Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Elena Zannoni]

Ian Lance Taylor writes:
 > "Eli Zaretskii" <address@hidden> writes:
 > 
 > > I'd say you expressed it too extremely.  IMHO, it's not that Andrew
 > > gets his way whenever conflicts arise, it's just that some discussions
 > > never end in _any_ conclusion whatsoever.  They just die out.  And
 > > they die because Andrew does not always encourage compromises to reach
 > > solutions that would leave everybody at least partially happy.
 > 
 > Thanks for the correction.
 > 
 > Andrew is just one of twelve global maintainers.  I understand that he
 > is in some sense the head maintainer.  But there are eleven other
 > people who can make changes to gdb.  So, even accepting that Andrew
 > does not encourage compromise and resolution, that doesn't mean that
 > the other maintainers can't resolve issues and drive to closure.  Why
 > doesn't this happen?
 > 

I think mainly because nobody cares enough. It is much less effort to
let the rancor seep underground than drive it to a resolution.

 > To put it another way, not everybody need be good at everything.  If
 > Andrew isn't good at compromise and closure, that doesn't prevent
 > other people from taking charge in this respect.  Andrew doesn't need
 > to make every decision.
 > 
 > Or are you suggesting something further: that Andrew actively resists
 > compromise and closure, and prevents issues from becoming resolved?
 > 
 > 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?
 > 

Most of the exchanges we have had (for instance on the voting proposal
a year ago) end up with somebody making an objection, and nobody
replying.  So the arguments just die. I believe there are also some
strong personality conflicts, that date back years.  I also think that
some of the arguments are quite petty. It seems that nobody is willing
to take a step back and put things into perspective. But as I said
other times, it kind of comes with the territory. We are all a bunch
of AR people with big egos, eager to have the last word at all cost. 

That's why in the initial mail I sent out I was proposing to have a
more active steering committee, with an ombudsmen or mediator.  If the
developers don't feel comfortable talking to the head maintainer, then
they can have another forum to voice their grievances. 

Actually, the mail the Andrew forwarded to this list is not the one I sent to
the steering committee (or, better, the members I could find). Here it is:

----------------------------------

From: Elena Zannoni <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
   address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
   address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
   address@hidden, address@hidden,
   address@hidden, address@hidden,
   address@hidden
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Gdb committee meeting
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:22:48 -0500


To the Gdb steering committee:

Jim Blandy <address@hidden>
Andrew Cagney <address@hidden>
JT Conklin <address@hidden>
Robert Dewar <address@hidden>
Klee Dienes <address@hidden>
Paul Hilfinger <address@hidden>
Vincent Renardias <address@hidden>
Stan Shebs <address@hidden>
Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
Todd Whitesel <address@hidden>


and all the Gdb global maintainers:

Jim Blandy                      address@hidden
Kevin Buettner                  address@hidden
Andrew Cagney                   address@hidden
J.T. Conklin                    address@hidden
Fred Fish                       address@hidden
Daniel Jacobowitz               address@hidden
Mark Kettenis                   address@hidden
Peter Schauer                   address@hidden
Stan Shebs                      address@hidden
Michael Snyder                  address@hidden
Elena Zannoni                   address@hidden
Eli Zaretskii                   address@hidden


It has come to my attention that there is a schism happening within
the Gdb community.  The people involved have failed to engage in a
dialog with their peers. I learned about it a week and a half ago and
at that time pleaded for a discussion to occur, but my request has
fallen on deaf ears.  I am sending this mail to keep everybody
informed, and try to keep alive a sense of community that I fear is
lost, but maybe can be rekindled.

I am willing to set up and participate in a phone conference involving
both global maintainers and the steering committee where people can
express their concerns. It is impossible to understand if there is
anything that can be done, because I have not been told where the
problems are. Gdb is a Free Software, community driven project, and as
a community we should try to reconcile our differences. I propose that
the meeting will be held on Tuesday 12:30 US Eastern Standard
Time. I'll follow up with phone conference information.

One problem I see is that we do not have a clear grievance process in
place, as this whole experience has demonstrated. I propose that we
designate an ombudsman that people can talk to when problems arise,
and which will then bring the matter forward to the global maintainers
first, and if such group cannot address the issues, escalate to the
steering committee.

Which brings me to my next proposal. The steering committee is, in its
current incarnation, barely visible. I believe it is in Gdb's best
interest to reconstitute the committee anew, for the following
reasons. First, to amend participation from those who are no longer
active in the community, and are hardly reachable. Second, to foster
involvement from projects which interact with Gdb, such as Gcc and
Binutils. For this, I propose that a maintainer from each of those
projects be members of the Gdb steering committee. Such persons should
be individuals that have demonstrated a proven commitment to the
interest of the Free Software community, and that have demonstrated a
great sense of integrity.  The steering committee should strive to
maintain a neutral position and avoid bias and conflict of interest as
much as possible, and for this I think the participation of members of
the community that do not work on Gdb is important.

I think we should strive to form an entity with people that have an
established reputation and have gained the respect of the community
because of their contributions. Possibly the group should not involve
current maintainers of Gdb, so that it could decide more objectively
on grievances as well as other matters.


elena