From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20244 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2005 07:52:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 20236 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Nov 2005 07:52:13 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (HELO zproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.162.192) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2005 07:52:13 +0000 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x3so728526nzd for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:52:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.74.5 with SMTP id w5mr2781008nza; Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:52:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.2.35 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:52:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8f2776cb0511202352n18d13a4ajf72798b500660c0c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 07:52:00 -0000 From: Jim Blandy To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Maintainer policy for GDB Cc: gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20051117140353.GA11432@nevyn.them.org> <20051118152618.GB9100@nevyn.them.org> <20051118185135.GA13986@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511181351k6aba28f7m5223956e4f84f46@mail.gmail.com> <8f2776cb0511181634g34f855ddw1f54a76930ecf373@mail.gmail.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00442.txt.bz2 On 11/19/05, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Jim Blandy > > But I don't think it's a good idea to grant exclusive authority as a > > reward for accepting responsibility. I think contributors should earn > > authority informally, through their contributions and their > > participation in discussions. If you work steadily, explain yourself > > well, and are easy to work with, then your words will carry weight > > that no set of rules could give them. That is the sort of "position" > > that we should offer our contributors to aspire to. > > Then why not give them the responsibility at the same time as we grant > the authority, and through the same informal process? Under the > proposed rules, nothing is lost by not having responsible maintainers, > anyway. I don't understand this. Could you spell it out for me, as you would for a young child? (Sincere request, no sarcasm.)