[Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

[fREW Schmidt]

Woops, didn't mean to refer to the old version of C4.  I don't know
the differences between C4.1 and C4.2 are, but I suspect the newer one
is probably better.  Corrected link is
https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/.

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:57:38AM -0700, fREW Schmidt wrote:
> 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

-- 
fREW Schmidt
https://blog.afoolishmanifesto.com