Re: [Gdbheads] Let's resolve this quickly

[Bob Rossi]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 04:50:21PM -0800, Stan Shebs wrote:
> Bob Rossi wrote:
> 
> >>>Votes are public.  Should they be private?  I think they should be
> >>>public; the decision is being made with the public's trust.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Private. As a result of various conversations with GCC SC people
> >>over the past 5-6 years, I think it's better to have the SC
> >>speaking with one voice. This shouldn't be like real-life politics,
> >>where you have factions wired into a zero-sum game, and where
> >>stabbing people in the back is just one more tactic (remember what
> >>I said about trust?). Public GCC SC votes would tend to alter
> >>the patch lobbying process as randoms start pitching their stuff to
> >>particular SC members thought favorable, in the hopes of outflanking
> >>maintainers.
> >>
> >
> >Could you please explain better why the votes should be private?
> >
> >Somehow I feel that making the votes private isn't necessary.
> >You seem to be suggesting that if votes are public, other people on the
> >SC will vote for their "best friend". Is that accurate?
> >
> >If that is your point, I don't think it is a good enough point to make
> >the votes private. If I want to vote what my best friend votes, I just
> >ask him what he voted, and then vote the same. The only difference is,
> >the votes are held back from the community.
> >
> >If the votes were private, would they be made public at the time of the
> >decision?
> >
> No; it would be a single answer, as if issued by a single person with
> a multi-lobed brain. :-)

I understand and respect your point.

However, as an "outsider", I personally would have less trust in GDB SC
just getting back a single answer over a technical issue. I would at
least like to see and know who was on what side of the issue and mostly
why they were. 

Whats the point of Free Software if technical decisions get made behind
closed doors? I almost find that thought insulting. (no disrespect
intended)

Bob Rossi