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

[Elena Zannoni]

Eli Zaretskii writes:
 > > From: Elena Zannoni <address@hidden>
 > > Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 09:06:55 -0500
 > > 
 > > The proposal, including both global write privileges and voting,
 > > shifts this balance of accountability, responsibility and (if you
 > > really want) power, by deemphasizing accountability and interrupting
 > > the continuity of direction that a single maintainer (or small group
 > > of) provides.
 > 
 > It is not unheard of that decisions are taken collectively by a group
 > of people rather than by a single individual.  That way, the
 > responsibility rests with that group, but it is not lost.

Yes, true.  I believe here though we are not talking about a group of
people making the decision on a patch. We are talking about any one
person, any global maintainer, doing so. While I see that this can be
still thought of as a group it is so in a very loose sense. The
decision about any given patch wouldn't be made by consensus among the
global maintainers.

 > 
 > So just saying that the balance is shifted doesn't really clarify the
 > reason(s) for your objections.

If I am responsible for a given area, then I am accountable for the
given area.  If I do a bad job, I can be called on it.  If the "group"
does a bad job, who is responsible?  I.e. where does the buck stop?
It's much harder to define accountability in such a loose group.  This
is a basic principle associated with every position I have ever worked
in.  I don't see anything wrong with it.  I am not saying that the
only motivator for doing a good job needs to be a 'fear of punishment'
of whatever you want to call it.  The 'glory' of the position and the
sense of ownership and pride should be too. What should the group do
if somebody doesn't pull his own weight?  

Better put, and in more general terms, is this community interested in
giving credit where credit is due (this is the easy part) and
correcting problems where they arise (and this is the difficult part)?
My expectation is that, yes, we must do so. 

If instead this community doesn't think to be in the business of
assessing people's contributions to the project, I definitely need to
reset my expectations.

About continuity, I think my position is fairly clear, if not I can
try to articulate it some more.