[Gdbheads] proposed change to GDB maintainership rules

[Andrew Cagney]

>   All non-obvious patches to GDB must be approved.  Area maintainers
>   can approve patches to the relevant area of GDB; global maintainers
>   are treated as if they are area maintainers for all areas of GDB.
>   Maintainers are permitted to approve their own patches in areas
>   where they have authority to approve others' patches.

I think I know what this means, but I'm not 100% sure.  I'll assume that 
instead the GCC text is the topic of discussion.

In that regard, you'll all notice that for the existing maintainers file 
Stephane decided to run the TUI along these lines:

> tui                     Stephane Carrez         address@hidden
>                         (Global Maintainers)
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-03/msg00455.html

is effectively an [explicit] adoption of the GCC process (I asked 
Stephane to make it explict as I didn't want any confusion).  But note 
the emphasis - it's still stephane that should be refered to for 
decisions.  Other area leads can also certainly consider adopting this 
also (I'd not thought to ask) - other than symtab I wasn't aware of 
serious problems.

So to be blunt, GCC's policy can be largely implemented now, without 
many months of behind the scene manouvering.

>   If maintainers disagree whether or not a patch should be approved,
>   and can't resolve that disagreement via discussion, it shall be
>   resolved by a vote.  Any global maintainer or area maintainer for
>   the relevant area can vote; a majority of votes cast is required for
>   approval.

I think this is simply dangerous - such matters should be pushed up to 
the next level.

Andrew