From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25814 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2005 22:35:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 25804 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Nov 2005 22:35:43 -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; Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:35:42 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-243-191.inter.net.il [84.228.243.191]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id DAG42413 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:35:31 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:35:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Jim Blandy CC: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <8f2776cb0511202352n18d13a4ajf72798b500660c0c@mail.gmail.com> (message from Jim Blandy on Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:52:11 -0800) Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20051117140353.GA11432@nevyn.them.org> <20051118152618.GB9100@nevyn.them.org> <20051118185135.GA13986@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511181351k6aba28f7m5223956e4f84f46@mail.gmail.com> <8f2776cb0511181634g34f855ddw1f54a76930ecf373@mail.gmail.com> <8f2776cb0511202352n18d13a4ajf72798b500660c0c@mail.gmail.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/msg00456.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:52:11 -0800 > From: Jim Blandy > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org > > On 11/19/05, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > From: Jim Blandy > > > But I don't think it's a good idea to grant exclusive authority as a > > > reward for accepting responsibility. I think contributors should earn > > > authority informally, through their contributions and their > > > participation in discussions. If you work steadily, explain yourself > > > well, and are easy to work with, then your words will carry weight > > > that no set of rules could give them. That is the sort of "position" > > > that we should offer our contributors to aspire to. > > > > Then why not give them the responsibility at the same time as we grant > > the authority, and through the same informal process? Under the > > proposed rules, nothing is lost by not having responsible maintainers, > > anyway. > > I don't understand this. Could you spell it out for me, as you would > for a young child? Sorry for my continuing inability to explain myself. Let me try again. You agreed that it was unfair to give someone a responsibility without giving them the ``power to carry it out'' (which I interpret as authority). Then you said (above) that authority shouldn't be given merely as a reward for accepting responsibility, but rather earned through gradual informal process. To that I say, let's wait until this informal process earns the contributor the authority, and nominate her to be a responsible maintainer only when that happens. This could delay the nomination considerably, or even leave us with a very small number of responsible maintainers, but the proposed scheme works the same even in that case, since patch commits don't require an approval from a responsible maintainer, others have that power. Does this make sense now?