Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Michael Snyder]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andrew Cagney <address@hidden> writes:
>
>
> > Again, I wish it could be so - right now you must admit that we're
> > suffering somewhat from a lack of mutual trust.
>
>
> You know, if there really is a lack of trust, then let's stop
> pussyfooting around.  It is impossible for a group of people to
> collaborate on a free software project if they do not trust each
> other.
>
> The only solution is a new head maintainer, or a fork.
>
> I hope it doesn't come to that.  I hope there is still some residual
> goodwill, and faith that everybody has the same goals even if they
> follow different paths to get there.
>
> But I don't think we can overlook a lack of trust.  Do you think it
> can be remedied?  Do other people?

In all private conversations up to this minute to which I've been
a party, the feeling has been unanimous that there is no desire to
displace Andrew if it can possibly be avoided.  We all value his
contribution very highly.  This has been expressed explicitly and
repeatedly.

That being said -- I'm not sure how the role of "head maintainer"
ever came about, or what its domain and limits are.  The MAINTAINERS
file has never even mentioned the role of head maintainer.

There was a time during the transition between Stan Shebs' regency
and the current arrangement, when RMS (so I hear) insisted that gdb
had only one maintainer, and that the rest of us were all just some
kind of 'helpers'.  At that time, we all agreed to let Andrew wear
the Hat, mainly so that Richard could have a single point of contact --
but we also agreed, explicitly, that we were not in fact merely
'helpers', but were among ourselves essentially equals.

I think somewhere along the line we all forgot this.

Evidently if we want there to be such a role, we badly need to
spell out what it consists of.