Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ian Lance Taylor <address@hidden>
> Date: 30 Jan 2004 11:04:02 -0500
> 
> Speaking generally, when problems linger without being resolved, it is
> typically a problem of authority--nobody has the power to resolve the
> issue--or a problem of responsibility--nobody will step forward and
> take action--or a problem of conflict--people are evenly matched but
> can not agree.  From the outside, it appears that any of the twelve
> global gdb maintainers have the authority to solve problems.  So is
> the problem here one of responsibility, or one of conflict?  Or is it
> something else?

My personal subjective impression is that it is a combination of all
of these 3 reasons.  2 or 3 people would start arguing, while others
would think "there's nothing I can add to the dispute that was not
already said or what one of the people who argue could not express
better than I would" and will not voice their opinions.  Then the 2-3
people who are arguing, one of them is usually Andrew, would fail to
reach any agreement, and the discussion dies without resolving the
original problem.

It is true that the global maintainers could in theory solve the
problem, but approval of a patch which Andrew objects is not something
I'd expect to see, nor something I myself would like to do.  I'm sure
you understand why.

One of the reasons voting was suggested is that people believe it will
encourage more opinions to be heard and more active participants in a
typical discussion.