Re: [Gdbheads] Moving forward

[Michael Snyder]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> The discussion about gdb maintenance seems to have stalled out.
> Perhaps everybody is happy now, but somehow I doubt it.

I think everybody wishes it would all go away.

> It is possible that there have been discussions going on outside of
> this mailing list.  In fact, I hope that there have been.  If so, let
> me know, and I'll shut up.

No significant private discussions that I'm aware of.

> Otherwise, speaking as always entirely as an outside observer, I think
> that what is needed now is somebody who will drive the issues to
> closure, somebody with the authority to take action, even if the
> action taken is to do explicitly do nothing.  It would be best if some
> solution could evolve out of a natural consensus, but that does not
> appear to be happening.

Well, we did have *some* consensus.  Seems like the proposal
to keep the original meaning of "global maintainers" had popular
acclaim, as did the proposal to revitalize the steering committee.


> In the absence of a consensus, I think we have to fall back on
> recognized authority.  The FSF is the owner of the gdb, and I hope
> that we all agree that they have the authority to appoint an official
> gdb maintainer.  RMS has said that the official gdb maintainer is the
> gdb steering committee.
>
>
> I believe it is the responsibility of the gdb steering committee to
> force this discussion to a conclusion.
>
>
> According to Elena's e-mail message
>     http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/gdbheads/2004-01/msg00095.html
> the members of the gdb steering committee are:
>
> Jim Blandy <address@hidden>
> Andrew Cagney <address@hidden>
> JT Conklin <address@hidden>
> Robert Dewar <address@hidden>
> Klee Dienes <address@hidden>
> Paul Hilfinger <address@hidden>
> Vincent Renardias <address@hidden>
> Stan Shebs <address@hidden>
> Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
> Todd Whitesel <address@hidden>
>
> There are ten names here.  RMS, in an e-mail message
>     http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/gdbheads/2004-02/msg00000.html
> said that there are nine official gdb maintainers.  I take this to
> mean that RMS is an ex officio member of the steering committee, and
> does not ordinarily take an active role.
>
> Of the members of the steering committee other than RMS, three have
> contributed to this discussion: Jim Blandy, Andrew Cagney, and Robert
> Dewar.  According to Jim's initial welcome message
>     http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/gdbheads/2004-01/msg00001.html
> J.T. Conklin and Todd Whitesel were not on this mailing list at the
> time.  I have no way of knowing whether they have joined since.  We
> have heard nothing from the two of them, nor have we heard from Klee
> Dienes, Paul Hilfinger, Vincent Renardias, or Stan Shebs.

I believe that Stan has been on vacation during at least
part of this discussion.  Last I heard, he was in Puerto Rico.


> Given the lack of communication from the steering committee on this
> issue, I have to assume that the current committee is not prepared to
> force this issue to a conclusion.  I say this with a particular view
> to the lack of response to the straw poll in which there was strong
> support for the proposal to reconstitute the steering committee.
>
>
> I propose that we form a new gdb steering committee.  We should gather
> names on this mailing list.  We should propose the new set of names to
> the FSF.  If the FSF accepts the new steering committee, then that
> committee will then take responsibility for listening to the problems
> being reported by some of the gdb maintainers, and take responsibility
> for resolving them.
>
> I propose that anybody who accepts membership on the steering
> committee should agree to the following general ground rules:
>
> 1) the steering committee exists to further the goals of the GNU
>    project as defined by the FSF
> 2) gdb proper is under the GPL and is copyright by the FSF
> 3) the committee is responsible for making major decisions in the best
>    interests of gdb and the GNU project
> 4) when the gdb maintainers can not agree, the committee is
>    responsible for resolving problems
> 5) all committee members agree to follow relevant discussions, to help
>    resolve problems, and to vote on issues when necessary
>
> I propose that the steering committee specifically try to include
> representatives from the different communities which gdb serves.
> Those communities include, off the top of my head:
> * current gdb maintainers
> * GNU/Linux, including kernel developers
> * other free operating systems
> * embedded users
> * c++ developers
> * java developers
> * ada developers
> * the Eclipse community
> * developers of very large programs
> * developers of threaded or otherwise concurrent programs
> I'm sure there are more which I'm not considering.  We won't get
> people from all of those communities, of course.
>
>
> I don't want to rush people into this, so before putting this proposal
> into action, I would like to hear any responses people have.  If you
> think this is a bad idea, please speak up.  If you have a different
> proposal, please speak up.
>
> I don't think that it is useful to just keep quiet and hope that the
> problems between the gdb maintainers will just go away.  I think that
> things are sufficiently bad that we need to take some definitive
> action.  Even simply telling people authoritatively that things will
> stay the way they are would be better than ignoring the problem.
>
> Ian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gdbheads mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gdbheads