Fwd: Maintainer policy for GDB

[Jim Blandy]

[sourceware.org blocked my message because it had too many recipients.]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
Date: Nov 16, 2005 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB
To: gdb@sourceware.org, Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>, Kevin Buettner
<kevinb@redhat.com>, Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>, "J.T. Conklin"
<jtc@acorntoolworks.com>, Fred Fish <fnf@ninemoons.com>, Mark Kettenis
<kettenis@gnu.org>, Peter Schauer
<Peter.Schauer@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de>, Stan Shebs
<shebs@apple.com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>, Eli Zaretskii
<eliz@gnu.org>, Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>


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.