends up being called on too often, then we can
revisit things.