[Dbix-class] 5/5 Why "a stability tzar" is a ridiculous proposition

[Peter Rabbitson]

On 10/07/2016 08:40 PM, David Golden wrote:
>
>> [...] 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.

I believe that characterizing the direction of this project in the past 
~4 years as "extreme stability" is extremely(ha!) unfair and misleading. 
What I did was borderline common sense. What *maybe* sets me aside is 
that I was able to devote more time to this goal, but that's about it.

Additionally stability on its own isn't tangible, nor does it yield a 
final product. It is simply a mindset. When this mindset is not 
represented in the group as a whole, it makes no difference whatsoever 
whether a small part of said group is advocating it or not. My train of 
thought should be familiar to you, I wrote the same when making my 
(clearly failed) push for saner CPAN practices[1]:

> This is not a simple feel-good undertaking, it does require a lot of buy-in, and the buy-in has to come from within, from your own agreement that the current status quo is unworkable going forward.

I currently do not know anyone within or outside the community who is 
both driven by a strong "inner core" of sensible priorities *AND* would 
be remotely interested in continuous sparing with mst over whether it is 
ok to experiment on the wider userbase.

[1] 
https://gist.github.com/ribasushi/74ce356123ede727e90f#file-2015-01-31-md