From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22339 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2005 09:34:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 22330 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Nov 2005 09:34:10 -0000 Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 09:34:10 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-251-47.inter.net.il [83.130.251.47]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CZV07433 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 19 Nov 2005 11:33:56 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 09:34:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20051118224138.GA21992@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:41:38 -0500) Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20051118030711.GB31581@nevyn.them.org> <20051118152618.GB9100@nevyn.them.org> <20051118185135.GA13986@nevyn.them.org> <20051118214620.GA19194@nevyn.them.org> <20051118224138.GA21992@nevyn.them.org> 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/msg00421.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:41:38 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 12:33:38AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:46:20 -0500 > > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > Cc: Ian Lance Taylor , gdb@sourceware.org > > > > > > Here's the counter question: if we force people to take the > > > responsibility, why will they do a good job? > > > > I wasn't suggesting to force a responsibility. And we cannot enforce > > it, anyway, under your suggestions, since being authorized means to > > have the same rights with less duties. We all are busy people, so > > it's quite possible we will wind up with several authorized > > maintainers and no responsible maintainers. > > For that, all I have to offer you is that there's no way to end up as a > global maintainer without accepting this responsibility. (I think we are talking in circles.) If becoming a global maintainer won't give me anything, not even a T-shirt, why would I want to become one? In other words, some incentive, small as it may be, might help us bring more responsible maintainers on board. We should think about something, some authority, that we leave to the global/responsible maintainers and to them alone. Something like design decisions, perhaps, I dunno. > If in practice it turns out we don't have anyone in this slot, I don't > think the system will fall apart; although I think it would be better > for GDB if we did have some. Do others share this view? Taking this to the extreme, can we maintain GDB without any GM at all? (Although, if there's no real difference between ``authorized'' and ``responsible'' but the title, perhaps the answer to this is trivial.)