Re: Maintainer policy for GDB

[David Carlton <david dot carlton at sun dot com>]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:48:01 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> said:

> I have put together one possible alternative, drawing heavily on
> comments from Ian, Jim, and Andrew on the steering committee list
> last year.  Obviously I like my own proposal or I wouldn't be
> sharing it :-) But I want to know what everyone else involved
> thinks!

I certainly don't qualify as involved any more, but I feel like
chiming in anyways.

In general, I heartily approve of this proposal; on a personal level,
I think that it would have improved both my happiness and productivity
as a GDB contributor in the past.

In particular, I think that allowing global maintainers to approve and
commit everywhere is long overdue; I also think that separating
responsibility for reviewing from authorization for reviewing is a
very good idea.

I'm not sure GDB is quite big enough for the entire proposed ecosystem
to work, but I think it's worth a try.  I'm curious what the
proportion of Responsible Maintainers to Authorized Committers in a
given area will be; I'm also curious whether there will be enough
(even any?) Patch Champions.  But when I say "curious", I mean just
that: let's try it and find out.

Most importantly, it seems like the proposal might help grow the GDB
ecosystem.  Somebody starting to work on GDB (and with free time on
their hands, a student or something) might decide, after a little bit,
to take on the role of Patch Champion; after proving herself, she
might become an Authorized Commiter in one area, and then eventually
give up her Patch Champion roles in order to spend time as an actual
Responsible Maintainer.  So there's a nice possible ramp-up, where
people can be trusted more and take on more responsibilities gradually
over time.  And, equally important, shed responsibilities as outside
commitments impinge, without feeling that she is letting down
everybody else.

David Carlton
david.carlton@sun.com