This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Machine maintainer responsibility description.
- From: Steven Munroe <munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot comcom>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>, Ondrej Bilka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>, David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>, Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:44:16 -0500
- Subject: Re: Machine maintainer responsibility description.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55B695F6 dot 9040207 at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 16:35 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> I have rewritten the machine maintainers section to read thusly:
> A machine maintainer is responsible to the GNU C Library project
> for maintaining the support for their machine, and for supporting
> the users of that machine. In general this maintainership means
> that you have the discretion to assume consensus for a change of
> your own without waiting for review or comments on consensus. If
> the discussion shows there is no consensus after all then your
> change will need revising or reverting. This does not mean that
> all objections are relevant for establishing lack of consensus,
> e.g. if the reasons given are speculative, based on false analogies
> to other machines or a lack of understanding of the change and
> its context or themselves ignore other established consensus.
> Lastly keep in mind that sustained opposition may be ignored if
> it is not considered a substantial issue by an important part
> of the concerned developers.
I can live with this definition.