From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 706 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2005 21:41:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 682 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2005 21:41:04 -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; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:41:04 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-164-161.inter.net.il [84.228.164.161]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CZU10887 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:37:40 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:41:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb@sourceware.org, cagney@gnu.org, jtc@acorntoolworks.com, fnf@ninemoons.com, Peter.Schauer@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de, ezannoni@redhat.com In-reply-to: <20051118195040.GW1635@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:50:40 -0800) Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <20051117231020.GJ1635@adacore.com> <20051118195040.GW1635@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/msg00406.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:50:40 -0800 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, cagney@gnu.org, jtc@acorntoolworks.com, fnf@ninemoons.com, Peter.Schauer@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de, ezannoni@redhat.com > > I won't argue much more about this Neither will I. As long as my opinion is understood, you are free to do whatever you wish with it. In the comments below, I will try to clarify my opinion without adding any new arguments. > It does seem however that one particular individual caused you to > lose the trust you had in all the other maintainers It wasn't a single individual. And I didn't lose trust in all the other maintainers as the result; if I somehow implied that, I'm sorry. What I lost is the optimistic belief in our ability to resolve such situations based on good will. > Otherwise, why would you insist on adding an overhead that > essentially allows us to restrain a maintainer. I didn't insist, but I thought (and still think) that some self-imposed restraint will do us good. > Giving your trust, and letting them commit without approval does > not prevent monitoring of your peers' work, nor does it prevent > you from commenting and helping improve his work. I have on my memory examples of my comments and requests being disregarded or met with silence. So being able to comment (this is a public list, after all!) is not sufficient. > Hopefully you understood my arguments and the group is able to make > the decision that will benefit the project the most. Actually, it is unclear to me how we will make the decision here. Do we vote? do we go to the SC and ask them to pass judgement? > The rest of the discussion seemed much more important to me: The > distinction between reponsibility (who promised to review), and the > authority (who has the priviledge). I responded to this elsewhere in this thread.