[Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

[Darren Duncan]

Peter,

Regardless of what else happens, I very much would look forward to you finishing 
up and shipping all the code changes you spent the last year working on.  It 
sounds like you're almost done them, and I don't want all that effort to go to 
waste.

I trust you that this work would provide an island of stability of sorts, and a 
version that people can continue to use for the extended term whether others 
choose to just maintain that or choose to make major changes of their own, your 
stable version would still be there as a useful legacy.

Given that your remaining time is limited, I request that you don't halt on the 
code until the 8th as mentioned, unless you need to rest anyway, and use the 
time you have to try and finish what you started and leave a better legacy.

Thank you for all your effort over the last years.

-- Darren Duncan

On 2016-10-03 2:32 PM, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> On 10/03/2016 10:37 PM, David Golden wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> In the ensuing discussion, Peter disclosed additional details about his
>> plans for the future of DBIC
>
> Given the discussion generated way more interest than I anticipated, at this
> point I am pausing all activity ( both code and administrative changes ), until
> at least the 8th of October. I want to give ample time for all interested
> parties to state their thoughts.
>
>  From my side, in order to highlight the main "point of contention" if you will,
> I am pulling together several pieces from the aforementioned threads:
>
>> How much more concerning, then, to discover in the last few days
>> that you have seen your DBIC-related activities since December as
>> effectively winding up the project, rather than preparing to leave
>> it to others.
>> ...
>> I know a bunch of the the pending changes are not ready to merge (or
>> "sub-par" if you will); this is because I haven't had the motivation to
>> put more work into them
>> ...
>> I suspect if we managed to get all of the branches
>> people had planned that were delayed because riba's response to the proposed
>> features was "yes, but please wait for me to finish X first" done then that
>> work in itself might be a major release's worth.
>> ...
>> While I get that its (n.b. DBIC) depended on a fair bit, I don't think that
>> means being  *perfect* to the exclusion of all experimentation. I don't think
>> I've come across other bits of CPAN, apart from maybe the ones in core, that
>> attempt  to be as rigorous in their perfection. Really, if people upgrade,
>> and  encounter an issue .. they can either downgrade and wait, or pitch in
>> and  help (or pay someone to).. this is open source after all.
>
> While the project does not have a bright future under my (now likely moot) plan,
> the approach indicated above is, in my opinion, the worst possible direction,
> one I worked really hard to save this codebase from.
>
> Nevertheless, if nobody else finds this problematic: I will step aside and let
> an eager community, inadvertently suppressed all these years, steer this project
> further.
>
> Regards
> RIBASUSHI