On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:

Maybe you dislike that idea. It's so .... centralised. So let's say Gavin commits his patch, because his authority is equal to all other committers. Someone else rolls it back. Gavin sets up a cron job to keep committing the patch. Game over.

You cannot have committers fighting over what goes in and what doesn't. That's madness. There must be a single decision maker for any given codebase.

You are conflating consensus with commit access. People with commit access are maintainers who are *able to merge* pull requests. However, the rules for bitcoin development are that only patches with consensus get merged. If any of the maintainers just pushed a change without going through the whole code review and consensus process there would be uproar, plain and simple.

Please don't conflate commit access with permission to merge because it's just not the case. No-one can sidestep the requirement to get consensus, not even the 5 maintainers.