From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eric S. Raymond" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Maintainership Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 23:09:40 -0500 Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs Message-ID: <20140112040940.GC32704@thyrsus.com> References: Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1389499785 9314 80.91.229.3 (12 Jan 2014 04:09:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 04:09:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 12 05:09:53 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W2CMy-0006Uq-34 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 05:09:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36369 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W2CMx-0005wI-KQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 23:09:51 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42103) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W2CMr-0005wD-PX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 23:09:50 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W2CMn-0001RZ-Hk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 23:09:45 -0500 Original-Received: from static-71-162-243-5.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([71.162.243.5]:55774 helo=snark.thyrsus.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W2CMn-0001RT-Dt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 23:09:41 -0500 Original-Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0996D380523; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 23:09:40 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 71.162.243.5 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:168152 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier : > It's nice to be a dictator, but it takes too much time, so in order to > try and reduce this load, I'd like to dilute my dictatorship a bit. > > To a large extent, this has already been the case, but I think it's > worth stating it more formally: if Glenn, Eli, Richard, Yidong, Handa, or > Jan agrees with a change, then you don't need my agreement. > IOW you only need my opinion if none of them has an opinion or if > there's a disagreement. OK. The following question is *not* an attempt to be contentious; I'm trying to figure out how this is supposed to work, and help everyone else figure out too. You have expressed "100% agreement" with a post objecting to me doing /etc cleanup during feature freeze. On the other hand, Richard has approved the idea and actively assisted. If I understand your intention correctly, that makes the completion of the /etc cleanup changes an approved project. The alternative interpretation is that Richard should take "100% agreement" as direction to stop helping me with it. I can cheerfully live with either theory - I've certainly got enough on my task list to occupy me for a while. So I'm not pushing for either outcome in particular, I just want to know how the decision procedure works. -- Eric S. Raymond