Re: [Gdbheads] Re: Feb's patch resolution rate

[Elena Zannoni]

Michael Snyder writes:

 > 
 > Personally, I wish we could table the issue of voting and focus
 > the discussion on the pros and cons of returning the blanket
 > write privileges of the global maintainers.

I think I clearly stated my position on both those issues. I won't go
over that again.

 > 
 > > Here
 > > you are, instead, openly stating that voting is about convincing
 > > people to be on your side, instead of believing that they can achieve
 > > an independent opinion on their own.  In the past you have actively
 > > lobbied against people behind their back, with mailing lists and
 > > weekly phone conferences set up for the purpose. 
 > 
 > Come on, Elena -- let it go.  Lobbying is not a crime, even when
 > done "behind someone's back".  Andrew did exactly the same thing
 > when he wanted to change Blanket Write maintainers into Global
 > maintainers -- he called a bunch of us privately to convince us.
 > Similarly, he has been calling people privately to convince them
 > to drop their maintainership roles.  This is just not an issue.
 > 

That's not true. There was a public exhange on the public mailing list
(perhaps you didn't see it) about that, you could have objected
then. Why didn't you? I also don't understand how calling somebody on
the phone to say that he/she is not doing a good job as maintainer
qualifies as lobbying. To me it is directly approaching a hot issue
instad of tiptoeing and manouvering around it. If a maintainer doesn't
perform, Andrew doesn't go complaining to other people, he tries to
resolve the issue with the maintainer in question, without public
pillorying. And he didn't force anybody to step down, btw, given that
Jim is still a symtab maintiner, i.e. he left the choice open.

 >  > You also have
 > > admitted that you have personal grudges against Andrew.  Therefore I
 > > definitely don't trust that voting in this community is going to be
 > > fair.  I am not against voting per se, but here, I have my serious
 > > doubts about it.
 > 
 > So what are you saying?  You're ok with voting, as long as Jim
 > doesn't get a vote?  You're ok with voting, but not in this
 > community?  I'm definitely wondering where you're going with this.
 > 

I said before that I don't think voting in this community is a good
idea.