From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19876 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2005 22:46:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 19861 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2005 22:46:47 -0000 Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com (HELO brmea-mail-4.sun.com) (192.18.98.36) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:46:47 +0000 Received: from sfbaymail2sca.sfbay.sun.com ([129.145.155.42]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jAIMkjD7017007 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:46:45 -0700 (MST) Received: from kealia.sfbay.sun.com (kealia.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.144.80.16]) by sfbaymail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id jAIMkj2f029183; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:46:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by kealia.sfbay.sun.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id 1CF80BA7D; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:46:45 -0800 (PST) To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB References: <20051117140353.GA11432@nevyn.them.org> <20051117044801.GA4705@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511162240q6f550008udda9803b5253fd88@mail.gmail.com> <20051118030711.GB31581@nevyn.them.org> <20051118152618.GB9100@nevyn.them.org> <20051118185135.GA13986@nevyn.them.org> From: David Carlton Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:46:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:40:40 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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/msg00413.txt.bz2 On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:40:40 +0200, Eli Zaretskii said: > I'm worried that people might not want to take the responsibility > upon them if others, who don't share the responsibility, are allowed > to commit changes nonetheless. > In other words, if responsibility doesn't come with some unique > authority, who will want such a responsibility? One possible way to treat this question is as an empirical one. To that end, one could ask people currently listed in MAINTAINERS as maintaining a given domain whether they would prefer to remain responsible for maintaining, or merely authorized, and why. For example, would you be interested in being responsible for djgpp and/or documentation under the proposed new rules? If so, why? (An answer to that question would only be the beginning of an answer to whether the distinction is a good one, of course.) David Carlton david.carlton@sun.com