From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3087 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2005 04:50:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 3079 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Nov 2005 04:50:28 -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 04:50:27 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-71-23.inter.net.il [80.230.71.23]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id DAR79394 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:50:15 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 04:51:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Joel Brobecker CC: david.carlton@sun.com, gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20051123195558.GZ1635@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:55:58 -0800) Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20051118152618.GB9100@nevyn.them.org> <20051118185135.GA13986@nevyn.them.org> <20051123195558.GZ1635@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/msg00537.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:55:58 -0800 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: David Carlton , gdb@sourceware.org > > > My reservations about responsibilities without an authority is not > > theoretical, > > I believe that the proposal was to give authority without responsibility. 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. > If I understand your point well, you are asking whether we will have > people who will accept the responsibility, since they could simply > earn authority and not bind themselves with responsibility. Yes. > This is indeed an interesting question where you have to believe that > people will be willing to donate a bit of their time to help the project. 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. > Take the release management role: It doesn't give me any authority > nor power. Sure, it does: no one can release GDB except you. The fact that we didn't have a release manager is the sole most important reason why there was no GDB release for quite some time. > If tomorrow the maintainers send a message and say: let's create a > new release, I'll just do it. I doubt that very much. I'm sure you will see if there are any outstanding issues, and you will ask others what they think, then make your judgement.