[Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

[fREW Schmidt]

Hello friends,

TL;DR:

 * Given that we want stability and community involvment, maybe we
   should try C4.1 which optimizes for these.
 * I really strongly think that all members of (AT LEAST) the core
   group need to act like adults when conversing with other people,
   especially realizing that things that may not be personal attacks
   often seem that way when plain text is the mode of discussion.

Exposition below, feel free to skip if you are busy or don't care.

I haven't kept super up to date with these threads, especially since a
lot of it has devolved into email, irc, and blog comment exegesis,
which I don't see as being particularly helpful or valuable.

I wouldn't respond to this again but I am specifically named in
Matt's proposed core team so I felt like it would be warranted.  I
agree that the stability of DBIC is a huge asset.

There are at least two stabilities here: The first is not losing data.
While DBIC has a good track record of this, I personally have
experienced a bug (fixed by ribasushi of course) where the WHERE
clause of a complex delete was lost.  (Yes, the whole table was
deleted.)  This is critical to maintain, and hard.

The more subtle stability, the kind that doesn't get people fired but
instead leaches the time out of our brief lives, is pointless
breakages in backcompat, silly little bugs that have to be worked
around, etc.  This is also hard, and people are less willing to do it,
but if we care about our users (and I do!) we must continue to
maintain it.

There is the hope that DBIC can be maintained by a disparate group.  I
have hope, especially having seen at my current place of employment
that sometimes, throwing conventional wisdom out the window and
deciding to do things a new and better way is a good option.

I am sorta attracted to the model the late Pieter Hintjens came up
with for ∅MQ (C4.1, https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:22/C4/, except the
specification of [LA]GPL) but am not going to push it hard.  I just
think a model for similarly trusted software might be worth
considering.

I am ok with being part of a core group, although I must caution
everyone: I personally don't have the time nor desires I used to have.
DBIC and it's community have treated me well, and I respect that, but I
can only spill so much blood for Open Source software.

What I am *not* interested in is being a member of a core group where
I have to be the adult in interpersonal conflicts.  Matt, if an idea
is stupid, you can express it constructively.  If it's wrong, say how.
You *must* stop assuming people can or will read your mind or treat
your words as sacred texts to be analyzed character by character.  I
don't expect anyone to be perfect, core group or external, and expect
everyone to make mistakes, but we should at least decide to set a tone
of professionalism, charity, cordiality, or whatever you want to call
it so that we don't end up pointlessly making our small part of the
Perl community more harmful than it needs to be.

-- 
Station,
Arthur Axel fREW Schmidt
https://blog.afoolishmanifesto.com