Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Ian Lance Taylor]

"Eli Zaretskii" <address@hidden> writes:

> I'd say you expressed it too extremely.  IMHO, it's not that Andrew
> gets his way whenever conflicts arise, it's just that some discussions
> never end in _any_ conclusion whatsoever.  They just die out.  And
> they die because Andrew does not always encourage compromises to reach
> solutions that would leave everybody at least partially happy.

Thanks for the correction.

Andrew is just one of twelve global maintainers.  I understand that he
is in some sense the head maintainer.  But there are eleven other
people who can make changes to gdb.  So, even accepting that Andrew
does not encourage compromise and resolution, that doesn't mean that
the other maintainers can't resolve issues and drive to closure.  Why
doesn't this happen?

To put it another way, not everybody need be good at everything.  If
Andrew isn't good at compromise and closure, that doesn't prevent
other people from taking charge in this respect.  Andrew doesn't need
to make every decision.

Or are you suggesting something further: that Andrew actively resists
compromise and closure, and prevents issues from becoming resolved?

Speaking generally, when problems linger without being resolved, it is
typically a problem of authority--nobody has the power to resolve the
issue--or a problem of responsibility--nobody will step forward and
take action--or a problem of conflict--people are evenly matched but
can not agree.  From the outside, it appears that any of the twelve
global gdb maintainers have the authority to solve problems.  So is
the problem here one of responsibility, or one of conflict?  Or is it
something else?

Ian