[Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★

[David Golden]

Thank you to everyone who has been participating in or just reading the
various governance discussions since my initial email to the DBIC list of
Oct 3. [1]

It's time to bring this to a conclusion.

Peter suggests that the question to consider is merely which fork gets the
"DBIx::Class" namespace indexed on CPAN.  While that may be all he cares
about, I feel it trivializes the discussions the community has been having
and the decision the community is being asked to make.

Without restating all the history to date, here are the facts of the case
that I think are most relevant to consider in understanding the proposals
at hand:

* Peter's original plan that started the dispute could be summarized as
"Peter takes sole control of the DBIx::Class namespace and does X", where
at that time the plan appeared to be "freeze and park permissions with an
unknown owner".

* The dispute process clearly indicated that Peter didn't have the support
of existing maintainers or the community for such a plan sufficient to
disregard his prior permissions agreement with Matt.

* Matt proposed a mechanism for the community to self-govern the DBIC
namespace and development, sharing power between maintainers and the
mailing list. (Revised proposal is linked as [2])

* Peter revealed that his new employment situation allows him to continue
development. [3]

* Given Peter's track record and renewed availability, some in the
community wanted to see an alternative proposal where Peter continued DBIC
and the community took forward "DBIC2"; Andrew Beverl formalized a proposal
[4].  In response to concerns about the proposal, Peter volunteered to
clarify the alternative proposal.

* Peter delivered an alternative proposal that could be summarized as
"Peter takes sole control of the DBIx::Class namespace and does X", where
at this time the plan appears to be "kickstart a DBIx::Class fork free of
community bias". [5]

Unfortunately for the community's deliberations, Peter has consistently
provided minimal details on his plans, particularly regarding succession
should he no longer be able to or wish to continue development.  After
Andrew Beverl's proposal, Peter said he would clarify by Nov 1 [6].  This
target date then slipped to Nov 5 [7], was pushed back again on Nov 7 [8],
and pushed again to Nov 17 or else Thanksgiving [9].  On November 10, in
the middle of this sequence of delays, I started a private email thread
with Peter asking if there was anything I could do to help him formalize
his proposal, but the thread stalled on the Nov 14.  On November 26, I
received a separate private email telling me I could set a deadline of Dec
1, if needed [10].  In our continuation of the stalled thread at that
point, Peter and I briefly discussed what ultimately became his final
proposal of Dec 3.

I think some details in those private emails are relevant to the decisions
at hand, so now that Peter has released his proposal and because Peter
originally insisted that all discussions about DBIC be public anyway, I am
now posting the content of that private email thread in full. [11]

Specifically, I want to call attention to Peter's description of the future
of DBIC as "two forks developed in parallel, by noncooperating, openly
adversarial teams" which I think is more indicative of the stakes and
situation than the simpler question of "where does the DBIx::Class
namespace point".  What an adversarial fork means for the future of the
repository, mailing list, bug trackers, module ecosystem, and community
itself, etc. is undefined and community members may wish to consider that
in their decision process.

Given Peter's stated intent to launch a "fork free of community bias", it's
clear there is no governance alternative for the community on the table.
Matt's original proposal had enough support to be adopted outright [12],
has been amended with generally good feedback, and has provisions for
future self amendment.  I consider it operative in its amended form as soon
as this vote is concluded, with the only missing piece being what specific
namespaces it governs.

The question thus comes down to whether the community feels "official" DBIC
is best developed going forward by a self-governed community or by a single
individual with absolute control (with both the good and ill that comes of
that).  The community may wish to consider the track record and
personalities of everyone involved for both scenarios in weighing a
decision.

As there has been more than enough time spent on these topics and/or
waiting for clarification already, and since the options on the table
aren't materially altered from their earlier forms, I don't believe further
discussion, debate or new alternatives will provide better or clearer
options for the future of DBIC.  It is time for this dispute to be resolved
so everyone can move forward.

Therefore, I submit to the list the following two proposals:

* PROPOSAL A: Primary permissions for DBIx::Class and related namespaces
shall be managed under the amended DBIC community governance structure
proposed by Matt Trout.  Decisions about the future development of the
project, including but not limited to stability policy, new development,
branching and freezing shall be governed by the community under the same
terms.  The community will choose whether/how to continue active
development of DBIC under that name or a separate name.  Peter will choose
whether/how to fork DBIC to a new namespace for independent development.

* PROPOSAL B: Primary permissions for DBIx::Class and related namespaces
shall be managed solely by Peter Ribasushi until he transfers it to another
of his choosing or appears permanently incommunicado (whether by choice,
accident or death).    Decisions about the future development of the
project, including but not limited to stability policy, new development,
branching and freezing shall be made at Peter's sole discretion.  Peter
will choose whether/how to continue active development of DBIC under that
or a separate name.  The community, under the governance proposal, will
choose whether/how to fork DBIC to a new namespace for independent
development.

List members should reply to this email with an email body indicating
clearly "Proposal A" or "Proposal B".  Other responses, such as "+1" or
"me, too" replies to others' votes will be disregarded.

Voting will close 72 hours after this email is sent.

I will tally and announce results shortly thereafter.  I will be sole
arbiter of any voting irregularities.  Once announced, I will transfer
namespace permissions accordingly and consider the matter resolved.

Regards,
David

[1]
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/IMPORTANT-A-discussion-of-DBIC-governance-and-future-development-td7578987.html
[2]
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Governance-and-sustainability-td7579228.html
[3]
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/IMPORTANT-A-discussion-of-DBIC-governance-and-future-development-tp7578987p7579158.html
[4]
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/GOVERNANCE-Aggregation-and-conclusion-tp7579168p7579175.html
[5]
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/Decision-time-which-fork-inherits-the-existing-DBIx-Class-namespace-tp7579255.html
[6]
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/GOVERNANCE-Aggregation-and-conclusion-tp7579168p7579184.html
[7]
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/GOVERNANCE-Aggregation-and-conclusion-tp7579168p7579208.html
[8]
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/GOVERNANCE-Aggregation-and-conclusion-tp7579168p7579225.html
[9]
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/An-answer-and-a-question-tp7579248p7579250.html
[10] https://gist.github.com/xdg/836e6341b757df8b67cf26f02b6899d6
[11] https://gist.github.com/xdg/955519bee08658f9b60c6219a51fd0dd
[12]
http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/GOVERNANCE-Aggregation-and-conclusion-td7579168.html

-- 
David Golden <xdg at xdg.me> Twitter/IRC/GitHub: @xdg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scsys.co.uk/pipermail/dbix-class/attachments/20161205/c8db146e/attachment.htm>