From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27425 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2005 20:36:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 27418 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Nov 2005 20:36:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:36:52 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-155-162.inter.net.il [80.230.155.162]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id DAW69133 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:36:42 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:47:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Joel Brobecker CC: david.carlton@sun.com, gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20051124171814.GI1635@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:18:14 -0800) Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20051118185135.GA13986@nevyn.them.org> <20051123195558.GZ1635@adacore.com> <20051124171814.GI1635@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00544.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:18:14 -0800 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: david.carlton@sun.com, gdb@sourceware.org > > > That's the same thing: if someone can have authority without > > responsibility, then the one who gets responsibility doesn't get any > > unique authority to go with that. > > What I don't understand is why this is necessary. Not necessary, preferable. > > It's not only about time. It's about being responsible: that's a > > burden that should not go unnoticed. The usual way to appreciate that > > burden is to grant some exclusive rights. This is how any effective > > organization works; if we want our small collective to be an effective > > organization, we shouldn't deprive people who are willing to donate > > more of some small incentive to do so. > > I disagree. There can be many reasons why you accept a burden. In a healthy society he who accepts a burden on behalf of others should be rewarded, even if the reward is not the most important reason to take the burden. Anyway, I think we made several circles around the issue, so further discussion won't bring any new arguments. There's Daniel's suggestion, and there's another one, supported by myself and I think Chris, which is to allow authorized maintainers other than the RM to kick in only after a timeout of N days. If no one objects to the latter method too much, then we could make everybody happy; if not, then, well, it won't be the first time I get voted down here...