[Dbix-class] Fwd: Re: GOVERNANCE: An actually concrete proposal w/bootstrap governance system

[Chris Prather]

I suck at email and this got bounced initially.
 

 
-Chris
 

 
Begin forwarded message:
 
 
 

 
>  
> From:  Chris Prather  <perigrin at prather.org (mailto:perigrin at prather.org)>
>   Date:  Oct 18, 2016 at 11:56 PM
>   To:  DBIx::Class user and developer list  <dbix-class at lists.scsys.co.uk (mailto:dbix-class at lists.scsys.co.uk)>
>   Subject: Re: [Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: An actually concrete proposal w/bootstrap governance system
>  
>  
>  
> So I'm only a interested user of DBIC. I took enough DBA classes in college to make me painfully aware that I don't want to understand how DBIC does what it does. I'm just very happy it does it.
>  
>
>  
> I am however deeply vested in how the Perl community self-regulates, and as such I've read probably more of this thread (and the related threads) than is healthy for someone who really should be busy trying to find paying work. That said I think this Governance Policy has merit, there are only three changes I would recommend two need to be made nearly immutable at the outset to be effective, one has already been proposed and can be adopted later.
>  
>
>  
> ----
>  
>
>  
> 1) The list of people with PAUSE COMAINT permissions and the list of of Voting Members should always be identical. Best would be if FIRSTCOME were held in trust by some DBIC account similar to how XML permissions are held (https://metacpan.org/author/DAHUT), and everyone else on the VM list were strictly co-maint. This might be overly complicated for what is mostly symbolic reasons but it would go a long way to demonstrating the new Governance.
>  
>
>  
> If someone resigns from the VM then they are removed from COMAINT.  
>  
>
>  
> 2) Voting Members and the LAV (List aggregate Vote) have unilateral veto power for any proposal. Meaning if any Voting Member or the LAV make an explicit -1 to a proposal. The Proposal as it stands *in that thread* is dead. It will need to be re-proposed in such a way that the vetoing member either assents or abstains.   This protects minority voices. My preference would be to require unanimity of consent but that would IN MY OPINION simply open the process up to be gamed during it's infancy.
>  
>
>  
> Finally this has already been proposed but I would add my experience with the Moose community.
>  
>
>  
> 3) A full PROPOSAL is required to merge a topic branch into the mainline release branch.
>  
>
>  
> ----  
>  
>
>  
> This is far more than I was planning on commenting but having read as much of all of the relvant threads as possible I don't think that the policy *as proposed* is as conservative as it should be to properly reflect the concerns of all members of the community who've been involved in the conversation to date.  
>  
>
>  
> Thanks for your time in reading my ramblings.
>  
>
>  
> -Chris
>  
>  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >                  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scsys.co.uk/pipermail/dbix-class/attachments/20161018/3acb90ad/attachment.htm>