Re: Fwd: Maintainer policy for GDB

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:44:26PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> [sourceware.org blocked my message because it had too many recipients.]

Weird, worked for me...

> I like it overall.
> 
> I'm a bit concerned that one global maintainer can, by reverting a
> patch, demand to be persuaded, or have the issue kicked to the
> steering committee.  If at least (say) four global maintainers comment
> on the patch and (say) 75% or more of those who comment feel the patch
> should go in, shouldn't that be enough to get it in?
> 
> I'm sympathetic to complaints that voting systems clutter an otherwise
> simple proposal.  And I'd hate to disrupt a general consensus on the
> rest of the document just because folks disagreed on how voting should
> work.  But it'd be nice to keep things out of the steering committee
> as much as possible, and in the hands of the people doing the
> day-to-day development.

I'm not concerned by this.  It would be a pretty rude thing to do.  If
it happens once, we can handle that going up to the SC; if it happens
repeatedly, we can either clarify the reversion policy or censure the
maintainers involved, depending on the situation.

I absolutely don't want a voting system involved in this process.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC