Maintainer policy for GDB - take N

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:40:07 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> Below I have a complete copy of the MAINTAINERS file, adjusted for all
> the changes I've proposed and for all the feedback I received when I
> posted them in November.  Sorry about the delay; the end of the year
> was unexpectedly hectic.
> 
> I'm going to be traveling much of next week.  I'll have access to
> email, but limited time to respond, so I may be out of touch from
> Sunday to Friday.  I'm eager to hear any feedback on this revision,
> especially from Eli, Chris, and Mark.

The structure of the maintainership, with all the different kinds of
maintainers, sounds too complicated.  (Yes, I know that you wrote it's
simpler than it sounds, but I'm trying to read this through the eyes
of a casual contributor.)  Can we simplify that?  For example, Patch
Champions and Past Maintainers have no responsibilities under this
scheme, so perhaps we should exclude them from the system description.

Or maybe we should have a separate description of the system,
explaining its checks and balances, and referring to the lists of
maintainers further down the document (the point being that the lists
are sometimes quite long, and reading through them distracts from
getting the coherent picture of the system of responsibilities and
authorities).

Other than that, I have no open issues with this suggestion.

Thank you for all the hard work of getting this suggested, discussed,
rewritten, refined, redone, etc. etc...