Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Ian Lance Taylor]

"Eli Zaretskii" <address@hidden> writes:

> > I would say that consensus is a conflict resolution mechanism if there
> > is mutual respect and trust, and if everybody approaches problems in a
> > spirit of fairness.
> 
> I think you forgot an important requirement of a successful conflict
> resolution: the utmost importance of _getting_ to some resolution of a
> problem.  If the importance of solving the original problem, the one
> which triggered a submitted patch, is somehow lost in the course of
> discussions, then other goals fill the void, but these other goals not
> necessarily benefit GDB maintenance.
> 
> In other words, mutual respect and trust, and the spirit of fairness
> are not going to do their job if the discussion is not driven by the
> urge to solve the original problem somehow.

You're right.  I suppose I take it for granted that whoever has the
problem will drive it to closure one way or another.  It's not clear
to me why this doesn't happen in the context of gdb.

Are there any relevant e-mail threads you could point us at?

> > As a past tyrant myself, I believe that tyranny is generally the best
> > solution, but it has an important precondition, which is that the
> > tyrant is almost always right.  When that is not the case, or when
> > people do not believe that it is the case, then tyranny fails.  To
> > govern requires the consent of the governed.  Evidently people are not
> > willing to accept Andrew as a tyrant, either because he is not almost
> > always right, or because people do not believe that he is almost
> > always right.
> 
> In my assessment, the problem is that sometimes Andrew does not strive
> hard enough to solve the original problem.  That is, leaving the
> things as they are is acceptable to Andrew if no simlpe consensus can
> be reached.

You're right.  A tyrant must drive forward following some goals.  The
gcc project even has an explicit mission statement.  Stasis is only
acceptable if the project is in some sense complete, which can never
be the case for a project like gdb.  If your analysis is correct, then
perhaps Andrew is not a good tyrant for gdb.

Ian