Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ian Lance Taylor <address@hidden>
> Date: 30 Jan 2004 11:04:36 -0500
> 
> 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.

Because, in the absence of the overriding urge to come to some
solution, an urge that is stronger than any differences of opinions,
the discussions just drag on and on until one of the sides simply
quits.

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

I'll try to find them, but I'm not very good at that.  Perhaps others
could help me out (I was pointed in the past to such discussions, so
I know they exist in the archives).

> > 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.

Oh, I have no doubt that Andrew does follow specific goals, and I have
no doubt that those goals are meant to benefit GDB.  I also can say
without hesitation that Andrew is an extremely able GDB maintainer and
that many times I envy his knowledge of GDB internals and of the
history of GDB maintenance, and that I share most of his philosophy as
to where GDB development should go.

My gripes are relatively minor: in my views, a successful leader of a
technical project such as GDB should value the compromise more than
his own views.  That is, given a problem raised by some maintainer,
the urge to have _some_ solution of the problem, even if it is not a
perfect one, should IMHO outweigh the urge to prove everybody that the
leader is right.  (This, of course, assumes that the compromise does
indeed provide some solution of the original problem.)

> If your analysis is correct, then perhaps Andrew is not a good
> tyrant for gdb.

FWIW, I want to go on record saying that I'd love Andrew to stay the
tyrant (and I know some of the other maintainers disagree with me on
that).  I just wish that he would amend his conduct in the presense of
a disagreement along the lines I mention above.  What is, to some
degree, missing from Andrew's leadership is IMHO the ability to give
the flock the feeling that their views are heard and taken into
consideration, and not discarded or weared out in endless disputes.

(I'm sorry to speak about Andrew's personal merits, but I think we
need to bring this into the open, if we want this discussion to be
useful.)

In the interest of fairness, I'd like to say that I had never had such
fruitless disputes with Andrew about issues that are my repsonsibility
in the GDB maintenance.  But I did see others being involved in such
disputes (unfortunately, more ofthen than not, I don't know enough
about the subject matter to help move the discussion in the right
direction).