On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 04:56:26PM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote: > To me the issue is not what is written down about > the policy, but whether the policy works in practice, > and it seems like it does, so what's the problem? > > This just seems to be making a problem where > none exists.
I gave some background in my email to David over why I'm stirring the pot here. The thing about written policy is that it sets the tone for a project. A restrictive policy tends to authoritarian rule by maintainers, it seems to me. A less restricive policy ought to ease some of the nonsense that goes on currently, for instance, port maintainers thinking they need to get global maintainer permission for trivial patches outside their area of responsibility. As an example, for http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02793.html I was told I'd need global maintainer approval.. Well, maybe I do in the current climate. I hope I haven't offended the review gods too much here. I'm sure other people have noticed the issues I'm raising but have more wisely than I, kept quiet. -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM
