Re: [Gdbheads] Re: Feb's patch resolution rate

[David Carlton]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:51:56 -0500, Elena Zannoni <address@hidden> said:

> Your proposal has a fundamental flaw.  Trusting that voting achieves
> its purpose means to trust that people are acting fairly and that
> everybody's opinion gets a fair chance based on technical merit.
> Here you are, instead, openly stating that voting is about
> convincing people to be on your side, instead of believing that they
> can achieve an independent opinion on their own.

(Presumably, in the above, by "convincing people" you mean something
along the lines of "lobbying" as opposed to, say, "convincing via
technical arguments.)

I guess what I don't understand is the details of the scenario that
you're envisioning where people achieve an independent opinion on
their own.  After all, if different people come to their own,
differing independent opinions on a patch, we can't allow all of those
opinions sway - we have to pick one of the options, lest GDB fork.

Given that, I don't quite see how you think conflicts about patches
should be resolved.  Should they get kicked up to the newly reformed
steering committee?  Should they continue being resolved by the same
mechanisms that we currently have?  If the latter, how would you
describe the current mechanisms, and the way they play out when
parties can't come to a consensus?

David Carlton
address@hidden