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

David Golden xdg at xdg.me
Fri Oct 7 18:40:19 GMT 2016


On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit+dbic at rabbit.us>
wrote:
> David, given the decisions the PAUSE admins are faced with (see below)
> encourage you to inquire for more info on individual points that seem
> unclear. I will answer such inquiries in individual subthreads.

Everything seems pretty clear and I think you've demonstrated the high
standards of care in your thorough, responsible approach to handing off
your institutional knowledge.

> * The plan of succession I formed in December 2015, and had not
> deviated from until this week, is presently null and void. It was
> an unusual arrangement, with critical pieces based on a combination
> of promises and assumptions. Recent events resulted in the invalidation
> of several such foundation points, and there is no possible way I myself
> could presently endorse it.

I find this very vague and would appreciate any additional information you
feel you can share.  I'm disappointed that we (both the community and the
PAUSE admins, in this context) never got to hear more details about your
plan than what I quoted in my original email of this thread.

In particular, whether part of the plan or not, I think the community would
benefit from hearing more detail on your thoughts for what a stable
"freeze" would look like – what kinds of things should be allowed or not
allowed to change, how to do QA, etc.  Particularly if there is a
possibility of the namespace branching into "stable" and "ongoing
development" parts (regardless of which side stays "DBIx::Class"), I think
your views on how the stable branch ought to be managed would be valuable
insight to whoever winds up managing it.

> [...] I have grave reservations about the specific (now) 4-member team
> outlined by Matt. The reservations are entirely technical and procedural
> in nature [...] I will elaborate on these reservations if necessary

As above, I think hearing your reservations and the rationale behind them
would be valuable input.  It's clear from the comments from the community
so far that stability (however defined) is important to many.  Your
thoughts on what would and wouldn't work will help shape the discussion of
future governance.

> [...] I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the
> captain that steers us out of this mess.

Understood.  As I've said before, if there are people inside or outside the
community that you think could continue to represent the "extreme
stability" point of view as part of future project governance, I think it
would benefit the community for you to see if they are interested in such a
role and to nominate/endorse them as a voice you respect in that way.

> my integrity ... simply will not allow me to click the necessary buttons.

I hear you.  I see no reason to make changes until the community has a full
chance to discuss its governance plans, but will let you know before I
exercise administrative power to "click the buttons" in your stead.

> * As a final point on "going forward": I am concerned that the "software
> stability" argument has been grossly micharacterized[sic]: it was
presented
> as a binary "does it lose data" argument, when for me the main question
has
> always been "is it opinionated / does it insist on usurping the end-users
> time".

I think this would be a wonderful topic for you to elaborate on.

Regards,
David

-- 
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/20161007/535233b3/attachment.htm>


More information about the DBIx-Class mailing list