Re: [Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Jim Blandy]

Ian Lance Taylor <address@hidden> writes:
> I'm not a gdb maintainer, but I do have a comment.  I don't think
> voting is a particularly good approach for maintaining a GNU program.
> Consensus or tyranny are better methods.

I don't like voting much, either, but the voting aspect of the
proposal is meant to address a specific problem that comes up fairly
often.  If a debate reaches the point where the participants aren't
persuading each other any more, then debate peters out, and the issue
is effectively resolved in favor of the more senior participant ---
regardless of the merits of their arguments.  The effect is to make
stubbornness and intransigence an effective strategy for them.

Introducing voting encourages people to make persuasive arguments,
instead of merely outlasting everyone else, and it means that debates
have a clear resolution, rather than petering out when someone gets
tired.

Tyranny is a better method exactly when the tyrant is good at
synthesizing the different concerns people raise, finding common
ground, and building a consensus around the solution.  In other words,
tyranny works when the tyrant is able to have the effects I've
attributed above to voting: encouraging people to make persuasive
arguments and look for compromises, and discouraging simple
heel-digging.  But if the tyrant is part of the problem, instead of
being a facilitator, things go very poorly.