Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Ian Lance Taylor]

David Carlton <address@hidden> writes:

> This decision to keep the discussion private from Andrew has been
> controversial, and maybe was misguided.  Having said that, I for one
> am not going to apologize for doing so, though I certainly wish that
> we'd found a better way to avoid some of the resulting animosity.  I
> believe that privately complaining about people in authority is both
> natural and acceptable.  I have been known, for example, to complain
> about one of my bosses at work - I complain about this person to my
> wife, I grouse about this person with my co-workers.  I do not,
> however, grouse about this person in his office, over the public
> address system, or on the company's public e-mail lists.

Well, obviously I wasn't involved, and I'm sure I'm missing a lot of
the nuances here, and this is water under the bridge anyhow.  But I
have some strong reactions when I read this:

1) Andrew is not, as far as I know, the boss of any of the people
   here.

2) There is a very big difference between grousing about somebody in
   private and actively trying to work around them in private.

3) If you are going to work around somebody in private, then, for
   heaven's sakes, don't let them find out about it!  That just backs
   them into a corner and brings out the worst in anybody.  Don't try
   to conspire if you are not a natural conspirator.

4) Also, keep conspiracies as small as possible, at least until you
   are ready to make your move.

> On a tangential note - you and/or Andrew (I can't remember, and am too
> lazy to sift through my archives) have presented Eric Bachalo as
> somehow leading this.  As far as I have seen, that impression is
> entirely inaccurate.  He was kind enough to arrange for our phone
> conversations, but his participation in our discussions (whether via
> phone or e-mail) has been minimal.  I have no reason to believe that
> he has been doing anything other than what any good manager should do:
> he has tried to help those working under him resolve a difficulty that
> they were having.  But, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't pressed
> them to do so, he hasn't guided their actions, he hasn't done anything
> that could possibly be construed as being for the benefit of Red Hat
> instead of the GDB community as a whole.

I know Eric, and I like him, but I would have to say, based on this,
that he called this one wrong.  A good manager should resolve
difficulties directly; that's his or her job.  In this case, speaking
directly to Andrew, and probably Andrew's boss (whoever that is) would
probably have been the best step.  A good manager should not encourage
private discussions aimed at solving a personnel problem, at least not
for more than a day or two.

And I have to say that the idea of one group within Red Hat planning
how to work around problems with somebody else at Red Hat, and
bringing in people outside of Red Hat before speaking directly to the
person at Red Hat, well, that just has me shaking my head in
disbelief.

Ian