Re: Maintainer policy for GDB

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:10:21 -0800
> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
> Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>, 
> 	"J.T. Conklin" <jtc@acorntoolworks.com>, 
> 	Fred Fish <fnf@ninemoons.com>, 
> 	Peter Schauer <Peter.Schauer@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de>, 
> 	Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>
> 
> > The problem is, trust is built by following rules which are initially
> > intentionally restrictive.  As the trust grows, the restrictions can
> > be gradually lifted.
> 
> That's not the pattern I'm familiar with.  An organization can have
> strict rules, and as trust is built up, people will tolerate those
> rules being bent or set aside in specific cases.  But I've never seen
> the restrictions be explicitly lifted as a result of that.

I don't see any significant difference between these two patterns.  If
and when people tolerate rule-bending, we might as well codify that.

> We have restrictions in place that many of GDB's contributors don't
> like, and which are definitely hampering progress.

You are generalizing what I said in a way that wasn't in my intent.  I
wasn't arguing for more restrictions, I was arguing for codified
self-restraint where we were burnt in the past.

> > By contrast, you suggest to begin with unconditional trust.  We
> > already tried that in the past, and we saw what happened.  Why try
> > that again? why assume that what happened once, cannot happen again?
> 
> You need to be more specific.  I agree with your characterization that
> we trusted too much in 1999 that everything would just work out, but I
> don't see that this proposal makes the same mistake.  What particular
> passages concern you?

The comment by Daniel that his suggestions, and specifically the power
to commit without an RFA, implicitly assume trust.

> What are their consequences?

Bad blood and, eventually, deep mistrust.  We've been there, I'm sure
you remember that.

Daniel says that if we don't trust each other, we should ``work on
trust''.  But how do we ``work on trust''? do we all go to a shrink
together once a week?  The only way I know of to work on trust is by
building it as we cooperate in the development and maintenance of GDB.
And while trust is in construction, it might be a good idea to take
some voluntary restraint upon ourselves.