[Dbix-class] ★ VOTE NOW: DBIC Governance and Namespace Control ★
alexander.hartmaier at t-systems.at
Tue Dec 6 16:28:31 GMT 2016
Best regards, Alex
On 2016-12-05 07:15, David Golden wrote:
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. 
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 )
* Peter revealed that his new employment situation allows him to continue development. 
* 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 . 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". 
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 . This target date then slipped to Nov 5 , was pushed back again on Nov 7 , and pushed again to Nov 17 or else Thanksgiving . 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 . 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. 
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 , 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.
David Golden <xdg at xdg.me<mailto:xdg at xdg.me>> Twitter/IRC/GitHub: @xdg
Searchable Archive: http://email@example.com
T-Systems Austria GesmbH Rennweg 97-99, 1030 Wien
Handelsgericht Wien, FN 79340b
Notice: This e-mail contains information that is confidential and may be privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then
delete this e-mail immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the DBIx-Class