Re: Maintainer policy for GDB

[Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> > Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:26:18 -0500
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > 
> > I don't think the words are at all similar in semantic meaning.
> > Responsibility is an obligation and authority is a privilege.
> 
> What I meant was that the expression of their meaning is similar: it's
> who reviews patches, right?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I think that I do understand what
Daniel means.

If you are "responsible" for patch review in a specific area, it means
that you have promised that you will review all patches in that area
in a reasonably timely fashion.

If you are "authorized" to commit patches in a specific area, it means
that you can commit patches without anybody else's approval.  And
those patches can be your patches or somebody else's patches.  But you
have not made any promise as to reviewing other people's patches.

At least in the U.S., anybody is "authorized" to make a citizen's
arrest if they see a crime being committted.  But only the police are
"responsible" for doing so.  If a civilian sees a crime being
committed and does nothing, nothing happens to the civilian.  If a
policeman sees a crime being committed and does nothing, he gets fired
from his job.

> > This would be easier with Venn diagrams, but they don't lend themselves
> > to email very well.  Let me give some examples.  Afterwards, I will
> > attempt to clarify the original descriptions, if these help.
> 
> Sorry, I must be too dumb today.  In the example you've given, who has
> the ``authority for reviewing patches''?

Bob, Joe, Ellen, Adam, Charlie, and Rick are all authorized to review
patches.  But only Bob and Adam are responsible for it.

To be authorized to commit means that you *may* review patches.  To be
responsible for patch review means that you *must* review patches.

Ian