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

[Michael Snyder]

Elena Zannoni wrote:
> Jim Blandy writes:
>  > 
>  > Andrew Cagney <address@hidden> writes:
>  > > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:31:52 -0500, Andrew Cagney <address@hidden> said:
>  > > >
>  > > >>> BTW, did you ever get round to doing an analysis on who was reviewing
>  > > >>> the symbol table patches.
>  > > > I haven't done a formal analysis, no
>  > > 
>  > > Here, for instance, is a graph illustrating how many patches over and
>  > > above Jim, elena reviewed '03:
>  > > 
>  > > 01: ------------------
>  > > 02: ++++------------------------------
>  > > 03: +----
>  > > 04: +----------
>  > > 05: +-------------
>  > > 06: -----------
>  > > 07: ++-------------
>  > > 08: --+
>  > > 09: ++++----------
>  > > 10: +++-------------
>  > > 11: +++-----
>  > > 12: +++++----
>  > > 
>  > > +: Jim; -: Elena (Hmm, what happened in August?), and here's who
>  > > reviewed your patches:
>  > > 
>  > > 01: ----
>  > > 02: ----------
>  > > 03: --
>  > > 04: --
>  > > 05: -----
>  > > 06: ---
>  > > 07:
>  > > 08:
>  > > 09: +
>  > > 10:
>  > > 11:
>  > > 12:
>  > > 
>  > > Hmm, I should have also counted who reviewed Daniels patches as I now
>  > > suspect the results would be similar.
>  > > 
>  > > If anything it should be Elena and you maintaining the symbol table.
>  > 
>  > 
>
>
> Jim, words are cheap, aren't they?

Not sure who you are replying to here -- those aren't Jim's words.


>  > The proposal....
>
>
> 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. 

Hang on.  I hope it is understood by now that voting was a minor
side note to our proposal.  The main point of the proposal was that
global maintainers should be blanket write maintainers, as they were
before and as they are in GCC and most other FSF projects.

Personally, I wish we could table the issue of voting and focus
the discussion on the pros and cons of returning the blanket
write privileges of the global maintainers.

> 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.  In the past you have actively
> lobbied against people behind their back, with mailing lists and
> weekly phone conferences set up for the purpose. 

Come on, Elena -- let it go.  Lobbying is not a crime, even when
done "behind someone's back".  Andrew did exactly the same thing
when he wanted to change Blanket Write maintainers into Global
maintainers -- he called a bunch of us privately to convince us.
Similarly, he has been calling people privately to convince them
to drop their maintainership roles.  This is just not an issue.

> You also have
> admitted that you have personal grudges against Andrew.  Therefore I
> definitely don't trust that voting in this community is going to be
> fair.  I am not against voting per se, but here, I have my serious
> doubts about it.

So what are you saying?  You're ok with voting, as long as Jim
doesn't get a vote?  You're ok with voting, but not in this
community?  I'm definitely wondering where you're going with this.