Re: Maintainer policy for GDB

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:18:14 -0800
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> Cc: david.carlton@sun.com, gdb@sourceware.org
> 
> > That's the same thing: if someone can have authority without
> > responsibility, then the one who gets responsibility doesn't get any
> > unique authority to go with that.
> 
> What I don't understand is why this is necessary.

Not necessary, preferable.

> > It's not only about time.  It's about being responsible: that's a
> > burden that should not go unnoticed.  The usual way to appreciate that
> > burden is to grant some exclusive rights.  This is how any effective
> > organization works; if we want our small collective to be an effective
> > organization, we shouldn't deprive people who are willing to donate
> > more of some small incentive to do so.
> 
> I disagree. There can be many reasons why you accept a burden.

In a healthy society he who accepts a burden on behalf of others
should be rewarded, even if the reward is not the most important
reason to take the burden.

Anyway, I think we made several circles around the issue, so further
discussion won't bring any new arguments.  There's Daniel's
suggestion, and there's another one, supported by myself and I think
Chris, which is to allow authorized maintainers other than the RM to
kick in only after a timeout of N days.  If no one objects to the
latter method too much, then we could make everybody happy; if not,
then, well, it won't be the first time I get voted down here...