From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "John Wiegley" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New maintainer Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2015 11:59:12 -0700 Organization: New Artisans LLC Message-ID: References: <5610207A.2000300@harpegolden.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1443898774 14464 80.91.229.3 (3 Oct 2015 18:59:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 18:59:34 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 03 20:59:29 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 1ZiS1l-0007FX-Hg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 20:59:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39673 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiS1k-0003Ms-UF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:59:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54476) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiS1h-0003Mk-6B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:59:22 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiS1c-00021Y-7r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:59:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::235]:34314) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiS1c-00021R-37 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:59:16 -0400 Original-Received: by padhy16 with SMTP id hy16so136311616pad.1 for ; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 11:59:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:date:organization:message-id :references:user-agent:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=IPEsaBlZT4VIHwnrN4Jz77xAsUUKIrXfv88qiEZ/bu8=; b=poENnlLNveOMRStTAfXH2shJBo9Ux4dBhGiwHyQVuSjH9ojPuSVLKEVbyQAPCB+3F/ L9ZsKMm/HB0cQSX9jjAYu/OPHDOkapUfj5C54WGT+Wazp21J6Wg/ac7jUYMc8TkV6VW5 MLYHseE/v00L4H04251/p8CIh7dyGHqRX8WpMkokshOH0+cLeF3sbZXkPOS/0oPm6pQi HutadZCWwfffHosGNPhWfs9H1UdIPEIGe/6wUsFUKIQTOwOVXEUH/sn/1HCPa5LKU8r5 M4y8EaVZ1kEaRfAgvqgnMASWAIj//l6iJ3CCVuUd4AH4Lijyray4vNrgKrVZduJA2VNQ MwfQ== X-Received: by 10.68.238.130 with SMTP id vk2mr28644623pbc.114.1443898755442; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 11:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from Vulcan.local (76-234-68-79.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net. [76.234.68.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ps1sm7693932pbb.66.2015.10.03.11.59.14 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 03 Oct 2015 11:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by Vulcan.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id DEF3FF029550; Sat, 3 Oct 2015 11:59:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5610207A.2000300@harpegolden.net> (David De La Harpe Golden's message of "Sat, 03 Oct 2015 19:37:46 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::235 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:190807 Archived-At: >>>>> David De La Harpe Golden writes: > 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. I appreciate the logic of this, but I think real leadership means having a head maintainer, and a supporting co-maintainer, so that the head can always have final decision on matters relating to direction. Otherwise, you risk inconsistency or disgruntlement when something truly important to one maintainer is voted down by the other two. In short, you either trust the person you're giving primary reins to, or you do not. Making it a rule-by-committee is not necessarily going to give you a "three minds are better than one" result. John