Re: [Gdbheads] New steering committee?

[David Carlton]

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:36:49 -0500, Elena Zannoni <address@hidden> said:
> Jim Blandy writes:

>> Okay --- so it seems that, because Ian was unable to put together a
>> consensus,

> This is a pretty strong distorsion of reality.  Ian wasn't trying to
> put together a consensus, you were the one trying to.

Ian sent out a poll, trying to find out what people largely agreed
upon and what people didn't agree upon.  Ian found two areas that
everybody or almost everybody who responded to his poll agreed upon;
he noted that, because not everybody responded, this might not
actually reflect a consensus, and encouraged people who didn't respond
to "make their strongest case" on the issues in question.

He wasn't trying to drive people towards a particular consensus; he
was, however, trying to identify areas where we were at or close to a
consensus, and encouraging people to further explain why (and whether)
we were only close to a consensus, instead of at a consensus.  And, as
a side note, we were very close indeed to a consensus: there was more
than a two-thirds majority in favor of both allowing global
maintainers to approve patches to any area of GDB and reconstituting
the steering committee.

Personally, I've been quite disenheartened at what I've seen since
then, both in the lack of further discussion on this list, and on the
way that the underlying problems have continued to manifest themselves
in discussions taking place on the GDB mailing lists.  (Though, to be
fair, the argument we're currently having on the GDB mailing lists
about where to document known bugs seems fairly healthy to me; I'm not
sure how it will get resolved if we don't come to a consensus on that
matter, but one can be optimistic.)

David Carlton
address@hidden