Re: [Gdbheads] Proposed poll on proposals

[Michael Snyder]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Here are the proposals, in the order in which I found them by reading
> the discussions with a threaded e-mail reader:
>
> 1) Global maintainers are permitted to approve patches to any part of
>    gdb, even parts which have a specific area maintainer.

Yes.

> 2) If maintainers disagree on a patch, and can not resolve the
>    disagreement by discussion, the disagreement may be resolved by a
>    vote of all global maintainers and relevant area maintainers.

Weak yes.  I'm OK with this, not particularly attached to it.

> 3) Assign more area maintainers to areas for which patches are not
>    being reviewed fast enough.

It's a volunteer job, we can't throw it at someone.
More area maintainers would be great, but it's not a solution.

> 4) Track patches using an automated system; permit global maintainers
>    to approve a patch if the relevant area maintainers have not acted
>    for N days, for some value of N.

No.
> 5) Create an ombudsman for gdb, who is responsible for listening to
>    people's reports of problems, and then resolving them first through
>    the global maintainers, and then, if that fails, through the
>    steering committee.

It's OK with me, but it doesn't solve the same problem as (1).
It's more a solution to the meta-problem of how-did-we-get-here.

> 6) Reconstitute the steering committee to make it more active and to
>    make it better reflect the gdb community.  Include people from the
>    gcc and binutils projects.  Perhaps do not include current gdb
>    maintainers, to permit more objectivity.

No.  I don't mind if this happens, but it won't satisfy me as a solution.