From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David De La Harpe Golden Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New maintainer Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2015 19:37:46 +0100 Message-ID: <5610207A.2000300@harpegolden.net> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1443897487 27432 80.91.229.3 (3 Oct 2015 18:38:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 18:38:07 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 03 20:37:58 2015 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 1ZiRh0-0002ya-4c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 20:37:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39637 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiRgz-0007cr-5r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:37:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48529) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiRgv-0007ce-Pa for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:37:54 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiRgs-0001B9-Iy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:37:53 -0400 Original-Received: from harpegolden.net ([65.99.215.13]:45832) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiRgs-0001AN-E0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:37:50 -0400 Original-Received: from [87.198.55.104] (87-198-55-104.ptr.magnet.ie [87.198.55.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "David De La Harpe Golden", Issuer "David De La Harpe Golden Personal CA 4" (verified OK)) by harpegolden.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B46823C036 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2015 18:37:48 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0 In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 65.99.215.13 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:190805 Archived-At: On 02/10/15 03:24, Richard Stallman wrote: > I think that two maintainers would be ideal, but three could work. > More than that would be difficult as it would be hard for them > to make decisions together. > Regardin two vs three, note a Triumvirate can be better in that particular respect. If each person has one "vote", and they're deciding on a binary issue, then two people can deadlock, three can't. 1 2 result No No No No Yes Civil War Yes No Civil War Yes Yes Yes 1 2 3 result No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes